< hey i'm back, hopefully you enjoyed your regularly scheduled broadcast of leftist echo chamber. >
on water distribution, why is this a problem? it is unlikely that a water provider would want to start charging monopoly prices as this is a highly ineffective strategy... communities that are gouged on water prices could truck in their water, get it from wells, or there could be a water providing business that approaches members of the community and agrees to build pipes and sell them water at a reasonable market price as long as the patrons agree to get their water from them for whatever amount of time is specified on the contract.
on how the legal system would work, people would patronize private protection agencies which would offer them dispute resolution services in exchange for a monthly fee. now you might ask couldn't big businesses ignore the private protection agencies? well the big businesses wouldn't be able to stay big for very long if they spent revenue on a private army instead of reinvesting it back into the business. now wouldn't the private protection agencies fight each other?, well the answer to that is that it is unlikely that two protection agencies would fight each other because it is expensive and would be bad press, instead they would negotiate the dispute or they would choose a mutually agreed upon arbitrator to decide on the case.
An anarchist society would be well armed because of concerns like yours. If need be it would be able to fight a defensive war and history has shown us that those on the defensive are at a highly advantageous position compared to the aggressors, using guerilla tactics like Vietnam.
@Stairc A monopoly is a single supplier of a good or service. Yes, this means McDonalds is a monopoly because it is the sole provider of BigMacs in the market. We are talking about tbe kind of monopolies on more broad goods that people think are harmful.
What kind of products are we talking about? Any examples?
Walmart and Amazon have both gotten in trouble under European predatory pricing laws for dropping their prices too low for local companies to compete while propping up their own business with overseas profits. [link] [link]
The fact that they are dropping prices is a GOOD thing. Its a wonderful thing and well worth other businesses going out of business.
2. Who wants to subscribe to a rights enforcement agency that supports bad people? The answer is bad people. There are more good people than bad people, so good REAs beat bad REAs. It's not that hard...
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a monopoly is and does. What's to stop the monopoly from dropping their prices low enough kill the competition, then raising them back up again. This is what happens in real life.
Whenever it raises prices back up again people will buy from a source not as expensive.
Imagine you're a member of a cartel. For the sake of concreteness, let's say you're a member of a Mexican drug cartel. These are, after all, real-world examples of organizations operating outside the bounds of the law to sell a product to consumers.
Bad example, drug cartels are in active competition, which means there are no monopoly prices charged for drugs(although the prices are high due to the risky nature of the illegal drug business and drugs arent illegal in ancap society).
Whenever I suggest to libertarians that if they don't like living under a government, they can just move, they complain that their home and family and friends and stuff are all where they are and they shouldn't have to move.
Monopolies are only bad if the monopoly raises prices too high. In that case, competition would re-enter the market.
In the case of cartels, it is beneficial to a business involved in one to cheat by going against the terms of the cartel.
If there is a monopoly on a source of water in an area, which would be unlikely because people living in that area shouldve realized the possibility of such a monopoly occuring and made previous arrangements before moving in, the business with that monopoly would have to compete with trucks that could bring water to that area. The people living in that area could also move away to a place where they know that such a situation could not occur because of previous contract.
1. No, business does better because competition increases quality/cost ratio.
2. Judges in the market would have to prove their trustworthiness and fairness. Again, this all happens through market competition.
3.If you raise your price too high, people will buy from someone else.
4. Then someone will patronize a non-cartelized protection agency, besides cartels never last very long...
5. These protection agecies wont want to fight each other because that is expensive, and is bad press for the protection agency that started the battle.
Another thing that I want to add is this, it is kind of ironic that people are arguing for the state to protect our property rights even though the state violates people's property rights through taxation.
on water distribution, why is this a problem? it is unlikely that a water provider would want to start charging monopoly prices as this is a highly ineffective strategy... communities that are gouged on water prices could truck in their water, get it from wells, or there could be a water providing business that approaches members of the community and agrees to build pipes and sell them water at a reasonable market price as long as the patrons agree to get their water from them for whatever amount of time is specified on the contract.
on how the legal system would work, people would patronize private protection agencies which would offer them dispute resolution services in exchange for a monthly fee. now you might ask couldn't big businesses ignore the private protection agencies? well the big businesses wouldn't be able to stay big for very long if they spent revenue on a private army instead of reinvesting it back into the business. now wouldn't the private protection agencies fight each other?, well the answer to that is that it is unlikely that two protection agencies would fight each other because it is expensive and would be bad press, instead they would negotiate the dispute or they would choose a mutually agreed upon arbitrator to decide on the case.
The fact that they are dropping prices is a GOOD thing. Its a wonderful thing and well worth other businesses going out of business.
2. Who wants to subscribe to a rights enforcement agency that supports bad people? The answer is bad people. There are more good people than bad people, so good REAs beat bad REAs. It's not that hard...
3. You would betray the cartel secretly.
Whenever it raises prices back up again people will buy from a source not as expensive.
Bad example, drug cartels are in active competition, which means there are no monopoly prices charged for drugs(although the prices are high due to the risky nature of the illegal drug business and drugs arent illegal in ancap society).
Did you forget about private rights enforcements agencies?
Not An Argument against AnarchoCapitalism
Not An Argument against AnarchoCapitalism
In the case of cartels, it is beneficial to a business involved in one to cheat by going against the terms of the cartel.
If there is a monopoly on a source of water in an area, which would be unlikely because people living in that area shouldve realized the possibility of such a monopoly occuring and made previous arrangements before moving in, the business with that monopoly would have to compete with trucks that could bring water to that area. The people living in that area could also move away to a place where they know that such a situation could not occur because of previous contract.
2. Judges in the market would have to prove their trustworthiness and fairness. Again, this all happens through market competition.
3.If you raise your price too high, people will buy from someone else.
4. Then someone will patronize a non-cartelized protection agency, besides cartels never last very long...
5. These protection agecies wont want to fight each other because that is expensive, and is bad press for the protection agency that started the battle.
Another thing that I want to add is this, it is kind of ironic that people are arguing for the state to protect our property rights even though the state violates people's property rights through taxation.
Watch this video, it explains how an anarchic society would deal with legal disputes.