[Americanroyalty]

Government accountability is a myth, and a rather silly one, as is the idea that governments hold business accountable. Like any cartel, governments hold the enemies of their friends accountable.

Agreed, but I'm still not seeing how Libertarianism will hold businesses accountable.

When I say 'natural', I'm referring to a free market. There are extremely few examples of free market monopolies, and many, many examples of state created monopolies.

How many totally free markets are there in this day and age.

You can dress it up any way you like but the fact remains, the few times Standard Oil tried to price gouge they lost their monopoly. And the government didn't break them up, it was still the same company owned by the same people, just under different names.

As I've said they just were not able to expand into the much more lucrative oil fields in the southwest. And of course their gonna be run by the same people it's not like the government is gonna seize their assets.

Having competing sales agents going after the same business drives prices DOWN (don't go to him, I'll give you a better price!) which is typical of competition. And a horrible turn of events for the consumer according to keynesians.

Yes, but I was saying that if the two salesmen collude together and with the suppliers they can set the prices at whatever they want and nobody can compete. Because they won't have access to the supply without joining the Cartel.

[Rothbardian]

Agreed, but I'm still not seeing how Libertarianism will hold businesses accountable.

Going to reply to this point because I think it encompasses pretty much everything else.

Yes you do. You live the 99% of your life you don't spend participating in government by voting by using ostracism rather than violence.

How do you prevent me from becoming incredibly verbally abusive over this forum? Even if moderators wouldn't ban me (rather than come to my house with guns), I'd lose all credibility with you and everyone else here. You've got plenty of competing forum members available to discuss with after all.

[Americanroyalty]

Going to reply to this point because I think it encompasses pretty much everything else.

Yes you do. You live the 99% of your life you don't spend participating in government by voting by using ostracism rather than violence.

How do you prevent me from becoming incredibly verbally abusive over this forum? Even if moderators wouldn't ban me (rather than come to my house with guns), I'd lose all credibility with you and everyone else here. You've got plenty of competing forum members available to discuss with after all.

True but the mods are still there to stop someone from being verbally abused by a group of people. And we also need mods to keep the forum free of spammers and idiots who spew out stupid insults no matter what the topic. I think this forum would have collapsed without the mods keeping a handle on things.

[Eran]

This forum is private property. It belongs to Siberian Fox, and with the owner lies the ultimate power to set and enforce rules.

Rather than give an example of a single member on the forum becoming abusive, a more relevant case would be if the forum owners became abusive themselves. Would we then need government to step in? Of course not. The users would simply move to a different forum.

The same principle would answer your question regarding business accountability.

The answer lies with consumers. As long as property rights are protected (either by a minimal government or without one), businesses are, at the end of the day, accountable to their consumers.

[Rothbardian]

True but the mods are still there to stop someone from being verbally abused by a group of people. And we also need mods to keep the forum free of spammers and idiots who spew out stupid insults no matter what the topic. I think this forum would have collapsed without the mods keeping a handle on things.

Yep there are mods too. Another example of non government enforcement of rules. And they don't even need guns. Amazing.

[Lexington]

The users would simply move to a different forum.

As an example of barriers to entry...

If I started a competing forum (not that such a thing could even possibly exist) with modestly improved features, the forum here has a lively community that won't simply go to another forum just because it's nicer. The value the forum has is a kind of rent about it since it has an established community. The situation here would have to be so bad, or the situation there so much better that people actually move. And actually it's rather telling, since moving on the internet is financially costless.

I had the same problem when I worked at a startup - we had a clever idea, but we realized that we were more or less competing with Facebook. To actually get live bodies on our site we would have to offer something so much more attractive or so niche that...basically it exceeds the cost of waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and monitoring for your friends to join - or creating a feature so attractive that you feel engaged to get all of your friends to join. The latter is obviously clearer, but creating such a feature is...a remarkable thing.

Not to mention...you wouldn't actually be allowed to promote another forum on here to start with.

Barriers to entry.

[Eran]

Indeed.

We often discuss hypotheticals in simple terms. There is no doubt that if the owners of this forum got sufficiently abusive for sufficiently long time, the community would evaporate. Perhaps it will re-establish itself on a different forum or perhaps it won't.

In practice, such changes are slow, uncertain, and effect different people at different times.


Keep in mind, of course, that the same information barriers and network effects impact affairs under any conceivable alternative.

[Rothbardian]

As an example of barriers to entry...

If I started a competing forum (not that such a thing could even possibly exist) with modestly improved features, the forum here has a lively community that won't simply go to another forum just because it's nicer. The value the forum has is a kind of rent about it since it has an established community. The situation here would have to be so bad, or the situation there so much better that people actually move. And actually it's rather telling, since moving on the internet is financially costless.

