Capitalism!

[Mike D]

I agree, and I also learned that in my time as a member of God's Party™, but that's not a Capitalistic notion, but a modern Republican one.

Agreed!

[NotBlinded]

Okay...don't yell at me, I just want to ask something. If this is what happens when people are given free rides so-to-speak, then what makes us think that the people that are working for their money are actually going open food banks on their own in order to take care of the ones that can't? Are people with more money more caring about others? I mean, why would the wealthier people give if they didn't fell like it?

I would never yell at you NBB

 

There's really no guarantee that wealthy people are going to open food banks or do anything else, in fact some won't. Philanthropy is one of those things that appeals to some people and doesn't appeal to others. But, I think it also depends on the people who you say "can't" work. Why can't they? Is it because they don't want to, or because they have some disability? I think wealthy people are much more likely to give to people who truely can't work, vs someone who has, due to their own bad choices, ended up in that position. For example, if someone habitually uses drugs and alchohol or makes some other bad lifestyle choices and ends up disabled because of it, should I or anyone else feel obligated to support that person? I am not sure....

Oh good.

 

I'm just not to sure on the whole thing myself. I'm just afraid that in a truly capatalistic society, there will be those that die because they can't work due to injury or yeah, maybe even bad lifestyle choices.

 

I would have to look back in time to when the US didn't have any welfare programs or federal taxes and see how the poor lived. I am really not to informed on this.

 

Thanks for your answer!

[NotBlinded]

Okay...don't yell at me, I just want to ask something. If this is what happens when people are given free rides so-to-speak, then what makes us think that the people that are working for their money are actually going open food banks on their own in order to take care of the ones that can't? Are people with more money more caring about others? I mean, why would the wealthier people give if they didn't fell like it?

 

There is no guarantee, but that's not the point. Some people want to give, and others don't. But let's look at one of the richest women in the world...Oprah.

 

She has ridiculous amounts of money and does MORE good for people who are in need than any ten social programs set up by the government with taxation, and she wants to do it.

 

It's a simple principle that the more you invest in the people, the more you get back. She's popular, well-liked, rich, and happy. She makes other people feel good about themselves and helps everyone.

 

In a socialist society, her wealth would be redistributed equally among everyone so that everyone would be equal...nobody's different, nobody gets ahead, nobody strives to achieve because there's no reason to do so.

 

There's always exceptions to the rule, though. Personally, I would prefer to choose my own way of life than have a government dictate how I should live.

Yes, I am definately not for a purely socialist society, but pure capatialism scares me too. I don't know.

Thank you for your answer too!

[Asimov]

I'm just not to sure on the whole thing myself. I'm just afraid that in a truly capatalistic society, there will be those that die because they can't work due to injury or yeah, maybe even bad lifestyle choices.

 

There will those that die who can't work to injury or bad lifestyle choices in any economic system, nbbtb. This happens all the time, everywhere. It's a fact of life.

 

The question is, what gives personA the right to make personB sacrifice himself to care for personA?

[Casey]

If their bets win, they divide the spoils. If on the other hand they lose, when the value of the paper drops to nearly nothing, they can pay off their debts in worthless money.

 

No risk then. Right?

 

None, or very little. Hence Thomas Paine (from Dissertations on Government)

 

There are a set of men who go about making purchases upon credit, and buying estates they have not wherewithal to pay for; and having done this, their next step is to fill the newspapers with paragraphs of the scarcity of money and the necessity of a paper emission, then to have a legal tender under the pretence of supporting its credit, and when out, to depreciate it as fast as they can, get a deal of it for a little price, and cheat their creditors; and this is the concise history of paper money schemes.

 

This very thing had been seen towards the end of, and in the aftermath of, the American Revolution. It is recorded by some who lived at the time that creditors were often to be seen fleeing their debtors, some creditors even leaping out of windows to evade them. On the other hand debtors, if they caught up with their creditors would, in the words of one witness, proceed "to pay them without mercy" (in worthless Continental Dollars). That was because the Continentals were legal tender and their creditors were forced to accept these in payment of debts.

Casey

[Vigile]

Isn't pure laissez faire a pipe dream in the same way that pure libertarianism is though? A pure Adam Smith approach would end in a few monopolies locking out any competition.

