Agorism

[Havet]

Which have never been shown to be actual restrictions, just possible things that might cause problems, or obsticles to be over come. Just because a machine gun MIGHT Jam, does'nt make Jamming a restriction.

How do you know that "it's just possible things that might cause problems"?

When competition is freed up every attempt at restricting other companies through market forces fail. Except, throughout history, we have seen other companies restrict other companies through the use of lobbies.

You never showed that the government regulation caused some to fall and caused some to get big. All you proved was that government regulation existed.

I proved government regulation EXISTS and WHAT it causes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

Either you prove that all those other grocery retail businesses are also subject to the same kind of privilege and subsidies than wal-mart or you accept my proposition.

Its funny you say "exploit the rest of the market" Because Leftist and socialists show that the Market exploits the workers, but what you care about is the markets. But, I would submit to you, that the market CREATES priviledge, not regulation, thats juts a piece of the pie.

Leftists and socialists show how capitalism exploits the worker, not the market. Market =/= capitalism.

Markets are not a distinct feature of capitalism, exploitation of labor is.

You can submit anything you want, but please show some "backing" of that assertion.

But what your saying makes no sense, if there was LESS regulation that would mean LESS privilege which would mean more equality of opportunity according to you, but it does'nt work out like that does it. So what your saying makes no sense.

Like i've explained countless times, only when you have complete deregulation in all senses is when you achieve less privilege. This is why gradual deregulation fails. This is why a revolution is needed.

Umm, Market powers ...

The Market is not an invisible hand, its people with money.

Define market powers and explain how completely free "market powers" allowed coke to become a monopoly. I'm dying to hear this.

Or just a company keeping the technology secret, which they might very well do, or the cost of raw materials and machines for creating the technology (tractors cost a lot more to make than a plow), and other factors that are natural to the market.

It can keep a technology secret, but without IP it couldn't prevent other companies from developing the same technology and using it.

But the more you do it, the more profits you make, the more profits you make the more opportunity you have to do it, and so on and so forth, until you control much of the market.

Predatory pricing is only harmful when there are businesses which hold a monopoly on the market (or oligopoly, and collude) and use that technique to drive out newcomers. But gaining a monopoly is very difficult in a free-market environment with equality of opportunity, as i've said ebfore.

Even most economists agree that it's not a valid concept (even though nowadays its more valid than ever due to the existence of more monopolies). But they reject it given that the initial policy was created due to scares of 19th century "free"-markets. But this was historically false. See these sources for info on how predatory pricing has not been historically (as in when the market was slightly freer) abundant:

Ida Tarbell, The History of the Standard Oil Company (New York: Peter Smith, 1950). Tarbell's brother, William, was treasurer of Pure Oil Company.

Harold Demsetz, "Barriers to Entry," American Economic Review 72 (May 1982): 52-56.

Frank Easterbrook, "Predatory Strategies and Counterstrategies," University of Chicago Law Review 48 (1981): 334.

John McGee, "Predatory Price Cutting: The Standard Oil (N.J.) Case," Journal of Law and Economics 1 (April 1958): 13769. (5) Ibid., p. 168.


Thomas J. DiLorenzo, "The Origins of Antitrust: An Interest Group Perspective," International Review of Law and Economics 5 (Fall 1985): 7390.


For the full article i'm basing myself upon (I don't usually use this source, but I agree with it in this case), see here.

You know what stops the market from being "free"? Not the government, its .... the Market, people making money to control it, you don't need the government to do that, the government is just one more cog in the machine.

What's your evidence to back that statement?

Or is it this way? A little is worse than a lot, but none is the best?

Exactly. I thought I had already made this clear?

[Physicist]

Markets have existed since the dawn of mankind. Why agorism, market anarchism, does not qualify as plain anarchism akin to mutualism is beyond me. Can someone explain?

Agorism is more of a methodology based on eschewing state-approved enterprises than a concrete philosophy. By itself agorism does not counter mutualism, but at the same time it can be reconciled with either socialism or capitalism. I'm willing to wager most self-described 'agorists' side with the latter.

[RGacky3]

How do you know that "it's just possible things that might cause problems"?

When competition is freed up every attempt at restricting other companies through market forces fail. Except, throughout history, we have seen other companies restrict other companies through the use of lobbies.

Thats not true, when competitionis freed (meaning government regulation is taken away), we see more concentration of wealth, now as far as other companies, that may or may not be the case, its not shown, but what is shown is that wealth inequalities are moer extreme.

Also lobbies are just ONE way to restrict other companies,you can't blain it all on lobbies.

My point was, taht these socalled *Natural market restrictions" are nothing more than conjecture, and very week conjecture.

I proved government regulation EXISTS and WHAT it causes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

Either you prove that all those other grocery retail businesses are also subject to the same kind of privilege and subsidies than wal-mart or you accept my proposition.

Its the idea of waht came first the chicken or the egg.You say that privilege came before economic power, I say the reverese, my stance is more sensible becasue it shows incentives (from the governments side).

Leftists and socialists show how capitalism exploits the worker, not the market. Market =/= capitalism.

Markets are not a distinct feature of capitalism, exploitation of labor is.

You can submit anything you want, but please show some "backing" of that assertion.

