[Eran]

I am shocked that you would make that argument! after all, what you are advocating matters very little compared with what would actually happen. in a libertarian "anarchy" your rights are only protected through a private rights management agency, correct? well, you would be quite foolish to believe that there would not be private rights.management agencies that will also assert an protect "intellectual property". as there would be no government to determine that such right do not exist, nor any agency with a monopoly on force, you would be able to do nothing to stop them... except through force. of course, they very probably have more resources and weapons than you do--since they are a large corporation and you are just a private individual.

Nothing beats the cosy relation currently in place between corporations and politicians for abusing individuals.

And no, I wouldn't be "just a private individual", as I would contract with a major, national company to protect me and my property.

Large companies serving the masses tend to be larger than small companies appealing to upscale customers.

yet not a value that an actual libertarian society would advocate.

How would you know?

oh, that won't create any confusion whatsoever, of course. how could anyone ever sell a product without having to send copies on ti every pissant little testing organization?

That's not how such things actually work. Those wishing to sell their products will probably contract with a small number of highly-reputable, generally-acceptable certifying organisations.

Or perhaps large retailers (e.g. a supermarket chain) will "self-certify" the products they offer. Avoiding confusion is precisely one of the features that people are willing to pay for, hence an issue that entrepreneurs will work hard to address.

what about the people who cant afford to pay an extra 10-20% on everything they buy just to see if it will kill them?

I don't see why it should cost that much. But to answer your question, this 10-20% extra is already embedded in the price when government approval is required. At the moment, low-income people are forced to pay for middle-class-level safety, whether they want to or not.

In a libertarian society, they will have the option to choose for themselves how much safety they are willing to purchase.

and powerful companies can still tell you to fuck off while pointing at their more powerful security folks. unless you thing jims bargain basement security will gi to the wall for you?

Powerful companies don't stay powerful while acquiring reputation for screwing their customers. Powerful companies are powerful because they appeal to a large number of consumers.

we really dont use much infrastructure that is privately owned, and what parts we.do use that is privately owned usually sucks. apples and oranges here. hardly an ounce of food in this country gets delivered without extensive public involvement.

Your previous comment was that since government won't be there to provide protection, individuals would have to protect themselves. You agree, I am sure, that this is faulty logic, as individuals routinely purchase services (and goods) they are unable to provide themselves with. Protection won't be different.

As for infrastructure used to deliver goods, keep in mind - anything people are willing to pay for will be private built. People are obviously willing to pay for roads, so entrepreneurs will provide roads.

see what I mean? their revulsion for education is practically instinctual.

Revulsion to the Department of Education, which isn't the same thing as education itself. In fact, America did a better job of educating its young before Carter established the Department of Education in the '70s.

[Someone5]

Nothing beats the cosy relation currently in place between corporations and politicians for abusing individuals.

Other than removing the middle man and letting corporations fuck you directly and without democratic moderation, which is precisely what libertarians advocate.

And no, I wouldn't be "just a private individual", as I would contract with a major, national company to protect me and my property.

Hmm. Warner Bros is willing to pay, say, ten million a year for their enforcers. You're willing to pay... how much? What makes you think that these rights management agencies would not structure themselves to appeal to the people who have money, rather than the people who would require them to work harder?

Seriously, whatever rights management agency got chosen by the intellectual property holders would have a hell of a lot more resources than the rights management agencies the libertarian yahoos would pick. To rephrase this; what would you do if there were no rights management agency that was both major and national that also opposed intellectual property?

Large companies serving the masses tend to be larger than small companies appealing to upscale customers.

But large companies that used their upscale customers as a way to subsidize movement into mass markets tend to be better than either of those. Which is precisely what such a security company would do. It would enforce intellectual property rights and use the massive profits from their corporate customers to subsidize security plans for the common person. And they would drive their serious competition under, unless their serious competition started playing the same game.

How would you know?

Capitalism and altruism drive people in opposite directions. A society totally dedicated to capitalism will alienate itself; the capacity to feel or empathize with others will be diminished. We see it already in the United States; just think about how easy it is to dehumanize people living abroad to make it easier for our corporations and governments to horribly exploit them. It's nothing... because people think that it's just a part of doing business.

The very fact that people can emotionally balance the horrors that we inflict on others by holding to the idea that it is necessary for business... is demonstration of this point.

That's not how such things actually work. Those wishing to sell their products will probably contract with a small number of highly-reputable, generally-acceptable certifying organisations.

