Quote:

---

I don't get it - on the one hand you say they are "Born Evil" and we can't do shit about it, and then when I point out we can, and that sometimes they managed to self-correct, you flame me?

---

Quote:

---

Scenario. In the land of Geezerdonia, 80% of the people believe in the two rules and the assumption above. They are scrupulous about obeying and enforcing these rules.

---

Quote:

---

So get off your 24-carat-gold pedestal of self-importance.

---

Quote:

---

but these episodes of extreme snark seem to come right after someone pokes holes in the conventional worldview

---

Quote:

---

I'm sick of this, you ask my opinion, or for my interpretation, then examine it within the context of our current model, where it would not work - then tell me that it wouldn't work, period ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Then I will look for a place of concentrated population, put all of my money into a costly but essential service, like water or sewage, and deliver it at the most economical rates possible, expanding my base until I can take full advantage of economies of scale and develop a near-unbreakable monopoly.

---

Quote:

---

It's a free market, so what's to keep a competitor in the water business from matching your prices until you run out of capital?

---

Quote:

---

So you have a monopoly? If you charge a fair price, who cares? If you don't, market demand for cheaper water will generate competition.

---

Quote:

---

With an evil laugh you declare "I will crush my competition by any means and force you to pay my prices for water. Ha Ha He He!!", and proceed to do so. You're then initiating force and are fair game.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

1. It's a free market, so what's to keep a competitor in the water business from matching your prices until you run out of capital?

---

Quote:

---

Edit to add: You also have to consider if it would be possible to raise the money for your scheme from a population in which 80% of the people wouldn't support the proposition that you should be able to force people to pay your price, and your's alone, for water.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Are you saying that it's ok for a society to oppress a man because of the colour of his skin? Jack seems to have no problem with the idea of ethnic cleansing, he thinks that if a community in anarchist world doesn't want to live with "niggers" they have the right to force them out, even if that families property rights are violated even if violence is used.

---

Quote:

---

What I haven't heard is a rejection of that idea from the people that "believe hard" so how about it? Clear that up for us right now, who else suffers for your "better world?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
What if you own all the land with good access to the water table or surface water ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
[ Let's assume I'm an astute businessman and have another business that provides me a steady source of money. Or, as Rue says, I own the source.

---

Quote:

---

Except that because of economies of scale, I can keep my prices just below the point where it would become attractive to invest de novo.

---

Quote:

---

With an evil laugh I buy out any competition and THEN make people pay my price, which is finely calibrated to keep people out of my business.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
There is a cost to entering a market, especially one where there is infrastructure involved.

---

Quote:

---

How? If the cost of entering a market is so large how do you setup in competition?

---

Quote:

---

Well it's not violence.

---

Quote:

---

Do I need more than the 3% with money?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Neither are consortia, personal connections, or bankrupting or buying out competition to get 100% market share. It's all good.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
So, to reiterate the question - what's to keep an abusive and ironclad monopoly from forming ? And further - with no 'rules' against it - what can fix the problem ?

---

Quote:

---

Okay, if you're going to impose impossible conditions on the exercise, you aren't playing fair. But that's sort of your way, isn't it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- Frem's definition of "force" seems to be putting a gun to someone's head. Now, in the scenarios that we posed there was no such thing, so... how do YOU define "force"?

---

Quote:

---

a lawsuit, it could be property damage (remember, if you initiated force, your property is fair game)

---

Quote:

---

a lawsuit, it could be property damage (remember, if you initiated force, your property is fair game)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
No, that's not "impossible conditions" that's just good business sense. In YOUR world, there is nothing wrong with someone buying a property with a natural spring, or a water table that's only 15 feet below the surface. And if I were going to distribute water, I'd look exactly for that.

---

Quote:

---

Besides, you can keep the water business. I've decided I'm going to build a an integrated monopoly in general parcel delivery, safe deposit vaults, security, and (most important) toll roads. Less work, more money.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Lawsuits imply laws. Your system has no laws except that of the contract.

---

Quote:

---

Explain how you're going to finance this.

---

Quote:

---

Signy:
6ix, somehow I don't think YOU'RE ready for anarchism. Or even libertarianism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
My view can be summed up like this--- your personal freedom to swing your arms ends at the end of my nose. Now depending on who's talking the libertarian/anarchist answer to this seems to be.

1) Psychologically healthy enlightened people don't swing their arms.
2) People would have to pay restitution for busting your nose.
3) Suck it up! Concern about your nose should never curtail my rights to swing my arms.
4) If you had a gun you could shoot the guy that's attempting to bust your nose.

None of which really helps me if I don't want my nose busted.

---

Yeah, you're right Fletch. I much prefer today's method of a cop taping off the area and putting a chalk line around my nose after the fact.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"You see what Frem and I propose as taking away your rights."

Hunhhh ?

---

Quote:

---

You can't have a viable anarchy and have all the same systems in place that concentrate wealth and power - like private property (goods and land), money, guns, nuclear families and parental authority, organizations, and the ideology that justifies them. ALL those things make the interaction between individuals something other than a free association between equals - just in and of themselves.

---

Quote:

---

And THEN you have the problem of the born sociopath who willingly manipulates every system for gain with complete (and I do mean complete) disregard for the people affected.

---

Quote:

---

But the other thing I've noticed is an easy-breezy - sometimes downright callous - disregard for the weaker and slower in the systems they propose. Think on it - they want systems of unequal power, no collective rein on what people with power might do - and complete and utter disinterest in the helpless, the slow, the infirm, in the face of the very systems that could easily victimize them.

---

Quote:

---

Let me ask you personally HKC - do you find that approach moral?

---

Quote:

---

...I don't want to discuss anything Jack has to say on the subject.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Explain how you're going to finance this.

---

Set up a secure vault so people can park their papers and valuables safely. That's pretty cheap. Maybe provide notary-type or certification services at the same time. Parlay that money into some trucks. Teach kids how to drive in exchange for them making deliveries. Yanno, build from the ground up. The last part would be buying or building roads and turning them into toll roads.

---

Quote:

---

And of course since no one else in the country has the business acumen to do this you end up with a monopoly.

---

Quote:

---

This, Rue, I absolutely disagree with. And I still find it plenty disturbing that you would make such a statement. The kind of sociopath you describe is made, not born.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, if your model worked we would NEVER develop monopolies.

---

Quote:

---

But clearly, monopolies develop! I'm using Bill Gates as my model. He jumped into a market at the beginning, and by buying up and destroying competitors, offering PC OEMs his product with a carrot... and a stick if other systems were loaded, and weaseling on his deals with IBM, built a monopoly long before the DMCA became law.

---

Quote:

---

And, as you know, under capitalism the most efficient company wins. The end state of capitalism, with or without the government, is monopolism.

---

Quote:

---

And unless you build specific barriers to monopolism into your system, monopolies will develop.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
1) Are you really saying they would pass up investment with a good return if they thought it violated anarchist principles? Are you sure absolutely 100% would?

---

Quote:

---

2) Are you really saying that if Siggy builds an 80% monopoly these people will put money into a competitor, one that can and probably would lose as some kind of public service?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
....

http://books.google.com/books? ...{balance suppressed}

HKCavalier

---

Quote:

---

No. I'm saying that if Siggy's 80% monopoly becomes a coercive monopoly, folks will take it down. If it deals fairly, so what?

---