Your just redefining Capitalism, there is really not much difference between your ideology and what you argue for and that of anarcho-capitalists.

Like i've explained countless times, only when you have complete deregulation in all senses is when you achieve less privilege. This is why gradual deregulation fails. This is why a revolution is needed.

Ok, I understand your stance, and I just have to claim bullshit, logically, less regulation would nessesarily mean less privilege, given your concept of what regulation does (its privilege). You have to explain to me exactly why it actually gets worse until total deregulation and then magically it gets perfect, otherwise I'm calling bullshit.

Define market powers and explain how completely free "market powers" allowed coke to become a monopoly. I'm dying to hear this.

Market power is money, or dispensible money, that you can use to manipulate the markets, build up companies, expand, defete competition, and so on and so forth.

I never said coke was a monopoly, coke got big, mainly because it was run by savvy buisinessmen that knew hot to use their market powers and work the market.

It can keep a technology secret, but without IP it couldn't prevent other companies from developing the same technology and using it.

Yeah, but if theres a institutions to protect property rights, theres nothing to prevent big buisiness to creat intellectual property rights too.

Predatory pricing is only harmful when there are businesses which hold a monopoly on the market (or oligopoly, and collude) and use that technique to drive out newcomers. But gaining a monopoly is very difficult in a free-market environment with equality of opportunity, as i've said ebfore.

First of all, I don't think its been proven by any stretch of the work that oligopies or monopolies would be impossible or even improbible in a free market enviroment, all you did, was show some problems that might come up, and to that I go back to my machine gun analogy.

What's your evidence to back that statement?

Common sense, If you have more market power, you have more opportunity to control the markets, which means its not an actual free market, because it nessesarily makes a class system.

Exactly. I thought I had already made this clear?

I understand that, but I need some explination because it sounds like bullshit.

[Havet]

Thats not true, when competitionis freed (meaning government regulation is taken away), we see more concentration of wealth, now as far as other companies, that may or may not be the case, its not shown, but what is shown is that wealth inequalities are moer extreme.

Where do you see that?

Also lobbies are just ONE way to restrict other companies,you can't blain it all on lobbies.

Of course I don't blame it all on lobbies. There are examples of small communities where natural monopolies emerge and wield an unprecendented power. But these cases are very rare, given the large influence of government.

My point was, taht these socalled *Natural market restrictions" are nothing more than conjecture, and very week conjecture.

But how do you know that?

Its the idea of waht came first the chicken or the egg.You say that privilege came before economic power, I say the reverese, my stance is more sensible becasue it shows incentives (from the governments side).

With all respect you have not shown anything. Like I said above, in some cases (a rare event) economic power preceeds privilege. But if you can prove me the opposite, i'm all ears.

Your just redefining Capitalism, there is really not much difference between your ideology and what you argue for and that of anarcho-capitalists.

WTF? I'm using socialist/communist/anarchist definitions. Or do you think the Infoshop Anarchist FAQ is not socialist/communist/anarchist?

Ok, I understand your stance, and I just have to claim bullshit, logically, less regulation would nessesarily mean less privilege, given your concept of what regulation does (its privilege).

Yes, logically. But that is not what we see in the real life. Every claim to deregulate (Reagan, for example), didn't actually adress the main issue in capitalism: exploitation of labor. Restrictions on business enterprise still existed. Monopolies still remained. Corporate privilege was still rampant. Therefore, workers still had very little chance to do something else other than to sell their labor in an hierarchical manner. This is hardly deregulation.

You have to explain to me exactly why it actually gets worse until total deregulation and then magically it gets perfect, otherwise I'm calling bullshit.

It usually gets worse because when people say deregulation they don't usually tackle the main issues of capitalism. They just reduce corporate tax, or grant even more privileges to corporations in order to experience "trickle-down-economics". Usually deregulation also is synonimous with privatization, which is basically just transfering a monopoly from the State to a business. Its still a monopoly, which means its still harmful.

In order to be fairer one would have to tackle the issues I mentioned in the previous quote and remove ALL privilege.

Market power is money, or dispensible money, that you can use to manipulate the markets, build up companies, expand, defete competition, and so on and so forth.

I never said coke was a monopoly, coke got big, mainly because it was run by savvy buisinessmen that knew hot to use their market powers and work the market.

Lol.

You are completely ignoring that governments have acted on behalf of corporations such as coke in order to help them expand.

Yeah, but if theres a institutions to protect property rights, theres nothing to prevent big buisiness to creat intellectual property rights too.

I don't follow. If we are in a post-revolution-free-market-utopia-with-removed-IP who the hell would create IP rights and HOW would they enforce them given that there is not a monopoly on force?

First of all, I don't think its been proven by any stretch of the work that oligopies or monopolies would be impossible or even improbible in a free market enviroment, all you did, was show some problems that might come up, and to that I go back to my machine gun analogy.

Its not problems that MIGHT come up. Its problems that HAVE come up. Yeesh. And your machine gun analogy is useless unless you can prove that your probability quantification is correct (probability of machine gun jamming inferior to probability of machine gun not jamming, but in the context of businesses).

Common sense, If you have more market power, you have more opportunity to control the markets, which means its not an actual free market, because it nessesarily makes a class system.

To hell with common sense. Deal with facts/evidence/reason/logic or don't pretend to do so.