Yeah, because there is totally never any sort of collusion in that sort of arrangement. Payola could never happen. Of course.

Or perhaps large retailers (e.g. a supermarket chain) will "self-certify" the products they offer. Avoiding confusion is precisely one of the features that people are willing to pay for, hence an issue that entrepreneurs will work hard to address.

And every one of them would be contributing to that confusion. "Amco Testing says this product is safe, but Esse Certifications thinks it will kill me..."

I don't see why it should cost that much.

You have... never priced laboratory testing, have you? Well, you're not only saying that it ought to be done once for government officials, you're now saying it ought to be done many, many times over by an indeterminate number of other organizations...

But to answer your question, this 10-20% extra is already embedded in the price when government approval is required.

Okay, so you somehow think that it will get less expensive when you have to get several bureaucratic organizations to sign on to a product before people will trust it? How does that follow? If it's 10% to have the government do it, it'll be thirty percent to have three different bureaucratic nightmares do the same thing.

In a libertarian society, they will have the option to choose for themselves how much safety they are willing to purchase.

Because in a libertarian society, low-income people are considered disposable. And you seriously needed to ask me why I thought that a libertarian society would eschew charity? You're literally saying that it's totally okay to sell bad products to low income people so long as you can sneak it past low-quality testing, or somehow convince them that it's actually safe.

Powerful companies don't stay powerful while acquiring reputation for screwing their customers. Powerful companies are powerful because they appeal to a large number of consumers.

Yeah, that flies in the face of... well... basically the entire history of corporations. Powerful corporations get that way by acquiring leverage and giving customers no choice but to deal with them, thereby allowing said powerful corporation to exploit them. That is how they become powerful rather than merely profitable. The ability and willingness to exploit people is kind of inherent in the term "powerful." You cannot be powerful without also being able and willing to exploit others for your own goals.

Your previous comment was that since government won't be there to provide protection, individuals would have to protect themselves. You agree, I am sure, that this is faulty logic, as individuals routinely purchase services (and goods) they are unable to provide themselves with. Protection won't be different.

Yeah, because you can totally provide your own protection against a hundred well armed and well trained soldiers. Fuck, you couldn't take on a dozen unless you has some crazy terrain advantage. For that matter, probably not three.

As for infrastructure used to deliver goods, keep in mind - anything people are willing to pay for will be private built. People are obviously willing to pay for roads, so entrepreneurs will provide roads.

There is a reason why attempts to build private roads inevitably lead to public roads; because private road systems just flat out do not work well except in very certain circumstances--and in those circumstances, the road owner will gouge you severely. Private roads are so great that every nation who's had to put up with them has insisted on making public roads instead.

[mikema63]

Your one of those people that go on angry Internet rants aren't you?

Realize that our fundamental beliefs about how the world works are different, while you believe a policy we propose must be intended to kill poor people I can assure you we have no such designs.

[Someone5]

Your one of those people that go on angry Internet rants aren't you?

I really, really dislike libertarians.

Realize that our fundamental beliefs about how the world works are different, while you believe a policy we propose must be intended to kill poor people I can assure you we have no such designs.

Yeah, you just HAPPEN to suggest policies that will kill off the poor. It's not intentional. Sure. Total coincidence, I'm sure.

[Rothbardian]

Hey, I just have some noob questions:

1. Would there be some form of police force or organization that provides general security to people in society free of charge? Say someone breaks into your home, does help come or do you have to have some paid bodyguard or something?

No. And this does not exist anywhere today. There's no such thing as free police. The police that do exist today are also not responsible for your security.

2. What if a starving/destitute/sick individual shows up on your doorstep and you and everyone else is unwilling to care for this individual, what happens to them?

I wonder about this too. What should be done about, for example, all the people dieing on Canadian waiting lists for health care?

3. If a company, through negligence, produces a product that severely harms or kills a person, is the libertarian response simply "well, shop somewhere else then"?

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM

Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century. Finally, given popular estimates of the dead in a major nuclear war, this total democide is as though such a war did occur, but with its dead spread over a century.

4. Do libertarians think large scale projects that are typically undertaken by the state such as railways would exist in a libertarian society? Do we all just drive ourselves wherever it is we need to go, and isn't that hugely inefficient and more damaging to the environment than mass public transit?

Railways existed BEFORE government taking them over.

5. How would education be set up? Strictly private schools? Home schooling? If it is not profitable for a private school to open in, say, a poor neighbourhood, are those people just SOL, and wouldn't that lead to highly uneven opportunities between rich and poor?

