125
Why there are no warlords in anarcho-capitalism.
(hexbear.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
125 points (99.2% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15912 readers
463 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
How do they figure? I'm not up to date on my ancap "theory"
Vibes
Pure ignorance about monopolies. They see monopolies controlling the US government and they think that the government is the problem and that without government monopolies can't form because a monopoly controlling the market will then manipulate the government into giving them free money, therefore...monopolies can't exist without a government because who else would they extract wealth from?
I...think. I'm not sure. Every ancap I've spoken too knows nothing about groups like the East India Company or factory towns in the US, they're completely and utterly ignorant about government's interaction with private companies. Which makes sense, considering their political ideas.
Yeah that's basically right. The idea is that a monopoly represents a market failure in the technical sense--it's a condition in which the free market is failing to efficiently allocate resources. It's basically an article of faith for these guys that all market failures are the result of distortions caused by government interference into market functioning, since they think that by definition free markets always allocate goods and services in the maximally efficient way. Therefore, if you get rid of government, there will be no distortions, and thus no monopoly (or other market failures). They think that if a monopoly ever started to form in the absence of a government, a scrappy young entrepreneur would just found a company to outcompete the monopolist.
Because that would so clearly ruin every other part of their ideology