[Vesputin]

Monsanto would not want repeal of patents legislation, since it owns the patents.

Precisely.

So is it fair to blame the government for their regulations, in this case patents, for the creation of monopolies etc when that "intrusion" by the government is fully supported by those who benefit from such regulation?

It appears that amongst the last in the line to support "Free markets" are those who would otherwise you would be expecting be cheelreading them?

I mean, why bother with all that messy stuff such as competition when the government is there to give you a free ride?

[dwix]

So is it fair to blame the government for their regulations, in this case patents, for the creation of monopolies etc when that "intrusion" by the government is fully supported by those who benefit from such regulation?

Yes, that's the point. Merely because recipients of corporate welfare benefit from it does not make it just.

[PredatorOC]

Please name a perfect laissez faire economy, past or present, and then we can decide who is indulging in fantasy? If you cannot then capitalism is what it is and not what you would wish it to be. Monsanto's oligopoly/monopoly will then have everything to do with 'capitalism' as capitalism, the managed economy, is all there is.

Why do you insist on evading my question? How can Monsanto be a "capitalist" monopoly if it relies on legal monopolies?

No, that's how a free market would hypothetically correct a monopolistic situation, not how it would prevent one.

No, that is how a free market prevents a monopoly. For a monopoly to arise in absolutely free competition is almost impossible and would require a considerable efficiency advantage over the competition.

Consider the example of a massive car company monopoly

You go to great lengths to describe how this massive monopolistic car company holds sway over an economy, but you don't even bother addressing how such a monopolistic entity could come about.

So is it fair to blame the government for their regulations, in this case patents, for the creation of monopolies etc when that "intrusion" by the government is fully supported by those who benefit from such regulation?

What? Are you being serious? Did I log into some bizarro-PoFo where logic is optional?

Government regulates that I can rape you. So I rape you. I don't complain and fully support the regulation, so everything is kosher, right?

[ingliz]

How can Monsanto be a "capitalist" monopoly if it relies on legal monopolies?

If the capitalist state protects intellectual property rights then Monsanto is a capitalist monopoly. What is the difference if the monopoly is made possible by the state protecting private property or the state protecting intellectual property? They would both be 'legal monopoly' without antitrust legislation, a monopoly allowed by law, as all rights are legal rights.

[Vesputin]

Vesputin wrote:
So is it fair to blame the government for their regulations, in this case patents, for the creation of monopolies etc when that "intrusion" by the government is fully supported by those who benefit from such regulation?


What? Are you being serious? Did I log into some bizarro-PoFo where logic is optional?

Government regulates that I can rape you. So I rape you. I don't complain and fully support the regulation, so everything is kosher, right?

Maybe I should have explained that bit a little better.

Governments and business tend to be a little blurred at time, what with revolving doors and bribes, oops I mean "campaign contributions", and various other methods of government/business "interarctions".

So yes when there are regulations concerning patents, of course you can blame government for creating such legalities and enforcing them, but what is it called when those advocate greater freedoms in business but at the same time remain curiously quiet about certain government-enforced entities that greatly benefit them. Some may call that pick and choosing, 'inconsistences"; yes we want greater freedoms in operating and less government intrusion...but we'll keep those "intrusions" that ...er...benefit us.

So what is it, does the likes of Monsanto want "Free Markets", or don"t they?

[PredatorOC]

If the capitalist state protects intellectual property rights then Monsanto is a capitalist monopoly. What is the difference if the monopoly is made possible by the state protecting private property or the state protecting intellectual property? They would both be 'legal monopoly' without antitrust legislation, a monopoly allowed by law, as all rights are legal rights.

So the East India Company was a "capitalist" monopoly, right? The postal service in many countries is a "capitalist" monopoly, correct? No, don't answer. I'm through with this.

So what is it, does the likes of Monsanto want "Free Markets", or don"t they?

Seriously, I have no idea what your argument is. Or why Monsanto's opinion would make any difference.

[ingliz]

If the postal service is run on capitalist principles and the aim is to make a profit; where investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are primarily determined by the decisions of the customer in a market economy, or rather the owner's reactions to those decisions - What difference does it make if it belonged to government or a private owner? They would both be acting as capitalists.

[Vesputin]

So what is it, does the likes of Monsanto want "Free Markets", or don"t they?


Seriously, I have no idea what your argument is. Or why Monsanto's opinion would make any difference.

I thought the point was clear, how can a business like Monsanto claim they want freer markets and less government intrusion yet freely accept "intrusions" by the government when it suits them and keep a straight face.

The fact that I mention Monsanto is purely incidental, I chose that name because that was the name currently thrown about, so though why not? You could substitute it for any other name. It can also be applied to the current banking fiasco; I remember listening to Radio 4 before chrimble, talking about business issues of the day, "credit crunch", and the same voices who were saying that bankers should 'regulate" themselves and that the government should butt out were also the ones demanding the government plough more money into the banking sector more quickly. I suppose to pay for more speeches demanding that the government should leave them alone.

[dwix]

I thought the point was clear, how can a business like Monsanto claim they want freer markets and less government intrusion yet freely accept "intrusions" by the government when it suits them and keep a straight face.

It's irrelevant. Just because some corporations like being on top doesn't mean anything. Monsanto doesn't want freer markets, libertarians do. They're wrong, but not for that reason.