Thanks for any input.

As long as we can spend less than $10000 per year per student and have better results than 50% illiteracy, I think we will be okay. Will be better than what we have today, at least.

[Happyhippo]

Realize that our fundamental beliefs about how the world works are different, while you believe a policy we propose must be intended to kill poor people I can assure you we have no such designs.

Kman is a vulgar social darwinist (and TropicalK pretty much hates humans:)), so there are people who want to "let the market put evolutionary pressure on the poor" on this forum.

[mikema63]

Most libertarians believe the poor are created by the lack of choice and the power given to large business destroying smaller startups by government. I've never read either of them suggesting that the poor should die, merely that they should have the opportunity and choice to work harder to stop being poor rather than be trapped in their position by government programs.

Someone5 do you realize that in my view it is your policy prescriptions that would lead to the deaths of vast swaths of people and the poor in particular? And yet I take your honesty and desire to help them at face value without indulging in such vulgar cognitive biases like seeing those that disagree with you as actually evil.

[Happyhippo]

Most libertarians believe the poor are created by the lack of choice and the power given to large business destroying smaller startups by government. I've never read either of them suggesting that the poor should die, merely that they should have the opportunity and choice to work harder to stop being poor rather than be trapped in their position by government programs.

Spencer was a social darwinist in the same way I am a social darwinist meaning he rejected the use of aggressive force and hated war and imperialism and government in general actually, he simply wanted the free market to be allowed to operate since letting this process happen tends to create evolutionary pressures that encourage the genetic spreading of the more nobler traits in mankind.

[mikema63]

I fail to see the death to the poor statement in that but you can believe whatever you like about Kman, making generalizations about all libertarians based on his...rather unique... Opinions is silly.

[Americanroyalty]

I oppose all unions and cartels in general. However I believe that in a freer society, we wouldn't need laws preventing cartels because profit motive will destroy them.

Historically though the drive has always been towards unionization, cartels, and monopolies. In the industrial revolution monopolies and cartels became the status quo.
Several Governments in early times relied on monopolies on various resources to provide funding.
In the middle ages guilds (trade unions) were also status quo as they provided guild members with increased economic and political power.
A modern example would be the drug cartels of South America sense they face no government regulation they are able to corner the market on certain drugs. This guarantees them profit and they are able to muscle out any rivals.

So throughout history we have a trend of people gathering in groups with the specific purpose of tilting trade towards their favor. In recent times it's only through government action that monopolies and unions are broken up. Thus I think the profit motive works the other way since people see a way to gain a guaranteed profit and pounce on the opportunity.

[Rothbardian]

Historically though the drive has always been towards unionization, cartels, and monopolies. In the industrial revolution monopolies and cartels became the status quo.
Several Governments in early times relied on monopolies on various resources to provide funding.
In the middle ages guilds (trade unions) were also status quo as they provided guild members with increased economic and political power.
A modern example would be the drug cartels of South America sense they face no government regulation they are able to corner the market on certain drugs. This guarantees them profit and they are able to muscle out any rivals.

So throughout history we have a trend of people gathering in groups with the specific purpose of tilting trade towards their favor. In recent times it's only through government action that monopolies and unions are broken up. Thus I think the profit motive works the other way since people see a way to gain a guaranteed profit and pounce on the opportunity.

the bistory of cartels and monopolies is one of government intervention. In fact the definition of monopoly was originally a reference to an exclusive business charter handed out by a king. Refering to business as inherently monopolistic is left wing anti empirical new speak.

[Americanroyalty]

the bistory of cartels and monopolies is one of government intervention. In fact the definition of monopoly was originally a reference to an exclusive business charter handed out by a king. Refering to business as inherently monopolistic is left wing anti empirical new speak.

Not at all it's a perfectly natural outgrowth of business. Business try to grow.They try to secure old customers well gaining new ones. They try to defeat competitors. I feel these are all commonly accepted Ideas.

I've already brought up what happened with firms like Standard Oil and U.S. Steel during the industrial revolution. They had several ways of beating rivals like buying up railroads and production facilities directly tied to their industry. That way they can produce cheaper goods and deny their competitors the ability to expand to other markets. Until eventually they dominate the production of whatever good they are selling and can set whatever price they please, even if it angers costumers. Well this may not happen with all products certain things like steel, oil, timber, and transportation services can all be easily monopolized with no recurse for consumers.

