5 ms·

> Where it's not true: companies exist through free agreements between people. Works mainly in a more or less equal society of small businesses. I can certainl

> Where it's not true: companies exist through free agreements between people. Works mainly in a more or less equal society of small businesses. I can certainly decide which restaurant to eat at. In practice, you aren't free to not do business with certain large corporations. > You might argue that they aren't free enough, although that gets vague fast It's in the vagueness that the problem exists, so we shouldn't sweep it away just because there's a lack of clear lines. > but you can't opt out of the state You can't, and that's why the state has a lot of the same issues as the large corporates.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> In practice, you aren't free to not do business with certain large corporations. This is true with geographic monopolies, e.g. a company that owns water delivery pipes to people's houses. It isn't great, and suffers from the same lack of positive incentives as other geographic monopolies such as regional and national government. Even more, because at least you can vote out a tiny fraction of the latter. But this is relatively minimal, and those companies often get nationalised, as they are utilities. That doesn't make them good; it just means that they are grouped in with the state.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  It's true outside of natural monopolies, too, at least in the US. I can make a pretty long list of companies that I object to doing business with, but I have no other choice than to continue to do business with them.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    No other choice, or no better choice?
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      Sometimes no other choice at all, sometimes no other feasible choice.
randomdata 3y ago
> I can certainly decide which restaurant to eat at. While you may technically be able to choose to eat at the restaurant some guy operates out of his house, someone is no doubt breaking the law in that transaction, even when all parties involved are consenting. The presence of a market does not necessarily imply that it is free.

robertlagrant 3y ago

> In practice, you aren't free to not do business with certain large corporations. This is true with geographic monopolies, e.g. a company that owns water delivery pipes to people's houses. It isn't great, and suffers from the same lack of positive incentives as other geographic monopolies such as regional and national government. Even more, because at least you can vote out a tiny fraction of the latter. But this is relatively minimal, and those companies often get nationalised, as they are utilities. That doesn't make them good; it just means that they are grouped in with the state.

JohnFen 3y ago
It's true outside of natural monopolies, too, at least in the US. I can make a pretty long list of companies that I object to doing business with, but I have no other choice than to continue to do business with them.
- randomdata 3y ago
  No other choice, or no better choice?
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Sometimes no other choice at all, sometimes no other feasible choice.

randomdata 3y ago

> I can certainly decide which restaurant to eat at. While you may technically be able to choose to eat at the restaurant some guy operates out of his house, someone is no doubt breaking the law in that transaction, even when all parties involved are consenting. The presence of a market does not necessarily imply that it is free.