 

And on a separate note, I find it interesting that so many rail against the type of social programs found in the US, when if SS were seperated out, the amount of spending on these programs is a pittance compared to military spending, corporate welfare, and farm subsidies. In order to truly make a dent on taxes and government spending, and as such provide more money for investment and for a strong economy and strong dollar, wouldn't it be best to focus on those areas that are dwarfing the teensy social programs first?

 

In fact, isn't focusing on the comparably small spending that goes toward social programs in the US playing right into the hands of those who are really first in line at the government feed trough? They get everyone fired up and indignant against minor problems while all the time they are raiding the bank.

[NotBlinded]

I'm just not to sure on the whole thing myself. I'm just afraid that in a truly capatalistic society, there will be those that die because they can't work due to injury or yeah, maybe even bad lifestyle choices.

 

There will those that die who can't work to injury or bad lifestyle choices in any economic system, nbbtb. This happens all the time, everywhere. It's a fact of life.

 

The question is, what gives personA the right to make personB sacrifice himself to care for personA?

I really can't honestly answer your question Asimov because I am torn on this.

 

I once wrote a paper in college about this and I'll have to see if I can find it, but it went something along the lines that there would be no need to make anyone give to anyone else in a perfect world where everyone were saints (figure of speech ). But, this isn't so and I even question myself if I would be willing to give if it wasn't taken from my paycheck every two weeks. The reason being is that I am removed from the suffering of others and when we are removed from it, we can't empathize with it. But, that doesn't remove it, or stop it, from being there.

 

I think I'll just read this thread and not post too much because I really have no answer.

[Vigile]

There will those that die who can't work to injury or bad lifestyle choices in any economic system, nbbtb. This happens all the time, everywhere. It's a fact of life.

 

The question is, what gives personA the right to make personB sacrifice himself to care for personA?

 

I can think of at least one practical benefit. If I live in a society that does not have a social safety net, then I will have a lingering fear that either I, or one of my loved ones may one day find myself/themselves destitute. Living in a society that has a social safety net would allow me to live with less anxiety.

[woodsmoke]

Isn't pure laissez faire a pipe dream in the same way that pure libertarianism is though? A pure Adam Smith approach would end in a few monopolies locking out any competition.

 

Exactly.

 

It's just like communism. Looks great on paper, and there really are good ideas within the philosophy, but in practice it will just never work. That's why, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, I feel it's best to sift the good from the bad and try to mix the best of several systems together into a more durable/reasonable hybrid.

[Asimov]

Isn't pure laissez faire a pipe dream in the same way that pure libertarianism is though? A pure Adam Smith approach would end in a few monopolies locking out any competition.

 

Would it? Unless these companies are coercing people into buying their products, monopolies couldn't occur. Since it's immoral to use coercion, I don't see why.

 

And on a separate note, I find it interesting that so many rail against the type of social programs found in the US, when if SS were seperated out, the amount of spending on these programs is a pittance compared to military spending, corporate welfare, and farm subsidies. In order to truly make a dent on taxes and government spending, and as such provide more money for investment and for a strong economy and strong dollar, wouldn't it be best to focus on those areas that are dwarfing the teensy social programs first?

 

Like I said, I'm not talking about the US.

[Lycorth]

Personally, I think the best kinds of human societies are not large nation-states like we have today, but smaller, more "tribal" groups - loosely united but overall independent. Smaller tribes that can choose how they want to run things, and avoid the confusion and problems that necessarily come with large nation-states.

 

Small tribes don't have to worry about national taxes, welfare, corporate monopolies, corrupt governments, and so on simply because there aren't that many people present and needing to be governed. It just seems to me that places with huge populations only breed huge problems.

 

Of course, there's no perfect solutions in the real world, no matter how nice things look on paper. And small tribal societies, no matter how moral or peaceful, I'd think would have difficulties with advanced research and development, things that usually require large amounts of resources and the cooperation of many people to make work.

 

However unclearly stated or off-topic, them's my two pennies.

[Mike D]

Would it? Unless these companies are coercing people into buying their products, monopolies couldn't occur. Since it's immoral to use coercion, I don't see why.

