3 ms·
Markets are, in a sense, defined by rules. Perhaps the argument goes better if you say competition without rules leads to mafia, ie., people stop competing and
by mjburgess 4y ago
Markets are, in a sense, defined by rules.
Perhaps the argument goes better if you say competition without rules leads to mafia, ie., people stop competing and form gangs -- since this is more efficient for them. These gangs then monopolise trade, and use violence to stop people competing with them.
If they disagree, you can always point to the state itself as an example. But likewise, without a winning mafia to set the rules, others arise quickly. No group wants to compete, the want to have already won.
- bostik 4y ago> No group wants to compete, they want to have already won. Or to put it another way: a capitalist fears nothing more than a truly well-functioning market.
- mjburgess 4y agoNo, because a capitalist (in the friedman, etc. sense) distinguishes between free markets and ancap-competition. A free market is a construct of a state with a functioning legal system, requiring as it does, property rights (, limited liability, etc.). Capitalism is not ancap libertarianism. Indeed, it seems quite clear that ancap is an iterative contradiction, as "rule-free competition" cannot produce free markets.
- lmm 4y agoThey don't "fear" it any more than you or I "fear" going into work every morning, but competing honestly in the market is how they benefit society, and monopoly rents are the carrot that they're chasing. It's up to us to get our money's worth out of them.