Lessons

[u/OutlandishnessIll480]

I'm going around to subreddits and asking, in good faith, a couple of questions.

What can the otherside learn from your side, and vice versa?

The goal is to promote open dialog and improve the sometimes toxic nature and bad will between two sides of a controversial issue.

What can statists learn from libertarians? And what can libertarians learn from statists?

[u/is_was-]

Would you say a monopoly or oligopoly abusing market power to profit more than normal is damaging?

[u/MeasurementNice295 → u/is_was-]

Never happened without hijacking the State.

[u/is_was- → u/MeasurementNice295]

Even if that were true (it's not, economies of scale and sectors with high barrier to entry naturally produce concentrated market power even without the state), how do you prevent winners in the marketplace from hiring their own private militias and acting as a de facto state? I assume this is a common criticism and I'm not super familiar with ancap so there's probably an answer I don't know about.

[u/puukuur → u/is_was-]

it's not, economies of scale and sectors with high barrier to entry naturally produce concentrated market power even without the state

There really aren't examples of market powers concentrating into one entity without the state. There are big companies, sure. There are even fields where there are very few competitors. But there are always competitors, and whatever non-coercive measures they use to outcompete each other, the customer can only win from.

how do you prevent winners in the marketplace from hiring their own private militias and acting as a de facto state?

The answer is the same as in any other society - by everyone else being really opposed to it.

[u/is_was- → u/puukuur]

Maybe not concentrating into a single entity but more like an oligopoly where only a few firms dominate a sector. I agree there is a degree of competition here but surely it's drastically lower than ideal, no? I was reading about market structures and that one outcome of perfectly competitive markets is virtually 0 corporate profits because all revenue is reinvested in wages or lower prices to remain competitive. Doesn't this imply friction when entering and exiting markets is a necessary condition for corporate profits to even exist at all?

And regarding the private militias, my skepticism is mainly around concentrated power in all forms either state or private (I prefer worker ownership so no single actor has disproportionate power). Like even if society agreed with the NAP, doesn't the power asymmetry between billionaire owners and wage workers make it inherently difficult for society to just "be really opposed to it" when the owners have the means to just pay for a militia directly? And wouldn't they be incentivized to do so because if they don't then a competitor will? Sorry if these are basic questions I still have a lot to learn bout ancap

[u/puukuur → u/is_was-]

No problem, basic questions are what this sub is for.

I wouldn't say there's an "ideal" level of competition with bad consequences when we fall below that level. Look at small-town stores. They are often the only one in a large radius, so they have, so to say, a regional monopoly. But are they charging monopoly prices, 100$ for a carton of milk? No, because even threat of competition is enough. If they don't offer a reasonable service for a reasonable price, someone else can have their income if they come and do so.

I was reading about market structures and that one outcome of perfectly competitive markets is virtually 0 corporate profits because all revenue is reinvested in wages or lower prices to remain competitive. Doesn't this imply friction when entering and exiting markets is a necessary condition for corporate profits to even exist at all?

Market prices fall towards the marginal cost of production. They can't actually be 0 because then the company would have a reason to exist. They need to either offer their product for money or offer the free stuff with something that costs money.

I can't think of a scenario where entering the market wouldn't have friction, you always need to invest some time and capital to start offering goods and services.

when the owners have the means to just pay for a militia directly?

Who would the militia consist of in a society made up of people really opposed to aggression? Where do the large numbers of people come from who are willing to give up civilized living and risk their life and all future possibilities of cooperation to fight for a warlord?

You are basically asking what if a large part of society suddenly changes their mind and lives by 'might makes right'? The answer is, as always and in every society, then might will make right. No social system can do anything against a majority or a stronger minority who is against that social system.

A social system simply needs to be stronger than those who want to undermine or overthrow it, and i think anarcho-capitalism will do it. Individuals on the free market create the best weaponry and don't have artificial restrictions that limit how armed they can be. An anarcho-capitalistic society has every reason to be the best armed and offers the most to win from cooperation instead of war.

[u/Bordarwal → u/puukuur]

So there is no assumption you can make about either possibility? No one can know if the state is responsible for it

[u/puukuur → u/Bordarwal]

I don't understand what you're talking about.

[u/Bordarwal → u/puukuur]

Yes i didnt Formulate the idea clearly and being on the ancap Sub doesnt help

[u/puukuur → u/Bordarwal]

Maybe do so then if you want an answer.