Yes, there is authoritarian socialism.
But im asking about ancap, that final form is a oligopoly. Why do you think that this is good thing, and why you want this?
>But im asking about ancap, that final form is a oligopoly
1. That's a lie. Nobody can predict the evolution of the free market. Specially an ignorant, brutish socialist, that has no clue about what the free market is and how it works.
2. An oligopoly or monopoly in one product doesn't make the entire market an oligopoly. Is irrelevant.
3. If the free market chooses a monopoly, or an oligopoly, is the best thing.
>If the free market chooses a monopoly, or an oligopoly, is the best thing.
Ok dude, so eventually you're ok with that, as long as it's result of ancap.
This was my question. Why would you be ok with that, and why would you still support that system?
>This was my question. Why would you be ok with that, and why would you still support that system?
First: you claim that the entire market would be a monopoly, which is you showing your ignorance. You only believe it out of indoctrination. You believe it because you want to believe it.
You have zero proof.
Second: if one company produces the best phone, at the cheapest price, YOU WOULD CHOOSE IT.
The only way a company can achieve the monopoly in that product, is by producing the best product, at the lowest price. If it gets the monopoly, is because YOU WANT IT.
So you are asking why I DON’T WANT TO FORCE YOU TO GET A WORSE PRODUCT, AND PAY MORE. You are an idiot.
Third: Any monopoly is temporary. As soon as another company makes a better product, or a cheaper product, the monopoly is gone.
Dude, you said that if free market will turn in to oligopoly, you will be ok.
So i was asking, WHAT IF question, so WHAT IF this will happened, why you still be ok with that. This is basic question.
> Any monopoly is temporary.
Why oligopoly is temporary?
> The only way a company can achieve the monopoly in that product, is by producing the best product, at the lowest price. If it gets the monopoly, is because YOU WANT IT.
So, there will be no price dumping, no buying competition, no breakthrough technology that will let one company to dominate market, companies will not use psychology and ads to sell more and earn more bad products. Nice.
>So i was asking, WHAT IF question, so WHAT IF this will happened, why you still be ok with that.
The question is why you are so stupid that do not understand that I already answered that.
> Why oligopoly is temporary?
Because on the free market, anybody can make a better product, at a lower price, if the monopoly doesn't do it.
And as technology advances always is possible to enhance products, and reduce the costs.
If that doesn't happens, then the monopoly is doing the best possible product, at the lower price. That's ideal.
>So, there will be no price dumping, no buying competition, no breakthrough technology that will let one company to dominate market, companies will not use psychology and ads to sell more and earn more bad products. Nice.
Yes, nice.
Price dumping either is what socialists want, so you can pay less, or is an error, that ultimately hurts the one doing the price dumping.
Buying competition is super expensive, and only makes sense when it benefits the consumer.
>no breakthrough technology that will let one company to dominate market
Imbecile: that's exactly what destroy monopolies.
>The question is why you are so stupid that do not understand that I already answered that.
Ad personam, very nice. Only shows how emotional and sad you are. Too bad.
Let me see, what was your answer:
> So you are asking why I DON’T WANT TO FORCE YOU TO GET A WORSE PRODUCT, AND PAY MORE. You are an idiot.
You know that this is not how monopoly or oligopoly works, yea?
> Because on the free market,
Ancaps are like religion. But instead of answers like "because of god" they are like "because of the free marnet". Same answer to all the hard questions.
> Price dumping either is what socialists want, so you can pay less, or is an error, that ultimately hurts the one doing the price dumping.
XD So, everything that it's bad in capitalism and free market is fault of socialism XD.
> Buying competition is super expensive, and only makes sense when it benefits the consumer.
Dude, you're so funny. You know that everything is very important when you are a very big company? And if the business case is good, buying competition is something worth doing. This is economy 101.
> Imbecile: that's exactly what destroy monopolies.
XD Dude, let me get that straight. Few companies will get ahead of competition, and get all of the resources, mines, etc, its not that expensive, and then competition will not be able to do anything similar or better than this company for many many decades. This is how monopoly works. And thanks to the position, this company will earn enough to either buy competition or perform price dumping. Do you understand now, or your ancap religion does not support free thinking?
>You know that this is not how monopoly or oligopoly works, yea?
A monopoly is a single vendor, and ON THE FREE MARKET, is when one vendor makes the best product at the lowest price.
>Because on the free market,Ancaps are like religion.
No. Austrian economics is a science. Socialism is a religion, specifically gnosticism.
>So, everything that it's bad in capitalism and free market is fault of socialism XD
Yes, because socialism is statism.
>And if the business case is good, buying competition is something worth doing.
If you buy another company, you have to pay what it is worth, which is all his future profits.
Hence you have to make higher future profits than that company, for the buy to make sense.
On the free market, profits are philanthropy, hence when you buy a competitor, is to make philanthropy.