As far as monopolies being dependent on government support. I would again draw attention to the cartels for black market goods like drugs. Clearly these don't rely on a charter by the government. Although you could argue that a government must first outlaw said product, but that's not the same as gaining an official charter.

Trade unions seem like they would be almost impossible to stop in many professions. Let's look at medicine, there would in all likely hood an association of doctors that would provide certifications, fix prices, training, supplies, and they would make a handsome profit by referring costumers to each other and splitting the money. This isn't necessarily bad, but it could lead to abuses like ordering unnecessary surgeries, selling the most expensive medicine, and without government oversight incompetent doctors. Fixed prices would probably drive many poor people to incompetent and untrained doctors. And without government oversight their is nothing to prevent doctors and pharmaceutical companies from getting extremely cozy with each other (well, even more so than right now).

I don't believe any of these concepts are anti-empirical or new speak. I would be interested in how you would reconcile any of these problems. I just can't see how capitalism and libertarianism can actually go together in a way that benefits anyone besides the capitalists themselves. Nobody has described any solutions besides a court process that in all likely hood would be bent in corporations' and their team of lawyers favor.

[Rothbardian]

Not at all it's a perfectly natural outgrowth of business. Business try to grow.They try to secure old customers well gaining new ones. They try to defeat competitors. I feel these are all commonly accepted Ideas.

I've already brought up what happened with firms like Standard Oil and U.S. Steel during the industrial revolution. They had several ways of beating rivals like buying up railroads and production facilities directly tied to their industry. That way they can produce cheaper goods and deny their competitors the ability to expand to other markets. Until eventually they dominate the production of whatever good they are selling and can set whatever price they please, even if it angers costumers. Well this may not happen with all products certain things like steel, oil, timber, and transportation services can all be easily monopolized with no recurse for consumers.

As far as monopolies being dependent on government support. I would again draw attention to the cartels for black market goods like drugs. Clearly these don't rely on a charter by the government. Although you could argue that a government must first outlaw said product, but that's not the same as gaining an official charter.

Trade unions seem like they would be almost impossible to stop in many professions. Let's look at medicine, there would in all likely hood an association of doctors that would provide certifications, fix prices, training, supplies, and they would make a handsome profit by referring costumers to each other and splitting the money. This isn't necessarily bad, but it could lead to abuses like ordering unnecessary surgeries, selling the most expensive medicine, and without government oversight incompetent doctors. Fixed prices would probably drive many poor people to incompetent and untrained doctors. And without government oversight their is nothing to prevent doctors and pharmaceutical companies from getting extremely cozy with each other (well, even more so than right now).

I don't believe any of these concepts are anti-empirical or new speak. I would be interested in how you would reconcile any of these problems. I just can't see how capitalism and libertarianism can actually go together in a way that benefits anyone besides the capitalists themselves. Nobody has described any solutions besides a court process that in all likely hood would be bent in corporations' and their team of lawyers favor.

Its unfortunate that you dont understand the role government plays with the black market.

Standard oil is one business out of countless businesses, and one monopoly out of more than I can count. A government is itself a monopoly, and the source of nearly all monopolies that have existed.

Companies do not naturally form monopolies, as long as there are no barriers to entry there will be competitors. Even on the off chance one does emerge, like standard oil, there's no exploitation possible. When standard oil tried raising prices it opened the door for competitors and its monopoly was finished.

even oligopolies are near impossible without the state filling this role. Considerable research has been done on finding ways to get people to cooperate without competing with each other even within the same company and its nearly impossible. I have to assume you've never met anyone that works in sales.

[Americanroyalty]

Its unfortunate that you dont understand the role government plays with the black market.

I just said governments create them by outlawing certain goods. It was just an example of of a cartel forming without government approval.

A government is itself a monopoly, and the source of nearly all monopolies that have existed.

Well yeah, point the point is governments are accountable to it's citizen's (In theory at least). Whereas a multinational doing business in a place like panama is not accountable to anyone besides their shareholders.

Companies do not naturally form monopolies, as long as there are no barriers to entry there will be competitors.

Historically that's not the case at all. Look at corporations from the earliest days of colonization up to the industrial revolution, the drive has always been to find a way to corner a market. Thus Guaranteeing maximum profits.

Even on the off chance one does emerge, like standard oil, there's no exploitation possible.