No, that is how a free market prevents a monopoly. For a monopoly to arise in absolutely free competition is almost impossible and would require a considerable efficiency advantage over the competition.

Okay, well.

1. Wouldn't a transition to a free market economy allow for such creation?
2. Why can't monopolies form based on new technology or innovation exist?

For the second example what of something like WAL*MART or Standard Oil? Why couldn't they form?

[Vesputin]

Just because some corporations like being on top doesn't mean anything. Monsanto doesn't want freer markets, libertarians do

I think that what I was trying to get at.

Cheerleaders and those they cheer for not exactly reading from the same script.

[PredatorOC]

Wouldn't a transition to a free market economy allow for such creation?

Are you referring to privatization? Yes, selling a government corporation with a legal monopoly will still be a monopoly when sold. Though the market will eventually wipe out the monopoly. And I'm not sure how you could blame the free market for such a monopoly.

Why can't monopolies form based on new technology or innovation exist?

I doubt there would be an innovation that couldn't be reverse-engineered or be acquired in some way. But could a new innovation lead to a temporary monopoly on the innovation? Sure, but in all likely hood it would be very brief.

what of something like WAL*MART or Standard Oil? Why couldn't they form?

Neither of those companies is/was a monopoly.

[ingliz]

Perfect laissez faire:

The problem is that capitalism, like socialism and just about every other 'ism', is based on property rights protected by the state. The state monopoly of violence is indispensable and that is why most libertarians are not anarchists (I would argue those that are are not capitalists). They are forced to support 'minimal statism', but as all government distorts the market, even minarchies raising revenue for very limited ends, libertarians are necessarily sabotaging their own ideal. I am not saying it's their fault; the paradox is capitalism cannot exist in an anarchy, it requires the state, but with the state/taxation there can never be perfect laissez faire. Given this, I don't know why we are wasting our time discussing the fantasy of perfect capitalism.

[Phred]

Finally, ingliz accurately represents an aspect of Capitalism. Take heed, fellow PoFoers - this is a first. Mark the day in your diaries.

Yes, it is true that Capitalism requires a state, albeit a minimal one severely limited in its areas of power, and yes, that is what differentiates Capitalists/Libertarians/Minarchists from Anarchists, including the hilariously misnamed "Anarcho-Capitalists". Ingliz correctly implies that Anarcho-Capitalism is an even sillier idea than Anarchism.

He then however marches straight ahead and proclaims that all government distorts "the market" because he has convinced himself that the minimal state required by Capitalism cannot be funded through non-coercive means. This is of course far from obvious.

Leaving aside purely voluntary funding methods such as bequeathments, state run lotteries, funding drives, advertising revenue from state-run media, contract insurance, entry and exit fees for non-citizens, etc., there are certain forms of tax which are avoidable, hence cannot be rightly termed "coercive". One which springs immediately to mind is an import tax on finished goods for which there are domestic alternatives. For example, consider the case of an Australian housewife (this hypothetical example presumes Australia has gone Capitalist) deciding how best to prepare her family's evening meal. She is faced with a wide array of choices, only one of which results in money being added to the coffers of the Australian minarchy:

- she can buy an imported frying pan with which to cook up some hamburgers, knowing in advance that some of the price she pays to the vendor will go straight to the Australian minarchy to support the functions of the police and courts and military. Or, if she opposes the idea of having some of that money end up funding the minarchy which protects her, she can:

- borrow a friend's frying pan
- rent a frying pan
- buy a frying pan made by an Australian firm
- attempt to persuade someone to donate to her a frying pan as a gift
- make her own frying pan
- prepare a meal which doesn't require a frying pan
- pay a caterer to come to her house and prepare the meal
- order the meal from a take-away restaurant
- go with her family to a sit-down restaurant
- attempt to persuade someone to donate to her family the evening's meal as a gift

I'm sure the readers of the thread can come up with even more alternatives. The above list is not intended to be exhaustive. The point here is that the desired end result - a fed family - can be accomplished in many ways without the housewife being required to deposit a single penny into the coffers of the State.

And of course, ingliz continues the tired old Collectivist schtick of damning the best for not being the perfect. He ignores the obvious - no system can be perfect when it is applied to and administered by imperfect beings. The fact of the matter is that even if some very minor violations of individual rights (i.e. additional, more coercive methods of taxation than the one I outline above) must sometimes be implemented (in times of invasion, perhaps, when extra funding is needed temporarily to beef up the military) in order to prevent collapse of the Minarchist State, this does nothing to invalidate the fact that Capitalism/Minarchism/Libertarian is the politico-economic system which violates human rights to the smallest possible degree. The fact that it is also the system which results in the greatest economic prosperity is merely icing on the cake.





Phred

[PredatorOC]

Yes, it is true that Capitalism requires a state

No, it doesn't. But there are caveats involved. One would be that transitioning from a current statist society to a free society would be almost impossible without massive human suffering and a very high possibility that a new state or several would emerge. Of course, current statist societies will eventually collapse and create said massive human suffering anyway.

Anarcho-Capitalism is an even sillier idea than Anarchism

You know, I'd like to hear arguments on this, instead of statements. Seems to me that everyone just automatically assumes that a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence is necessary.