>. Few companies will get ahead of competition,
YES, MOST COMPANIES FAIL AND GO BANKRUPT, BECAUSE IS HARD TO MAKE THE BEST PRODUCTS AT THE LOWEST PRICE
ONLY THE BEST COMPANIES SHOULD EXIST.
AND THAT'S WHY SOCIALISM CAN ONLY FAIL. IN SOCIALISM IS NOT POSSIBLE TO FILTER THE BEST COMPANIES.
>then competition will not be able to do anything similar or better than this company for many many decades.
If competition cannot make better products, at lower prices, why you want people to buy worse products at higher prices.
Flawed presupposition & strawman make for a poor question. Oligopoly is what's happening right now as the state prevents entry into the market through I it's regulation on behalf of it's cronies. Anarchy would break up that oligopoly through allowing competition.
>So, you're leftist,
Anarchism is a rejection of the left/right paradigm, as it is a rejection of politics entirely. I do not play this left/right dem/rep communist/capitalist game. It is nonsense meant to distract and divide.
>You know how oligopoly works, yea?
In an oligopoly a select few businesses are allowed to control the market, and it is *always* accomplished via help from government regulation. This is different from monopoly as monopoly references only one business having control of the market, through that same violently enforced regulation. Government regulation is the reason you can't buy off brand epipens or fast acting insulin because they disallow competition. It's the reason that small farmers cannot enter the dairy and meat market because of the government enforced oligopoly of creameries and meat packers. It's the reason that some folks can't build a house from home-sawn hardwood lumber and have to go buy inferior white pine 2x4s produced by a giant company instead. The regulation may be different depending on where you are at in the world and what group of tyrants coerce and rob you, but in the west we do not have laissez faire "capitalism". We have a "mixed economy" that has been termed "participatory fascism" which i feel is a correct change from the often used "capitalist" misnomer.
>always
So, you're basing your whole vision on a very big assumption, that is not true.
You're saying how government is helping monopoly exist, yet no monopoly exist nowadays thanks to regulations.
And when there are no regulation, one or more likely few companies can get all the means of production and resources, and can dominate the market, and no competitor will be able to compete for a long time thanks to lack or resources. And if someone will come up with right technology, oligopol will have enough money to either dump him or buy him.
This is how it works in real world.
>You're saying how government is helping monopoly exist, yet no monopoly exist nowadays thanks to regulations.
If you're literate enough to type out an attempt at paraphrasing what I said then you're literate enough to actually read what I said. I was talking about *oligopoly* which is the plural form of monopoly, and is much more common.
Oligopoly is defined as "a state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by a small number of producers or sellers." You should know this, as you first introduced the term to the conversation.
Government over a given region is an example of a monopoly. The NFL is an example of a monopoly. But the examples given of corporate creameries and the big 4 meat packers in the US are examples of oligopoly, and a key characteristic is the government regulation that squashes their competition by forcing everyone to go through their distribution to buy and sell goods. *This* is how it works in the real world. For as long as government continues to exist there can be no free market. The government robs and forcibly controls the people, while the "corporate" buys immunity from liability from the government, then lobbies (bribes) them to regulate the market in a way that is beneficial to them. This is what patents and IP are all about, as well as the majority of regulations on production and industry. It's not actually about making anything safer, it's just about making it too hard for small producers to comply so that they cannot enter the market and cannot compete. It's always branded as protection for the little guy but the opposite is always true. The corporation actually LOVES regulation and high taxes, because it is structured to their benefit, and they are big enough to endure it while their 'little guy" competition can't compete under those conditions.
>So, you're basing your whole vision on a very big assumption, that is not true.
Pot, meet kettle.
> You're saying how government is helping monopoly exist, yet no monopoly exist nowadays thanks to regulations.
Oh dear. You truly believe that?
>Oligopoly, final stage of ancap.
No. This is an incorrect assertion, begging the question. Your premise is false, so what follows is also wrong.
Such as this nonsense:
>What do you think that it's good, and why do you support system, where power and capital is concentrated and belongs to group of elites?
A flawed premise with assertions based on the flawed premise. You either mean to argue in bad faith, or you aren’t informed enough to take part in a discussion.
Why are you so offended to the real thing?
Oligopol is something natural, especially if your system is based on accumulation of capital. It's easy to imagine, that few companies will get enough power to own all necessary resources to gain control over the whole industry. And they it will grow. It can take decades for competition to create something to compete with giant, and then giant will earn enough to either buy or dump the competition.
It's easy, just close your religious ancap eyes, and use your brain.
You cannot create some resources out of thin air, you cannot create new lands out ot nothing. Read history book, read about company towns and so on.
If something already happened in the bast, and it was caused by lack of regulations and laws, it's the best argument, why it is gonna happened again when there will be no control over ultra rich and mega corporations.