I think there is plenty of opportunity for exploitation, pharmaceutical use patents to price gouge costumers since they've cornered the market for that particular drug. Let's say you then get rid of patents (or severly curtail how long they last) as some people have suggested on this thread. Then a company like Merck just buys up all the drug stores, so that only their products are served. Let's say you then make it so that all pharmacies are community owned (though that's not very Libertarian of you) than Merck just has to corner the transportation market so that only their products are sold to the stores. I could go on but a powerful corporation can find an almost infinite number of ways to corner market. Especially when theres millions/billions of dollars on the line.

When standard oil tried raising prices it opened the door for competitors and its monopoly was finished.

No, reading more it seems like standard oil just wash't able to expand fast enough in places like Texas. Large Corporations have handy way to deal with that though as all they have to do is start buying up the smaller firms in key positions in the industry. Though to your point they where finished after the Government broke them up.

Considerable research has been done on finding ways to get people to cooperate without competing with each other even within the same company and its nearly impossible. I have to assume you've never met anyone that works in sales.

That's about individuals competing against each other within one company which would actually be a good thing since it promotes more productivity. These employees would still be hidebound to the companies rules and prices (they can't undercut each other without corporate say so). It's not true competition because anyone outside of the corporation would be crushed.

[Eran]

I've already brought up what happened with firms like Standard Oil and U.S. Steel during the industrial revolution. They had several ways of beating rivals like buying up railroads and production facilities directly tied to their industry. That way they can produce cheaper goods and deny their competitors the ability to expand to other markets. Until eventually they dominate the production of whatever good they are selling and can set whatever price they please, even if it angers costumers. Well this may not happen with all products certain things like steel, oil, timber, and transportation services can all be easily monopolized with no recurse for consumers.

Actually, this has never ever happened. There isn't a single historic case in which a private monopoly (not assisted by government-granted special privilege) has caused consumer prices to go up. What would-be monopolists found was that as soon as they tried to take advantage of their so-called monopoly, small or marginal competitors would rise and under-cut their prices.

Firms only managed to grow and acquire a large market-share by keeping consumer prices consistently low.

In fact, none of the successful prosecutions under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act even claimed that consumer prices were raised. Under-cutting competitors by "dumping" is a much more common complaint.

Another, related fact is that anti-trust prosecutions have almost invariably been initiated by (less successful) competitors. Never by consumers.

[lucky]

In fact, none of the successful prosecutions under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act even claimed that consumer prices were raised.

Hmm?
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f243500/243520.htm

From on or about September 14, 2001, until on or about December 1, 2006, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, coconspirators of the defendants, LG Display Co., Ltd., formerly known as LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL"), LG Display America, Inc., Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. ("Chunghwa"), and other corporations and individuals, entered into and engaged in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the prices of thin-film transistor liquid crystal display panels ("TFT-LCDs") in the United States and elsewhere. The combination and conspiracy engaged in by the defendants, their corporate employers, and other coconspirators was in unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1).

News article about this instance: http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/16/technology/lcd-class-action-settlement/index.htm

For more than eight years, many of the world's biggest technology manufacturers allegedly colluded to inflate prices for the liquid crystal display (LCD) screens used in televisions, computer monitors, and laptops. Last week, three of them agreed to a $571 million settlement, the latest in a string of deals with payouts that now top $1.1 billion.

Technically a settlement, but I'd say a settlement total of $1.1 billion is a successful prosecution.

[Eran]

Perhaps I was rash in claiming that government prosecutors never even claimed inflated prices. I should have said that government prosecutors have never proved a claim of inflated prices.

Having said that, and looking carefully at the references you provided, is there anything in the prosecution's documents (as opposed to the newspaper article) that even suggests that prices were elevated (as opposed to "fixed")?

For example, is there any evidence that during the period covered by the indictment (2001-2006), the price of TFT-LCD displays didn't actually declined?

The facto of a plea-bargain is, of course, completely meaningless. Anti-trust statutes are so broad that merely having certain types of discussions with competitors is enough to get you convicted, regardless of whether those discussions actually ended up harming trade (not to mention consumers).

[lucky]

Perhaps I was rash in claiming that government prosecutors never even claimed inflated prices. I should have said that government prosecutors have never proved a claim of inflated prices.
Having said that, and looking carefully at the references you provided, is there anything in the prosecution's documents (as opposed to the newspaper article) that even suggests that prices were elevated (as opposed to "fixed")?

I think you are rash in making up broad claims without possessing evidence for them.

