SA to ban cash sales of scrap metal to fight vandalism

Cray said:
lexity said:
Corporations would be impotent to do any damage, without their friends who occupy the State apparatus.
Click to expand...

More like

Corporations would be free to do all kinds of damage if they werent't constrained by government regulation
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This perfectly sums up the distinction between us.

You believe the State constrains would-be market cornerers.

I believe it enables them, ..... and that, without the State, there could be no such sustainable cartels/monopolies.

As I prove here....

lexity

Post in thread 'CapeXit 2'

So..... after some back and forth, refining the question that I put to chatgpt, I received the following response...

[...] if we define “sustainable” as long-term coercive market power, there is no well-documented example of a private coercive monopoly or cartel that survived for decades purely on private mechanisms without any government help.
Click to expand...

Full line of questioning, available on request.
  • Like

Iow, there has never been a coercive, sustainable cornered market, EVER, without government help. There are no examples throughout history to show a single one.
 
Banning it will do little. Same thing that happened with illegal cigarettes during the covid ban. The illegal trade will just take over and will provide less tax and more crime around it. In a country with this poor enforcement banning stuff does little.
 
lexity said:
This perfectly sums up the distinction between us.

You believe the State constrains would-be market cornerers.

I believe it enables them, ..... and that, without the State, there could be no such sustainable cartels/monopolies.

As I prove here....

lexity

Post in thread 'CapeXit 2'

So..... after some back and forth, refining the question that I put to chatgpt, I received the following response...

[...] if we define “sustainable” as long-term coercive market power, there is no well-documented example of a private coercive monopoly or cartel that survived for decades purely on private mechanisms without any government help.
Click to expand...

Full line of questioning, available on request.
  • Like

Iow, there has never been a coercive, sustainable cornered market, EVER, without government help. There are no examples throughout history to show a single one.
Click to expand...

Screenshot_20261012-124229_Chrome.jpg
 
lexity said:
Why?

Some libertarians are just not as vocal in using the term.

Ok, perhaps 'lurker' is the wrong term.

For want of a better one....
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's just that someone who doesn't post because they've passed on, isn't a lurker...
 
lexity said:
This perfectly sums up the distinction between us.

You believe the State constrains would-be market cornerers.

I believe it enables them, ..... and that, without the State, there could be no such sustainable cartels/monopolies.

As I prove here....

lexity

Post in thread 'CapeXit 2'

So..... after some back and forth, refining the question that I put to chatgpt, I received the following response...

[...] if we define “sustainable” as long-term coercive market power, there is no well-documented example of a private coercive monopoly or cartel that survived for decades purely on private mechanisms without any government help.
Click to expand...

Full line of questioning, available on request.
  • Like

Iow, there has never been a coercive, sustainable cornered market, EVER, without government help. There are no examples throughout history to show a single one.
Click to expand...
This is a very very weird use of the word "prove".

Let's play with this a little:

There's never been a single sustainable example of libertarianism. There are no examples throughout history to show a single one.

I guess I just proved it doesn't work by your logic?
 
porchrat said:
This is a very very weird use of the word "prove".

Let's play with this a little:

There's never been a single sustainable example of libertarianism, in the presence of government "help". There are no examples throughout history to show a single one.

I guess I just proved it doesn't work by your logic?
Click to expand...
Ftfy.

You're just showing that where there is a State there can be no sustainable liberty.

No arguments from me, there.

🤷‍♂️
 
lexity said:
Ftfy.

You're just showing that where there is a State there can be no sustainable liberty.

No arguments from me, there.

🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
No that part's specific to the example you provided. It's irrelevant to the one I provided. Your logical claim was that, because you could find no examples throughout history of something, that you've proven that something's not viable.

Following that same logic, because there are no successful examples of true libertarianism as you ascribe to, throughout history it's not viable.

Holy hell. Well done everybody. I guess lexity can pack it up and go home. By his own logic. Incredible.
 
porchrat said:
No that part's specific to the example you provided. It's irrelevant to the one I provided. Your logical claim was that, because you could find no examples throughout history of something, that you've proven that something's not viable.

Following that same logic, because there are no successful examples of true libertarianism as you ascribe to, throughout history it's not viable.
Click to expand...
The main proof is a priori.

You don't need empirical data for a priori knowledge.

Obviously - to most rational people - if the market is open to anyone to come take a fat bite out of the 'obscene' profits, it would happen, without the State being involved.

The result: lower prices and/or higher quality in goods and services..... to the consumers satisfaction.

The only way to stop it legally is to pass a law that looks like a consumer-protection law, on its face.

I only invited everyone to find an example, to add to the strength of the logical case.

If consumers can be duped into relinquishing responsibility for choosing winners, in a free market, well then you will have the State and corporate alliance forming... to the detriment of the citizen. (In modern terms, PPP... or public private partnership).

p.s. ^ this is the shorthand definition for Facism, as per the father of fascism, Mussolini.
 
lexity said:
The main proof is a priori.

You don't need empirical data for a priori knowledge.

Obviously - to most rational people - if the market is open to anyone to come take a fat bite out of the 'obscene' profits, it would happen, without the State being involved.

The result: lower prices and/or higher quality in goods and services..... to the consumers satisfaction.

The only way to stop it legally is to pass a law that looks like a consumer-protection law, on its face.

I only invited everyone to find an example, to add to the strength of the logical case.

If consumers can be duped into relinquishing responsibility for choosing winners, in a free market, well then you will have the State and corporate alliance forming... to the detriment of the citizen. (In modern terms, PPP... or public private partnership).

p.s. ^ this is the shorthand definition for Facism, as per the father of fascism, Mussolini.
Click to expand...
No need to try to deviate from your logic. Own it.

You've found no example throughout history of something, therefore it's not viable. This is incredible. Libertarianism isn't viable.

Don't get me wrong I think that's an absolutely batschit stupid argument, but this is your argument, not mine.
 
You can't have monopolies/cartels without aggression.

By definition, this is true. i.e. it is true a priori.

A monopoly or cartel implies the initiation of force, to achieve a cornered market i.e. lack of choice.

There is no other way to perpetually corner a market.

You need to abuse the legal system to do it.

It doesn't matter if the law doesn't tell you to your face what its real purpose is. i.e. it can be an ostensibly consumer-serving law. But if its effect is to protect some from open competition i.e. lowering of prices and general market clearance.... it is effectively doing the same thing i.e. protecting some producers at the expense of everyone else.
 
lexity said:
The main proof is a priori.

You don't need empirical data for a priori knowledge.

Obviously - to most rational people - if the market is open to anyone to come take a fat bite out of the 'obscene' profits, it would happen, without the State being involved.

The result: lower prices and/or higher quality in goods and services..... to the consumers satisfaction.

The only way to stop it legally is to pass a law that looks like a consumer-protection law, on its face.

I only invited everyone to find an example, to add to the strength of the logical case.

If consumers can be duped into relinquishing responsibility for choosing winners, in a free market, well then you will have the State and corporate alliance forming... to the detriment of the citizen. (In modern terms, PPP... or public private partnership).

p.s. ^ this is the shorthand definition for Facism, as per the father of fascism, Mussolini.
Click to expand...

There you have it folks, if electricity becomes too expensive someone will be along to build a competing power station and distribution grid in no time.

Trains getting expensive? No problem - someone will build another set of train lines, rolling stock and associated infrastructure.

But we can't have two, because that's a duopoly, so let's have 10 railway lines!
The market's invisible hand will sort it all out.

And that is why libertarians are chased by bears, and laughed at by everyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X