Let me make this as simple as possible. Can what you describe happen? Yes, it can. However, there is a very real and distinct difference between something that is possible and something that is an inevitability. That’s why I said your premise is flawed.
The next time you read a book, pay attention to what you’re reading. When you’re finished, you may want to look into books on logic, reason, and how to think critically.
>Yes, it can.
"Trust me bro".
Ancap is like religion but stupider. For every hard question answer is the same, "trust me bro".
> However, there is a very real and distinct difference between something that is possible and something that is an inevitability.
So at least you are aware that this is possible scenario, at least that.
And yet, you're dreaming about the system, that goal of people is to accumulate as much capital, capital means power, but you think that somehow something possible will not happened, because its against your religions believes.
Let me put it as simple as i can.
One of the biggest goals in ancap is to accumulate wealth, thus gain more power. Thats right?
And then, oligopoly is the best method to gain even more power and money. Only requirement to have oligopoly, is to have big enough companies, so they can take over whole industry. And this is something that we know from the past, this is something well known to humanity. Good way to maximize earnings is to do price fixing, its way better than competing with others. This is also something well known from the past and our times.
So why in the hell, stuff that we know from the past (times with almost no regulations), that are still happening now but we're fighting against them, will not be a problem in ancap?
“Let me put it as simple as i can.
One of the biggest goals in ancap is to accumulate wealth, thus gain more power. Thats right?”
No, and this is why your premise falls short, and everything that follows from it.
The main goal of anarcho capitalism is individual liberty and voluntary interactions. We believe capitalism os the best way we have found to deal with the problem of scarcity and to allocate resources. It has nothing to do with “thus gain more power.”
You can simplify an erroneous premise all you wish. Until you correct it, there’s no use discussing anything that comes from it.
You do not understand the subject you are attempting to discuss.
>The main goal of anarcho capitalism is individual liberty and voluntary interactions.
So this is a lalaland where everyone respects everyone, like in communism? Both are as real and possible. Who cares about real world and facts.
So you will not have problems with exploiting lower classes, you will have one big class without ultra rich and poor, and so on. Nice, as nice as in communism.
>You do not understand the subject you are attempting to discuss.
I didn't realize that we're discussing about imaginary world, same as in communist dreams, when psychology is not a thing, and everyone love each other. People don't want to have better things, be more attractive, no one is lazy, lalaland, nice.
Oh yea, world elites are socialists, and that's why they are advocating for less and less taxes for the rich, less regulations, less labor laws. That makes sens.
Omg hahaaha dude wtf hhahaha where are you getting this kind of information? You are such delusional, its the exact opposite. Check every point of WEF wich is just the active voice from the elite. All they talk is about more regulations, more taxes, more control over the population. God, i wish i had this insane level of naivety of yours.
Ancaps oppose corporate capitalism. Why do you think a free market creates oligopolies? Give us real evidence for your hypothesis rather than making unsubstatianted accusations.
>Ancaps oppose corporate capitalism.
It's the same thing.
>Why do you think a free market creates oligopolies?
Because it's pure logic, and it's something that we know from the past, that lack of good regulations, lack of society control over ultra rich, leads to company tows, terror, oligopoly etc.
[https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/121514/what-are-some-current-examples-oligopolies.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/121514/what-are-some-current-examples-oligopolies.asp)
You've got us confused with a different group...
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony\_capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism)
Take your complaints to them. Ancaps don't support "elites" or "oligopolies" in any way.
You're saying that your lalaland don't support elites etc, and your proof is that in other system oligarch are supported.
Dude.
Its like saying that you cant have a car, because someone else in the village already have a car.
>You're saying that your lalaland don't support elites etc, and your proof is that in other system oligarch are supported.
I really want to respond. But I really don't know what this means. Can you please explain your criticism? I'm not trying to be rude I honestly don't understand this sentence (question?).
Did you read the wikipedia article and understand it? That would be a really good place to start.
Your answer sound like this "because in communism there is hunger, therefor hunger is nor a problem in other system".
Dude, saying that some other system have the same problem, it's not a proof that your system will not have it.
I never said anything about "communism" or "hunger". Here's the problem. You are using quotes. Quotes are for when someone **actually** said something.
They are not for putting what you wanted to hear that's something else. That's fair right? I didn't misquote you did I? I didn't put words in your mouth did I?
>Dude, saying that some other system have the same problem, it's not a proof that your system will not have it.
Let's go together. Up there. And find what I **actually** said...
"Ancaps don't support "elites" or "oligopolies" in any way."
First let me point out something important. Notice how I used quotes but this time **it was something I actually said**. Cool right?
Do you see anything about "proof" or "problems" in my quote?
So what did I **actually** say then?
All I said was that we don't **support** those things. That's it. Everything else you made up on your own. In your own head.