I had the same problem when I worked at a startup - we had a clever idea, but we realized that we were more or less competing with Facebook. To actually get live bodies on our site we would have to offer something so much more attractive or so niche that...basically it exceeds the cost of waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and monitoring for your friends to join - or creating a feature so attractive that you feel engaged to get all of your friends to join. The latter is obviously clearer, but creating such a feature is...a remarkable thing.

Not to mention...you wouldn't actually be allowed to promote another forum on here to start with.

Barriers to entry.

Thats not a barrier to entry. The trouble with new business is that you are an unknown. Despite what some sophists would have you believe, people put considerable value into reputation and if you're new, you have none. So the onus is on you to convince people that they really are better off with you. Your forum may offer advantages, but I know what to expect here.

This is why businesses care so much about reputation and will work so hard to serve customers. Of course if there were ACTUAL barriers to entry then I dont need to worry about you ever entering into the equation and as a consequence, I dont have to care about my patrons.

Applying this concept to government elucidates its inherently abusive and corrupt nature.

[Eran]

I think it is fair to call those "barriers to entry", as long as we understand that such barriers are not insurmountable, but rather place some burden on a new competitor.

To be clear, there are always some barriers to entry. In any arena. In fact, if we consider the political arena as a partial alternative to the market (in terms of where and how decisions are made within society), we will note how much higher the barriers to entry are into politics.

Just consider third parties (or unaffiliated candidates) in the US...

[Rothbardian]

I think it is fair to call those "barriers to entry", as long as we understand that such barriers are not insurmountable, but rather place some burden on a new competitor.

To be clear, there are always some barriers to entry. In any arena. In fact, if we consider the political arena as a partial alternative to the market (in terms of where and how decisions are made within society), we will note how much higher the barriers to entry are into politics.

Just consider third parties (or unaffiliated candidates) in the US...

I wouldnt call anything that does not actually prevent you from creating a business a barrier to entry. Any business no matter how new or how old can potentially fail due to disinterest from potential consumers. Existing businesses only have an additional benefit from reputation. That in no way prevents you from making the attempt.

I understand that this is the norm in the restaurant business. Opening a new restaurant means taking a loss for years until the public discovers you. How does that block you from making the attempt?

[lucky]

I wouldnt call anything that does not actually prevent you from creating a business a barrier to entry.

Then you're not using standard economic terms. A fixed cost is a barrier to entry.

I recommend a book on microeconomics, or at least lecture videos.

[Rothbardian]

Then you're not using standard economic terms. A fixed cost is a barrier to entry.

I recommend a book on microeconomics, or at least lecture videos.

Well golly gee, thankya kindley! Me n my kinfolk just aint too edufiscated. I hope their aint too many big words in them they're books!

[Someone5]

Well golly gee, thankya kindley! Me n my kinfolk just aint too edufiscated. I hope their aint too many big words in them they're books!

Well, you have misunderstood the concept of a barrier to entry at a fairly fundamental level. A barrier to entry is any basic cost which must be paid in order to successfully enter and compete in a market. Things like massive capital requirements for the purchase or building of car factories would be an example of a barrier to entry. The post that launched this tangent does indeed describe a scenario that might as well be a textbook example of a barrier to entry.

Your nonsense definition pretty much excludes any "barrier to entry" other than government fees and taxes, which is certainly nothing like the conventional view.

[Someone5]

I think it is fair to call those "barriers to entry", as long as we understand that such barriers are not insurmountable, but rather place some burden on a new competitor.

To be clear, there are always some barriers to entry. In any arena. In fact, if we consider the political arena as a partial alternative to the market (in terms of where and how decisions are made within society), we will note how much higher the barriers to entry are into politics.

Just consider third parties (or unaffiliated candidates) in the US...

You can certainly enter the political arena with a million dollar warchest in most of the country. That won't even get your feet wet in most capital-intensive industries.

[Eran]

You can certainly enter the political arena with a million dollar warchest in most of the country. That won't even get your feet wet in most capital-intensive industries.

You can only do that by joining one of the major parties. Kind-of the capitalist equivalent of buying a franchise, which doesn't require a million dollars.

If you want to make it big (the equivalent of "capital-intensive industries"), you need much more than a million dollars. In fact, we have seem billionaires failing despite having virtually-unlimited warchest.

Starting a successful third party? Virtually impossible.

Starting a major corporation? Not easy, but done time and time again.

[Americanroyalty]

The answer lies with consumers. As long as property rights are protected (either by a minimal government or without one), businesses are, at the end of the day, accountable to their consumers.

Well I agree with that we need a much more minimalist government. But there still is a place for it as it is a useful force for protecting citizens, mobilizing citizens for war, and writing/enforcing laws. I say all that well fully acknowledging that governments aren't alway capable of doing thus things. In which case you have a bad government that needs overthrowing.

[Eran]

I am an anarchist, and as such, believe that government is never just and rarely effective in what it does.

If you are not already a libertarian, it would be too difficult to persuade you that even a minimal government is worse than no government at all.

If you are a libertarian, we should talk.