When Can You Infringe On Others Choices?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is pure fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? IF the only way to have a monopoloy is through government intervention, why do we have antitrust laws? Explain to me how if I have the pricing power to make competition unprofitable that is fallacious to say that in effect, I have a monopoly?

[/ QUOTE ]

We have antitrust laws because government likes to intervene in markets. Simple. Antitrust laws almost exclusively benefit ONLY the competitors of the firms they are used against, and hurt competition in general.

They are not used against monopolies, because monopolies derrive their market dominance from government protection in the first place. Instead, they punish firms that achieve market dominance through successful competition. The elimination of competitors is NOT the same as the elimination of competition (only government itself can achieve that).


[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, natural monopoly is not a "manufactured" concept. You hurt your own credibility by claiming a term that is widely accepted by economists is an artificial creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're buying into myth. The theory of natural monopolies was developed (by interventionist economists) well after such monopolies were granted (for political reasons). The theory was then used to retroactively justify the government intervention.

The theory's suggestions are not bourne out by historical fact, either. There is no evidence that any firm has ever achieved long-term efficiency gains by being the only player in a given market. To the contrary, deregulation consistently brings more efficiency and lower prices to consumers.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're going down a rabbit hole here which really isnt germane to the topic. But I will let all my college professors I had while I was getting my degree that they are all buying into the myth of natural monopoly. Im sure they'll probably give up their PhDs when they realize this.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
jesus, come on, let's keep this on a higher level, is there any reason you couldn't say those who have power currently, then those plundering others. I'm doing my very best to keep this intelligent rather then start name calling, please do me the same courtesy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I read that as higher level, more honest, and more intelligent. You read it as lower level, less intelligent, name calling.

This should be easy. Do those who have power currently plunder?

The answer is yes or no.

See, it's not about honesty or intelligence -- it's about truth.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, natural monopoly is not a "manufactured" concept. You hurt your own credibility by claiming a term that is widely accepted by economists is an artificial creation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well ... "Capital Gains" is widely accepted by economists as well, widely accepted as an artificial creation of government. The fact that it's meaningless doesn't mean that it doesn't have meaning in context.

[Jdanz]

yes those in power do plunder, i'd agree to that, but the only difference is the connotation.

I think we'd have a better conversation if we try to detach the negative connotations from the words, and try to use words that are accurate but not inflamitory, when in fact the inflamitory words provide no better description of the ideas.

Again we all understand that those in power taking advantage is what you would call plunder, but as there is nothing gained by using the word plunder we can disagree without the flippent use of words simply meant to dig at people.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And somehow this is a bad thing in your view. What's the optimal amount of crime?

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure how you got that from my arguments. Im arguing at as crime goes down (due to the rising costs of commiting crime) than the profit margin becomes thinner and thinner for the private courts. This competition for the shrinking market (less crime remember) is going continueto spiral into a situation where at best one firm has the luck and/or savvy to survive. At this point, it actually makes more business sense for the now sole provider of adjudication to lower the price of crime in order to garner more profit. And oh by the way you have in effect created a pseudo state.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, reducing crime past a certain point has undesirable effects (according to you). I'm merely asking where you think the point is where further reductions in crime lead to more bad effects than good.

The fallacy is that there is no natural monopoly for legal services (EVEN if we allow for the existence of actual natural monopolies (which I don't)). The conditions that usually are used to justify the granting of a monopoly for "natural monopoly" reasons do not apply to legal court services. There aren't huge fixed costs that would (supposedly) be horrendously inefficient to reproduce. An arbitrator can set up shop in a private residence, or a rented storefront in a strip mall.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
We're going down a rabbit hole here which really isnt germane to the topic. But I will let all my college professors I had while I was getting my degree that they are all buying into the myth of natural monopoly. Im sure they'll probably give up their PhDs when they realize this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since it's so obvious, maybe you could provide an example where prices rose as a result of unfettered competition.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
yes those in power do plunder, i'd agree to that, but the only difference is the connotation.

I think we'd have a better conversation if we try to detach the negative connotations from the words, and try to use words that are accurate but not inflamitory, when in fact the inflamitory words provide no better description of the ideas.

Again we all understand that those in power taking advantage is what you would call plunder, but as there is nothing gained by using the word plunder we can disagree without the flippent use of words simply meant to dig at people.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Plunder" is only "offensive" if you are the one doing the plundering. What accurate term would you prefer? "Theft"? Any term we use to describe what's happening is going to be inflammatory, because it's a *crime* and people often get inflamed when they're being ripped off.

If the plunderers don't like being referred to in inflammatory terms, they should quit taking inflammatory actions.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Justice is the goal. Efficent delivery of justice is better than inefficient delivery, isn't it? Incorrect, corrupt, or otherwise bogus rulings are inefficient, aren't they?

[/ QUOTE ]
The answer to these questions is yes. Perhaps I posed the wrong question. I have a bad feeling about justice and efficiency as common goals -- their relationship seems to be inverse.

I think I'll abandon my stylist and find a good barber. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Jdanz]

hey pvn, you've got an ax to grind man.

plunder is a word with negative connotations POV doesn't really matter here, why not use the word "take" it gets the same meaning across.

Clearly i disagree with you on an incredible number of levels, but i'm going to try to do do so without being unneccissarily offensive.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
hey pvn, you've got an ax to grind man.

plunder is a word with negative connotations POV doesn't really matter here, why not use the word "take" it gets the same meaning across.

Clearly i disagree with you on an incredible number of levels, but i'm going to try to do do so without being unneccissarily offensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. I'll use "take" to avoid offending your delicate sensibilities. Are you a "taker"? I'm curious as to why you are so sensitive about this.

Anyway, backtracking to before this detour...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While you admit the new world won't be perfect you seem to think it will be better then this one in all aspects, which almost certainly must be false even if it might be a net benifit.

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly won't be better for everyone. Specifically, it will be much, much worse for those who unjustly take from others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Happier now?