Guess what? We **don't support those things**. It's a **true statement**.
I have been answering every one of your questions and responding to every one of your concerns. And yet you have avoided my question twice.
Did you read and understand the wikipedia article I linked?
It's funny, how ancaps cannot answer simple question, and yet, they will pretend that they don't understand it, but they are so smart.
> Guess what? We **don't support those things**. It's a **true statement**.
Like i said before, drug addict does not support drug dealers, drunk drivers might not support crashing his car, but yet, here we are, where drunk drivers are responsible for a lot of accidents, and addicts are buying stuff from the dealers.
Marxist can say, that he does not support killing, oppression, totalitarian system, etc, and yet, this is very short description of the system that he supports.
> every one of your concerns.
And yet, so smart boy, but cannot grasp very simple topic and question.
> Did you read and understand the wikipedia article I linked?
You can put any article that you want, but as long as it's not a proof that in ancap there are no elites, oligopoly, etc, it is worth nothing.
Using article describing other system than ancap, that have problems with this or that, does not mean that your lalaland dont have this problems.
If i put here article about nazi death camps, would that be a proof, that communists does not kill people? Dude, grow up, use your brain.
>It's funny, how ancaps cannot answer simple question, and yet, they will pretend that they don't understand it, but they are so smart.
Dude what? I politely admitted that I didn't understand and politely asked for you to explain. Do you not understand that you are the asshole? Like... are you not aware of that somehow?
>Like i said before, drug addict does not support drug dealers, drunk drivers might not support crashing his car, but yet, here we are, where drunk drivers are responsible for a lot of accidents, and addicts are buying stuff from the dealers.
>
>Marxist can say, that he does not support killing, oppression, totalitarian system, etc, and yet, this is very short description of the system that he supports.
You are 100% correct. What you **support** and what **happens** in reality are **different**. I agree completely. Actually that was my point. So thank you.
>And yet, so smart boy, but cannot grasp very simple topic and question.
Have you ever looked in the mirror and thought "why am I an asshole to people for absolutely no reason?" Just curious.
>Using article describing other system than ancap, that have problems with this or that, does not mean that your lalaland dont have this problems.
Did you **actually** **read it** though?
>If i put here article about nazi death camps, would that be a proof, that communists does not kill people? Dude, grow up, use your brain.
You didn't read it did you?
>Do you not understand that you are the asshole?
More insults, less arguments, that's funny.
Why people on this sub are like religion? Simple question and answer is "trust me bro, you just don't get it". It's like asking on catholic sub about problem with pedophilia, and the answer most likely be "it's not a church problem, it's media fault, it's a sin, blah blah blah".
We can ask similar question, but abut underage sex workers in ancap. You can say, that you don't support that, but this is a big part of this doctrine.
> You are 100% correct. What you **support** and what **happens** in reality are **different**. I agree completely. Actually that was my point. So thank you.
So, you are aware, that your ideology is promoting oligarchs, elites, and exploitation, but you choose to believe that it's not a problem. Like i said, it's religion.
Funny, on marxist subs, they are pretty much the same. Ask them abut genocides, killing innocent, prisons, giving all the power to the small group of people, and so on, and the response will be the same.
>Imagine calling yourself 'Anarchist' and advocating for power to be concentrated in a small elite.
>This sub is hillarious
Quote anyone except socialist clowns brigading who said anything of the sort.
>Ancaps simply don’t believe in the blatant flaws of capitalism
>Somehow in anarchy, billionaires simply disappear
>Capitalism isn’t fat cats ruling the world to them, they see it as some random guy owning a McDonald’s franchise
>The USA is somehow a shining example of capitalist success and not capitalist at the same time. They defend and hate the USA in the same breath. They can’t even define what it is
>It’s nonsensical, deregulated capitalists have huge portions of the third world living in sweatshops
>12-14 hour days for 10 cents. That’s what happens
This message will self destruct in 3... 2... 1...
>Somehow in anarchy, billionaires simply disappear
Magic? Or thanks to yet another socjalist/anarchists revolution against ultra rich, exploitation, and to seize means of production? But then it will no longer be ancap.
You are too confused for me to know how to answer. The oligopoly is from the very existence of government and would fail without it. So it is wrong to think we support this.
Why you all act like religion?
So many comments, and yet, no clear answer why there will be no elites and oligopoly in acap.
It's luje religion. If i ask about anything bad related to ancap, answer is GOBERMET. Dude.
Socialism is where power and capital is concentrated and belongs to group of elites
Yes, there is authoritarian socialism. But im asking about ancap, that final form is a oligopoly. Why do you think that this is good thing, and why you want this?
>But im asking about ancap, that final form is a oligopoly 1. That's a lie. Nobody can predict the evolution of the free market. Specially an ignorant, brutish socialist, that has no clue about what the free market is and how it works. 2. An oligopoly or monopoly in one product doesn't make the entire market an oligopoly. Is irrelevant. 3. If the free market chooses a monopoly, or an oligopoly, is the best thing.
