The Free Market and Monopolies

[Tahuti]

Why does it make sense to classify our personal bodies as property then?

Usually it is okay to buy and sell property.

It's property in the sense it deserves protection from damage and destruction, but that's it.

 

[peter grimes]

Not all property is created equal. Some hold this truth to be self-evident. YMMV.

 

[Cutlass]

eh... NO



If I were running a company that was in such a position, I wouldn't do this, if profits were my main motivation - which is already unlikely, given profits won't give me any reasonable increase in living standard. On top of that, I would lose investors for valuing being a dick to my competitors more than making a profit. And finally, no matter how many competitors I would be able to squish out, it simply would be unsustainable to continue this indefinitely. If it were a publicly traded company, the investors would perhaps even pull the plug en masse and my company would be gone. Ancient companies have been wiped out in a matter days this way.

So you think it won't work specifically because you don't think and act as a capitalist....

Dude, most capitalists do in fact act like capitalists....

 

[peter grimes]

I wouldn't do this, if profits were my main motivation - which is already unlikely, given profits won't give me any reasonable increase in living standard. On top of that, I would lose investors for valuing being a dick to my competitors more than making a profit. And finally, no matter how many competitors I would be able to squish out, it simply would be unsustainable to continue this indefinitely.

This post shows how much you don't understand about how public companies work in the US. They are legal entities set up for the purpose of extracting money from clients and redistributing it to shareholders. When a company is not maximizing profits, investors can sue in court against the management of the company for damages.

If profits aren't your main motivation, you won't get any investment.

Even I know this, and I'm a chum who knows nearly nothing about economics.

 

[Mise]

Strictly speaking, a "pure" free market only has property rights protections with nothing coming in between. And yes, property rights protections would include laws against battery and rape and all that, being violations of property rights. However, this is - so far - theoretically impossible, so I won't be advocating that. And the mistake you made was that you implied that I did, or so it seemed at least.

That said, I still do think there is too much government in many areas, not too little, notwithstanding there are benefits in having governments, unlike libertarians.

So to avoid stretching "government intervention" to absurd extremes, you've stretched "property rights" to absurd extremes...

Also, it may not be you who believes those things - you may simply be telling me what a libertarian would say. But the things you're saying on their behalf are simply ridiculous... You give their ideas far too much respect, both economically and intellectually. They don't make sense on either level.

 

[Leoreth]

It's property in the sense it deserves protection from damage and destruction, but that's it.

So what is the point? It's not as if we need the property rights argument to justify why rape and physical violence are bad and people should be protected from it.

There is zero reason to even mention it. But I guess libertarians (and you? I'm not sure if you're actually behind this logic) have to bring it up because it's another awesome thing the relentless protection of property rights has to offer.

The only reason they do it is because they have to further satisfy their fetish for property rights and the monodimensional perspective of society it implies.

 

[innonimatu]

Bodies are property too. I apologize to you if it makes me sound like a preachy libertarian!

Don't worry about that, I at leasy have long ago written you off as one.

 

[Tahuti]

There is zero reason to even mention it. But I guess libertarians (and you? I'm not sure if you're actually behind this logic) have to bring it up because it's another awesome thing the relentless protection of property rights has to offer.

I've used the wrong wording, I agree. I shouldn't have mentioned it. But remember that this discussion started because we were in search of the definition of a minimal state, and my definition of a minimal state would be one that protects property rights AND humans from violence (but not from poverty).

The only reason they do it is because they have to further satisfy their fetish for property rights and the monodimensional perspective of society it implies.

And that's pretty much my criticism of the Libertarian POV.

Don't worry about that, I at leasy have long ago written you off as one.

Those who consider me a Libertarian are generally worse than actual Libertarians, and it seems you are no exception.

 

[peter grimes]

I've used the wrong wording, I agree. I shouldn't have mentioned it. But remember that this discussion started because we were in search of the definition of a minimal state, and my definition of a minimal state would be one that protects property rights AND humans from violence (but not from poverty).

You don't consider poverty to be economic violence and a restriction of freedom?

 

[Mise]

It's a silly definition of a minimal state. A minimal state could just as easily be one that protects the right to take a dump on the street, and nothing else. If anything that is more "minimal" than one that protects property (however the hell you define it now - are we including or excluding patents now??). It's just that libertarians like Kaiserguard don't think that this conception of a minimal state is actually any good. So they argue for one that they think is better, which by their definition means one that protects property rights, rather than one that protects pooping in the street, and then claim that this is the One True Minimal State. Utter twaddle. It's just as silly as any other version, just as useless, and just as definitely-not-"minimal".

 

[classical_hero]

You don't consider poverty to be economic violence and a restriction of freedom?

No I wouldn't. Some people are poor due to bad decision they make and it is a consequence of their actions. Some people are happy being poor since it means more freedom to them since they aren't tied down to material wealth.

 

[innonimatu]

Those who consider me a Libertarian are generally worse than actual Libertarians, and it seems you are no exception.

Aw, I'm going to lose my sleep over that tonight.

 

[Smellincoffee]

No I wouldn't. Some people are poor due to bad decision they make and it is a consequence of their actions. Some people are happy being poor since it means more freedom to them since they aren't tied down to material wealth.

Both are infinitesimal minorities, and I say that as someone who practices voluntary simplicity.

 

[peter grimes]

No I wouldn't. Some people are poor due to bad decision they make and it is a consequence of their actions. Some people are happy being poor since it means more freedom to them since they aren't tied down to material wealth.

That's like saying we shouldn't provide free education to children, because some people choose not to have kids, and other people are born sterile. Meanwhile, millions of people DO have children, WANT to have children.

I really honestly believe that poverty is analogous to violence - it's something that society as a whole has a vested interest in reducing as much as possible.

 

[Mise]

Some people choose to stick their heads in the sand, while others have their heads thrust into the sand by circumstance.

Wait, did I say sand? I meant something else.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Perhaps not-so-coincidentally, I've been listening to an audiobook version of Joseph Stiglitz's The Price of Inequality, and he was talking about market monopolies. Free-marketeers will go on at length about how the economy is self-correcting, but as previously explained by Cutlass et al., markets naturally tend toward monopoly, and will then use every available resource they have, be it fiscal, legal, and/or political, to maintain their position. The worst part is that this runs contrary to a healthy economy by stifling innovation. Remember Netscape? No? Thank Microsoft.

There is no such thing as a free market. Left to its own devices it congeals into monopolies. The only effective antidote is government-enforced regulation, the precise lack of which precipitated the 2008 crash.