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f286900/286934_1.pdf

The conspiracy affected every family, school, business, charity, and government agency that paid more to purchase notebook computers, computer monitors, and LCD televisions during the conspiracy.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/12/12-60704-CV0.wpd.pdf

First, the complaint: When the State sued the LCD manufacturers, its claim was that the manufacturers had engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices for LCD panels and that their conduct artificially inflated prices, which harmed the consumers who were forced to pay higher prices.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/December/12-at-1513.html

AU Optronics Corp., based in Hsinchu, Taiwan, and its American subsidiary, AU Optronics Corp. America, headquartered in Houston, were found guilty on March 13, 2012, following an eight-week trial. Former AU Optronics Corp. president Hsuan Bin Chen and former AU Optronics Corp. executive vice president Hui Hsiung were also found guilty at that time.[...]
“This international price-fixing conspiracy impacted countless American consumers by raising the price of computer monitors, notebooks and televisions containing LCD panels,” said Scott D. Hammond, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement program. [...]
Chen and Hsiung were each sentenced to serve three years in prison and to each pay a $200,000 criminal fine.

I repeat in case you missed it: "sentenced to serve three years in prison and to each pay a $200,000 criminal fine".

[Eran]

Fair enough.

Federal prosecutors do, from time to time, claim that anti-trust violations cause higher consumer prices.

I stand by my secondary assertion, though, that such causal relations (i.e. anti-trust violations actually cause higher consumer prices are never proved. Nor does the law require that they are proven for a successful prosecution to take place. Hence the plea bargain (or even a guilty jury verdict) does nothing to prove your point.

I'd venture to guess that most anti-trust prosecutions actually take place during historic periods at which the price of the products in question is declining.

[Rothbardian]

I just said governments create them by outlawing certain goods. It was just an example of of a cartel forming without government approval.

A government doesn't have to 'approve'. It's exactly the same concept with black markets. The government sets up barriers to entry, in the case of illicit substances, extreme barriers to entry into the market. I can't open a marijuana and heroin shop now can I?

Well yeah, point the point is governments are accountable to it's citizen's (In theory at least). Whereas a multinational doing business in a place like panama is not accountable to anyone besides their shareholders.

Government accountability is a myth, and a rather silly one, as is the idea that governments hold business accountable. Like any cartel, governments hold the enemies of their friends accountable.

Historically that's not the case at all. Look at corporations from the earliest days of colonization up to the industrial revolution, the drive has always been to find a way to corner a market. Thus Guaranteeing maximum profits.

Obviously any business wants to maximize market share. It's interesting that you use corporations as an example though. You realize limited liability laws were created by THE GOVERNMENT, right? At the behest of opportunists? The government is where opportunists always look to support monopolization. Why do you think it is that the more involved Wall Street gets involved in government, the bigger government gets? If they felt a free market would allow that ultimate monopolization goal, they'd be using all that money and influence to create a minarchy or even an anarchy, yet this has never been the case anywhere.

When I say 'natural', I'm referring to a free market. There are extremely few examples of free market monopolies, and many, many examples of state created monopolies.

I think there is plenty of opportunity for exploitation, pharmaceutical use patents to price gouge costumers since they've cornered the market for that particular drug. Let's say you then get rid of patents (or severly curtail how long they last) as some people have suggested on this thread. Then a company like Merck just buys up all the drug stores, so that only their products are served. Let's say you then make it so that all pharmacies are community owned (though that's not very Libertarian of you) than Merck just has to corner the transportation market so that only their products are sold to the stores. I could go on but a powerful corporation can find an almost infinite number of ways to corner market. Especially when theres millions/billions of dollars on the line.

So you buy up every drug store there is...and then what? What do you get for all your money, with no state there to stop more from coming out of the wood work? Again, this has NEVER happened without a state involved. And without limited liability laws, the owners of that corporation have NO PROTECTION from lawsuits.

No, reading more it seems like standard oil just wash't able to expand fast enough in places like Texas. Large Corporations have handy way to deal with that though as all they have to do is start buying up the smaller firms in key positions in the industry. Though to your point they where finished after the Government broke them up.

You can dress it up any way you like but the fact remains, the few times Standard Oil tried to price gouge they lost their monopoly. And the government didn't break them up, it was still the same company owned by the same people, just under different names.

That's about individuals competing against each other within one company which would actually be a good thing since it promotes more productivity. These employees would still be hidebound to the companies rules and prices (they can't undercut each other without corporate say so). It's not true competition because anyone outside of the corporation would be crushed.

Having competing sales agents going after the same business drives prices DOWN (don't go to him, I'll give you a better price!) which is typical of competition. And a horrible turn of events for the consumer according to keynesians.