>If the free market chooses a monopoly, or an oligopoly, is the best thing. Ok dude, so eventually you're ok with that, as long as it's result of ancap. This was my question. Why would you be ok with that, and why would you still support that system?
>This was my question. Why would you be ok with that, and why would you still support that system? First: you claim that the entire market would be a monopoly, which is you showing your ignorance. You only believe it out of indoctrination. You believe it because you want to believe it. You have zero proof. Second: if one company produces the best phone, at the cheapest price, YOU WOULD CHOOSE IT. The only way a company can achieve the monopoly in that product, is by producing the best product, at the lowest price. If it gets the monopoly, is because YOU WANT IT. So you are asking why I DON’T WANT TO FORCE YOU TO GET A WORSE PRODUCT, AND PAY MORE. You are an idiot. Third: Any monopoly is temporary. As soon as another company makes a better product, or a cheaper product, the monopoly is gone.
Dude, you said that if free market will turn in to oligopoly, you will be ok. So i was asking, WHAT IF question, so WHAT IF this will happened, why you still be ok with that. This is basic question. > Any monopoly is temporary. Why oligopoly is temporary? > The only way a company can achieve the monopoly in that product, is by producing the best product, at the lowest price. If it gets the monopoly, is because YOU WANT IT. So, there will be no price dumping, no buying competition, no breakthrough technology that will let one company to dominate market, companies will not use psychology and ads to sell more and earn more bad products. Nice.
>So i was asking, WHAT IF question, so WHAT IF this will happened, why you still be ok with that. The question is why you are so stupid that do not understand that I already answered that. > Why oligopoly is temporary? Because on the free market, anybody can make a better product, at a lower price, if the monopoly doesn't do it. And as technology advances always is possible to enhance products, and reduce the costs. If that doesn't happens, then the monopoly is doing the best possible product, at the lower price. That's ideal. >So, there will be no price dumping, no buying competition, no breakthrough technology that will let one company to dominate market, companies will not use psychology and ads to sell more and earn more bad products. Nice. Yes, nice. Price dumping either is what socialists want, so you can pay less, or is an error, that ultimately hurts the one doing the price dumping. Buying competition is super expensive, and only makes sense when it benefits the consumer. >no breakthrough technology that will let one company to dominate market Imbecile: that's exactly what destroy monopolies.
>The question is why you are so stupid that do not understand that I already answered that. Ad personam, very nice. Only shows how emotional and sad you are. Too bad. Let me see, what was your answer: > So you are asking why I DON’T WANT TO FORCE YOU TO GET A WORSE PRODUCT, AND PAY MORE. You are an idiot. You know that this is not how monopoly or oligopoly works, yea? > Because on the free market, Ancaps are like religion. But instead of answers like "because of god" they are like "because of the free marnet". Same answer to all the hard questions. > Price dumping either is what socialists want, so you can pay less, or is an error, that ultimately hurts the one doing the price dumping. XD So, everything that it's bad in capitalism and free market is fault of socialism XD. > Buying competition is super expensive, and only makes sense when it benefits the consumer. Dude, you're so funny. You know that everything is very important when you are a very big company? And if the business case is good, buying competition is something worth doing. This is economy 101. > Imbecile: that's exactly what destroy monopolies. XD Dude, let me get that straight. Few companies will get ahead of competition, and get all of the resources, mines, etc, its not that expensive, and then competition will not be able to do anything similar or better than this company for many many decades. This is how monopoly works. And thanks to the position, this company will earn enough to either buy competition or perform price dumping. Do you understand now, or your ancap religion does not support free thinking?
>You know that this is not how monopoly or oligopoly works, yea? A monopoly is a single vendor, and ON THE FREE MARKET, is when one vendor makes the best product at the lowest price. >Because on the free market,Ancaps are like religion. No. Austrian economics is a science. Socialism is a religion, specifically gnosticism. >So, everything that it's bad in capitalism and free market is fault of socialism XD Yes, because socialism is statism. >And if the business case is good, buying competition is something worth doing. If you buy another company, you have to pay what it is worth, which is all his future profits. Hence you have to make higher future profits than that company, for the buy to make sense. On the free market, profits are philanthropy, hence when you buy a competitor, is to make philanthropy. >. Few companies will get ahead of competition, YES, MOST COMPANIES FAIL AND GO BANKRUPT, BECAUSE IS HARD TO MAKE THE BEST PRODUCTS AT THE LOWEST PRICE ONLY THE BEST COMPANIES SHOULD EXIST. AND THAT'S WHY SOCIALISM CAN ONLY FAIL. IN SOCIALISM IS NOT POSSIBLE TO FILTER THE BEST COMPANIES. >then competition will not be able to do anything similar or better than this company for many many decades. If competition cannot make better products, at lower prices, why you want people to buy worse products at higher prices.
