The fraud of representative democracy. What about those who didn't vote them (the tyranny of the majority)? We, the common citizens, have really any power if our vote is secret?
The rights and obligations of a contractual act are generated by explicit consent of both members. This does not happen when we our vote is completely secret, without our names and surnames. Politicians are free to impose their monopolical powers, even if we don't choose them.
“Representative democracy is the illusion of universal participation in the use of institutional coercion."
We didn’t vote for the board of directors of private companies.
Because we shouldn't. Except for the lobbyists, they are using their private property and their factors of production achieved by social-cooperation.
There’s plenty of waste and corruption in private enterprise. It’s not voluntary if they lie cheat and steal just like bad politicians.
The only difference is that, in a free-market setting, they wouldn't have any monopolical privileges to mantain their economical power and reputation in the market, as their permanence is dependent of supply and demand.
The only difference is that, in a free-market setting, they wouldn’t have any monopolical privileges
You cant have a free market without a government enforcing anti monopoly laws.
You cant have a free market without a government enforcing anti monopoly laws.
A free market is not free at all if the government is stepping in any voluntary exchange.
The existence of "anti-monopoly" laws has caused more harm than good by protecting particular competitors, not competition. In fact, monopolies can only survive through government-grant privileges, for gaining legal rights to be a preferred producer is the only way to maintain a monopoly in a free-market setting.
"A market society needs no antitrust policy at all; indeed, the state is the very source of the remaining monopolies we see in education, law, courts, and other areas."
In fact, monopolies can only survive through government-grant privileges
This is just false. You dont understand economics at all if you dont understand how all free markets naturally devolve into monopolies. Yes, governments can also grant monopolies by force, but without antitrust laws literally every market becomes a monopoly.
You dont understand economics at all if you dont understand how all free markets naturally devolve into monopolies.
I'm a "follower" of the Austrian School of Economics, although the idea that monopolies are government-grant privileges was first originated by the economists of the classical school (and they were right).
Predatory pricing cannot be sustained over the long haul, and not even this should be regretted since it benefits the consumers. Attempted cartel-type behavior typically collapses, and where it does not, it serves a market function.
The definition of a monopoly by the idea of "monopoly price" has no effective meaning in free-market setting, which are not snapshots in time but processes of change.
I’m a “follower” of the Austrian School of Economics
Okay, so you admit you have no idea how economics work. That's really cool you're part of an economics fanfic club though.
Okay, so you admit you have no idea how economics work.
You're not even trying to counter-argue my argument.
The fraud of representative democracy. What about those who didn't vote them (the tyranny of the majority)? We, the common citizens, have really any power if our vote is secret?
The rights and obligations of a contractual act are generated by explicit consent of both members. This does not happen when we our vote is completely secret, without our names and surnames. Politicians are free to impose their monopolical powers, even if we don't choose them.
“Representative democracy is the illusion of universal participation in the use of institutional coercion."
Because we shouldn't. Except for the lobbyists, they are using their private property and their factors of production achieved by social-cooperation.
The only difference is that, in a free-market setting, they wouldn't have any monopolical privileges to mantain their economical power and reputation in the market, as their permanence is dependent of supply and demand.
You cant have a free market without a government enforcing anti monopoly laws.
A free market is not free at all if the government is stepping in any voluntary exchange.
The existence of "anti-monopoly" laws has caused more harm than good by protecting particular competitors, not competition. In fact, monopolies can only survive through government-grant privileges, for gaining legal rights to be a preferred producer is the only way to maintain a monopoly in a free-market setting.
"A market society needs no antitrust policy at all; indeed, the state is the very source of the remaining monopolies we see in education, law, courts, and other areas."
This is just false. You dont understand economics at all if you dont understand how all free markets naturally devolve into monopolies. Yes, governments can also grant monopolies by force, but without antitrust laws literally every market becomes a monopoly.
I'm a "follower" of the Austrian School of Economics, although the idea that monopolies are government-grant privileges was first originated by the economists of the classical school (and they were right).
Predatory pricing cannot be sustained over the long haul, and not even this should be regretted since it benefits the consumers. Attempted cartel-type behavior typically collapses, and where it does not, it serves a market function.
The definition of a monopoly by the idea of "monopoly price" has no effective meaning in free-market setting, which are not snapshots in time but processes of change.
Okay, so you admit you have no idea how economics work. That's really cool you're part of an economics fanfic club though.
You're not even trying to counter-argue my argument.
Stop being so based.
1st-world leftists are going to downvote you.