This makes me think that without the state billionaires would almost not exist. I guess they could but would most likely not. I think society puts a lot these people on a pedestal as to aspire to, but it seems the reality is that any mega success they have had was compounded or propped up by government intervention.
Precisely. The irony is that those who hate wealth inequality the most tend to fall for the knee-jerk reaction of petitioning government to solve it when it’s government that created it in the first place
The state-based society, has, thus far outcompeted the stateless model for society. To build a "decentralized" model, one must make sure that the mechanisms of centralization are not built in, or you will lose what you have built. In the market economy, and especially with industries that are in their infancy, there are mechanisms built in that will centralize power. These entities have an explicit interest in crushing competitors, and the same is true of many states. To do what you suggest, you're gonna need to check power concentration.
There are zero mechanisms in the free-market economy that centralize "power." If anything, free-market competition is the great equalizer. The only mechanism for centralizing power is government, The only think that checks centralization is free-market competition. It's economics 101. The appeal to tradition fallacy "state-based society, has, thus far outcompeted the stateless model for society" is void. For the vast majority of human existence there have been slaves, child soldiers and child sacrifices. So what? People just don't know better. Appeals to tradition hold us back.
So you would say that there are zero mechanisms in a free-market economy that lead to the formation of monopoly or oligopolies? Who wields the power of government? Who centralized it, who finances its politicians? As for the stateless vs state based society, I have not advocated for the state, I am merely pointing out the fact that the stateless societies have, thus far, been taken down by the stated societies. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between empirical observation and, what you may refer to as tradition.
Motte and bailey fallacy. No, there are absolutely no mechanisms that lead to monopoly in a free market. None. Yes, instances of statelessness have eventually been taken over by the cancer of the state. This is an argument against the state. People need to know how statelessness can work with decentralized self-governance. If you take the time to read what many of us write about, you might discover something, a realization.
Ok, it is apparent to me that we will have to start with definitions. What do you consider to be a "free market?" Is it something that makes these rules not apply: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7szPBZxBIg4
Excellent dive government (state)= force/violence. Governments should not be involved in money,the fed ( private monopoly) should be shuttered
I’m glad this resonates with you.
Completely
This makes me think that without the state billionaires would almost not exist. I guess they could but would most likely not. I think society puts a lot these people on a pedestal as to aspire to, but it seems the reality is that any mega success they have had was compounded or propped up by government intervention.
Precisely. The irony is that those who hate wealth inequality the most tend to fall for the knee-jerk reaction of petitioning government to solve it when it’s government that created it in the first place
well written. good points. very david friedman anarcho-capitolist vibes
I’m very glad we see eye to eye on this. Thank you
The state-based society, has, thus far outcompeted the stateless model for society. To build a "decentralized" model, one must make sure that the mechanisms of centralization are not built in, or you will lose what you have built. In the market economy, and especially with industries that are in their infancy, there are mechanisms built in that will centralize power. These entities have an explicit interest in crushing competitors, and the same is true of many states. To do what you suggest, you're gonna need to check power concentration.
There are zero mechanisms in the free-market economy that centralize "power." If anything, free-market competition is the great equalizer. The only mechanism for centralizing power is government, The only think that checks centralization is free-market competition. It's economics 101. The appeal to tradition fallacy "state-based society, has, thus far outcompeted the stateless model for society" is void. For the vast majority of human existence there have been slaves, child soldiers and child sacrifices. So what? People just don't know better. Appeals to tradition hold us back.
So you would say that there are zero mechanisms in a free-market economy that lead to the formation of monopoly or oligopolies? Who wields the power of government? Who centralized it, who finances its politicians? As for the stateless vs state based society, I have not advocated for the state, I am merely pointing out the fact that the stateless societies have, thus far, been taken down by the stated societies. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between empirical observation and, what you may refer to as tradition.
Motte and bailey fallacy. No, there are absolutely no mechanisms that lead to monopoly in a free market. None. Yes, instances of statelessness have eventually been taken over by the cancer of the state. This is an argument against the state. People need to know how statelessness can work with decentralized self-governance. If you take the time to read what many of us write about, you might discover something, a realization.
Ok, it is apparent to me that we will have to start with definitions. What do you consider to be a "free market?" Is it something that makes these rules not apply: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7szPBZxBIg4