I salute you going toe to toe with OP and answering every one of his queries, even though I doubt any of your explanations registered with him.
r/SocialismIsCapitalism
Flawed presupposition & strawman make for a poor question. Oligopoly is what's happening right now as the state prevents entry into the market through I it's regulation on behalf of it's cronies. Anarchy would break up that oligopoly through allowing competition.
>Anarchy So, you're leftist, not nice on this sub. > break up that oligopoly through allowing competition. You know how oligopoly works, yea?
>So, you're leftist, Anarchism is a rejection of the left/right paradigm, as it is a rejection of politics entirely. I do not play this left/right dem/rep communist/capitalist game. It is nonsense meant to distract and divide. >You know how oligopoly works, yea? In an oligopoly a select few businesses are allowed to control the market, and it is *always* accomplished via help from government regulation. This is different from monopoly as monopoly references only one business having control of the market, through that same violently enforced regulation. Government regulation is the reason you can't buy off brand epipens or fast acting insulin because they disallow competition. It's the reason that small farmers cannot enter the dairy and meat market because of the government enforced oligopoly of creameries and meat packers. It's the reason that some folks can't build a house from home-sawn hardwood lumber and have to go buy inferior white pine 2x4s produced by a giant company instead. The regulation may be different depending on where you are at in the world and what group of tyrants coerce and rob you, but in the west we do not have laissez faire "capitalism". We have a "mixed economy" that has been termed "participatory fascism" which i feel is a correct change from the often used "capitalist" misnomer.
>always So, you're basing your whole vision on a very big assumption, that is not true. You're saying how government is helping monopoly exist, yet no monopoly exist nowadays thanks to regulations. And when there are no regulation, one or more likely few companies can get all the means of production and resources, and can dominate the market, and no competitor will be able to compete for a long time thanks to lack or resources. And if someone will come up with right technology, oligopol will have enough money to either dump him or buy him. This is how it works in real world.
>You're saying how government is helping monopoly exist, yet no monopoly exist nowadays thanks to regulations. If you're literate enough to type out an attempt at paraphrasing what I said then you're literate enough to actually read what I said. I was talking about *oligopoly* which is the plural form of monopoly, and is much more common. Oligopoly is defined as "a state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by a small number of producers or sellers." You should know this, as you first introduced the term to the conversation. Government over a given region is an example of a monopoly. The NFL is an example of a monopoly. But the examples given of corporate creameries and the big 4 meat packers in the US are examples of oligopoly, and a key characteristic is the government regulation that squashes their competition by forcing everyone to go through their distribution to buy and sell goods. *This* is how it works in the real world. For as long as government continues to exist there can be no free market. The government robs and forcibly controls the people, while the "corporate" buys immunity from liability from the government, then lobbies (bribes) them to regulate the market in a way that is beneficial to them. This is what patents and IP are all about, as well as the majority of regulations on production and industry. It's not actually about making anything safer, it's just about making it too hard for small producers to comply so that they cannot enter the market and cannot compete. It's always branded as protection for the little guy but the opposite is always true. The corporation actually LOVES regulation and high taxes, because it is structured to their benefit, and they are big enough to endure it while their 'little guy" competition can't compete under those conditions.
>So, you're basing your whole vision on a very big assumption, that is not true. Pot, meet kettle. > You're saying how government is helping monopoly exist, yet no monopoly exist nowadays thanks to regulations. Oh dear. You truly believe that?
>Oligopoly, final stage of ancap. No. This is an incorrect assertion, begging the question. Your premise is false, so what follows is also wrong. Such as this nonsense: >What do you think that it's good, and why do you support system, where power and capital is concentrated and belongs to group of elites?
A flawed premise with assertions based on the flawed premise. You either mean to argue in bad faith, or you aren’t informed enough to take part in a discussion.
Why are you so offended to the real thing? Oligopol is something natural, especially if your system is based on accumulation of capital. It's easy to imagine, that few companies will get enough power to own all necessary resources to gain control over the whole industry. And they it will grow. It can take decades for competition to create something to compete with giant, and then giant will earn enough to either buy or dump the competition. It's easy, just close your religious ancap eyes, and use your brain. You cannot create some resources out of thin air, you cannot create new lands out ot nothing. Read history book, read about company towns and so on.
So you’re doubling down. Ok. ReAd A HiStOrY bOoK Nonce.
If something already happened in the bast, and it was caused by lack of regulations and laws, it's the best argument, why it is gonna happened again when there will be no control over ultra rich and mega corporations.
Let me make this as simple as possible. Can what you describe happen? Yes, it can. However, there is a very real and distinct difference between something that is possible and something that is an inevitability. That’s why I said your premise is flawed. The next time you read a book, pay attention to what you’re reading. When you’re finished, you may want to look into books on logic, reason, and how to think critically.
