5 ms·
Without network neutrality legislation, an incumbent can simply pay for the privilege of having no viable competitors. Is there a strain of capitalism that does
by prodigal_erik 14y ago
Without network neutrality legislation, an incumbent can simply pay for the privilege of having no viable competitors. Is there a strain of capitalism that doesn't hold it critically important that new entrants should have unfettered access to the market?
- baddox 14y ago> an incumbent can simply pay for the privilege of having no viable competitors. Pay who exactly? They could pay the government, of course, and that's usually how things go, but that's what I am opposed to. > Is there a strain of capitalism that doesn't hold it critically important that new entrants should have unfettered access to the market? It depends on your definition of "unfettered access." Most capitalists, for example, are fine with the failure of a competitor who has no idea how to run a business, even though his incompetence certainly fetters him. Pro-capitalists are generally strong advocates of private property, so the only types of fettering they would oppose would be violations of property rights (like theft, assault, or threats thereof). Simply using capital to one's advantage and to the disadvantage of one's competitors is, as the name suggests, not generally considered a bad thing in capitalism.