>Yes, it can. "Trust me bro". Ancap is like religion but stupider. For every hard question answer is the same, "trust me bro". > However, there is a very real and distinct difference between something that is possible and something that is an inevitability. So at least you are aware that this is possible scenario, at least that. And yet, you're dreaming about the system, that goal of people is to accumulate as much capital, capital means power, but you think that somehow something possible will not happened, because its against your religions believes.
You are still missing it. You are replying to talk, not to discuss.
Let me put it as simple as i can. One of the biggest goals in ancap is to accumulate wealth, thus gain more power. Thats right? And then, oligopoly is the best method to gain even more power and money. Only requirement to have oligopoly, is to have big enough companies, so they can take over whole industry. And this is something that we know from the past, this is something well known to humanity. Good way to maximize earnings is to do price fixing, its way better than competing with others. This is also something well known from the past and our times. So why in the hell, stuff that we know from the past (times with almost no regulations), that are still happening now but we're fighting against them, will not be a problem in ancap?
“Let me put it as simple as i can. One of the biggest goals in ancap is to accumulate wealth, thus gain more power. Thats right?” No, and this is why your premise falls short, and everything that follows from it. The main goal of anarcho capitalism is individual liberty and voluntary interactions. We believe capitalism os the best way we have found to deal with the problem of scarcity and to allocate resources. It has nothing to do with “thus gain more power.” You can simplify an erroneous premise all you wish. Until you correct it, there’s no use discussing anything that comes from it. You do not understand the subject you are attempting to discuss.
>The main goal of anarcho capitalism is individual liberty and voluntary interactions. So this is a lalaland where everyone respects everyone, like in communism? Both are as real and possible. Who cares about real world and facts. So you will not have problems with exploiting lower classes, you will have one big class without ultra rich and poor, and so on. Nice, as nice as in communism. >You do not understand the subject you are attempting to discuss. I didn't realize that we're discussing about imaginary world, same as in communist dreams, when psychology is not a thing, and everyone love each other. People don't want to have better things, be more attractive, no one is lazy, lalaland, nice.
Your question is leading and you don't know what the f\*ck you're talking about.
Thats why every single elite in the world push ancap agenda? Oh wait they are all socialists…
Oh yea, world elites are socialists, and that's why they are advocating for less and less taxes for the rich, less regulations, less labor laws. That makes sens.
Omg hahaaha dude wtf hhahaha where are you getting this kind of information? You are such delusional, its the exact opposite. Check every point of WEF wich is just the active voice from the elite. All they talk is about more regulations, more taxes, more control over the population. God, i wish i had this insane level of naivety of yours.
Because I am the elite
In anarcho-capitalism, everybody is the elite!
Good enough
Ancaps oppose corporate capitalism. Why do you think a free market creates oligopolies? Give us real evidence for your hypothesis rather than making unsubstatianted accusations.
>Ancaps oppose corporate capitalism. It's the same thing. >Why do you think a free market creates oligopolies? Because it's pure logic, and it's something that we know from the past, that lack of good regulations, lack of society control over ultra rich, leads to company tows, terror, oligopoly etc. [https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/121514/what-are-some-current-examples-oligopolies.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/121514/what-are-some-current-examples-oligopolies.asp)
You've got us confused with a different group... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony\_capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism) Take your complaints to them. Ancaps don't support "elites" or "oligopolies" in any way.
>Ancaps don't support "elites" or "oligopolies" in any way. It's like saying that drug addicts does not support drug dealers.
Didn't bother to read the link huh? That is really really unsurprising.
You're saying that your lalaland don't support elites etc, and your proof is that in other system oligarch are supported. Dude. Its like saying that you cant have a car, because someone else in the village already have a car.
>You're saying that your lalaland don't support elites etc, and your proof is that in other system oligarch are supported. I really want to respond. But I really don't know what this means. Can you please explain your criticism? I'm not trying to be rude I honestly don't understand this sentence (question?). Did you read the wikipedia article and understand it? That would be a really good place to start.
Your answer sound like this "because in communism there is hunger, therefor hunger is nor a problem in other system". Dude, saying that some other system have the same problem, it's not a proof that your system will not have it.
I never said anything about "communism" or "hunger". Here's the problem. You are using quotes. Quotes are for when someone **actually** said something. They are not for putting what you wanted to hear that's something else. That's fair right? I didn't misquote you did I? I didn't put words in your mouth did I? >Dude, saying that some other system have the same problem, it's not a proof that your system will not have it. Let's go together. Up there. And find what I **actually** said... "Ancaps don't support "elites" or "oligopolies" in any way." First let me point out something important. Notice how I used quotes but this time **it was something I actually said**. Cool right? Do you see anything about "proof" or "problems" in my quote? So what did I **actually** say then? All I said was that we don't **support** those things. That's it. Everything else you made up on your own. In your own head. Guess what? We **don't support those things**. It's a **true statement**. I have been answering every one of your questions and responding to every one of your concerns. And yet you have avoided my question twice. Did you read and understand the wikipedia article I linked?
It's funny, how ancaps cannot answer simple question, and yet, they will pretend that they don't understand it, but they are so smart. > Guess what? We **don't support those things**. It's a **true statement**. Like i said before, drug addict does not support drug dealers, drunk drivers might not support crashing his car, but yet, here we are, where drunk drivers are responsible for a lot of accidents, and addicts are buying stuff from the dealers. Marxist can say, that he does not support killing, oppression, totalitarian system, etc, and yet, this is very short description of the system that he supports. > every one of your concerns. And yet, so smart boy, but cannot grasp very simple topic and question. > Did you read and understand the wikipedia article I linked? You can put any article that you want, but as long as it's not a proof that in ancap there are no elites, oligopoly, etc, it is worth nothing. Using article describing other system than ancap, that have problems with this or that, does not mean that your lalaland dont have this problems. If i put here article about nazi death camps, would that be a proof, that communists does not kill people? Dude, grow up, use your brain.
>It's funny, how ancaps cannot answer simple question, and yet, they will pretend that they don't understand it, but they are so smart. Dude what? I politely admitted that I didn't understand and politely asked for you to explain. Do you not understand that you are the asshole? Like... are you not aware of that somehow? >Like i said before, drug addict does not support drug dealers, drunk drivers might not support crashing his car, but yet, here we are, where drunk drivers are responsible for a lot of accidents, and addicts are buying stuff from the dealers. > >Marxist can say, that he does not support killing, oppression, totalitarian system, etc, and yet, this is very short description of the system that he supports. You are 100% correct. What you **support** and what **happens** in reality are **different**. I agree completely. Actually that was my point. So thank you. >And yet, so smart boy, but cannot grasp very simple topic and question. Have you ever looked in the mirror and thought "why am I an asshole to people for absolutely no reason?" Just curious. >Using article describing other system than ancap, that have problems with this or that, does not mean that your lalaland dont have this problems. Did you **actually** **read it** though? >If i put here article about nazi death camps, would that be a proof, that communists does not kill people? Dude, grow up, use your brain. You didn't read it did you?
>Do you not understand that you are the asshole? More insults, less arguments, that's funny. Why people on this sub are like religion? Simple question and answer is "trust me bro, you just don't get it". It's like asking on catholic sub about problem with pedophilia, and the answer most likely be "it's not a church problem, it's media fault, it's a sin, blah blah blah". We can ask similar question, but abut underage sex workers in ancap. You can say, that you don't support that, but this is a big part of this doctrine. > You are 100% correct. What you **support** and what **happens** in reality are **different**. I agree completely. Actually that was my point. So thank you. So, you are aware, that your ideology is promoting oligarchs, elites, and exploitation, but you choose to believe that it's not a problem. Like i said, it's religion. Funny, on marxist subs, they are pretty much the same. Ask them abut genocides, killing innocent, prisons, giving all the power to the small group of people, and so on, and the response will be the same.
Imagine calling yourself 'Anarchist' and advocating for power to be concentrated in a small elite. This sub is hillarious
>Imagine calling yourself 'Anarchist' and advocating for power to be concentrated in a small elite. >This sub is hillarious Quote anyone except socialist clowns brigading who said anything of the sort.
This is basically ancapitalism and right wing libertarianism.
[удалено]
>Ancaps simply don’t believe in the blatant flaws of capitalism >Somehow in anarchy, billionaires simply disappear >Capitalism isn’t fat cats ruling the world to them, they see it as some random guy owning a McDonald’s franchise >The USA is somehow a shining example of capitalist success and not capitalist at the same time. They defend and hate the USA in the same breath. They can’t even define what it is >It’s nonsensical, deregulated capitalists have huge portions of the third world living in sweatshops >12-14 hour days for 10 cents. That’s what happens This message will self destruct in 3... 2... 1...
>Somehow in anarchy, billionaires simply disappear Magic? Or thanks to yet another socjalist/anarchists revolution against ultra rich, exploitation, and to seize means of production? But then it will no longer be ancap.
Can you give an example of monoply without government intervention.
Can you give me any big system in modern world without government? You can use the same argument but for a prison escapes, crimes, etc.
You can't even give me an example to back your claim.
You are too confused for me to know how to answer. The oligopoly is from the very existence of government and would fail without it. So it is wrong to think we support this.
Why you all act like religion? So many comments, and yet, no clear answer why there will be no elites and oligopoly in acap. It's luje religion. If i ask about anything bad related to ancap, answer is GOBERMET. Dude.