But what if it's a product or service that people depend on to run their lives, especially if it is in a capital intensive industry which just by nature would limit competition? Let's say all the regional oil companies were bought out by larger national players, and the larger players merged until there was only 1 huge company left called Chevron or Texaco or whoever, and they controlled all oil and gas? And lets assume the capital required for a new player to start up and compete with a monopoly of that size would be too cost prohibitive or financially risky, and nobody would back it. Not only would this company control the entire market, but whatever they do would have a huge ripple effect throughout the rest of the economy. In fact, this one company could literally wipe out an economy should it fall into mismanagement or ran into financial problems and it went under. How does laissez faire avoid a situation like this?

[Asimov]

Would it? Unless these companies are coercing people into buying their products, monopolies couldn't occur. Since it's immoral to use coercion, I don't see why.

But what if it's a product or service that people depend on to run their lives, especially if it is in a capital intensive industry which just by nature would limit competition? Let's say all the regional oil companies were bought out by larger national players, and the larger players merged until there was only 1 huge company left called Chevron or Texaco or whoever, and they controlled all oil and gas? And lets assume the capital required for a new player to start up and compete with a monopoly of that size would be too cost prohibitive or financially risky, and nobody would back it. Not only would this company control the entire market, but whatever they do would have a huge ripple effect throughout the rest of the economy. In fact, this one company could literally wipe out an economy should it fall into mismanagement or ran into financial problems and it went under. How does laissez faire avoid a situation like this?

 

Well, the introduction of new ways of obtaining energy.

[Mike D]

Well, the introduction of new ways of obtaining energy.

I think this is oversimplifying things just a bit. Anyway I actually wasn't really asking a question about energy per se..... you said: "Unless these companies are coercing people into buying their products, monopolies couldn't occur" and I was trying to present a scenario where it seemed to me a monopoly could occur without coercion. If an entire industry (doesn't have to be oil, it could be healthcare, communications, whatever) consolidates into a monopoly, thereby eliminating competition, this presents a very real threat to the economy as well as the well being of the population. Is there any safeguard to prevent this from happening, or is this just considered one of the risks of a truely free market? If so I am not sure I could be totally sold on laissez faire then. In the US there are antitrust laws and other regulations in place to prevent monopolies of this sort from forming. And I think they are needed.... since the main function of a corporation is to grow, it seems monopolization would be inevitable without controls and regulations in place to prevent them.

[Vigile]

Would it? Unless these companies are coercing people into buying their products, monopolies couldn't occur. Since it's immoral to use coercion, I don't see why.

 

Yes, it would and it happens all the time. We're not talking about competing ice cream stands here. We are talking about industry where the winners lock up the means and the modes of production. At some point it becomes impossible for true competition to make a challenge to those who are most successful.

[Vigile]

Well, the introduction of new ways of obtaining energy.

 

In the hypothetical society you are discussing, the only ones who could possibly afford the R&D and the infrastructure to take on such a measure would be the monopolies themselves.

[Asimov]

Well, the introduction of new ways of obtaining energy.

I think this is oversimplifying things just a bit. Anyway I actually wasn't really asking a question about energy per se..... you said: "Unless these companies are coercing people into buying their products, monopolies couldn't occur" and I was trying to present a scenario where it seemed to me a monopoly could occur without coercion. If an entire industry (doesn't have to be oil, it could be healthcare, communications, whatever) consolidates into a monopoly, thereby eliminating competition, this presents a very real threat to the economy as well as the well being of the population. Is there any safeguard to prevent this from happening, or is this just considered one of the risks of a truely free market? If so I am not sure I could be totally sold on laissez faire then. In the US there are antitrust laws and other regulations in place to prevent monopolies of this sort from forming. And I think they are needed.... since the main function of a corporation is to grow, it seems monopolization would be inevitable without controls and regulations in place to prevent them.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

 

Currently there exists many monopolies in both Canada and the US (for example). Anything that is government controlled is monopolized. Healthcare? Private clinics will be set up that provide care at a lower cost. We see this occurring all the time in communications, media, even operating systems.

 

The point is that even though a certain company or person may own intellectual property rights to a specific invention or idea (manufacturing oil, for example) and that it does mean they can set that price at whatever level they want doesn't mean that people wont buy it if they can't afford it or if they think it's too much.

 

I can sell Personal Training at any level I want, and the number of people who can afford me will drop the higher I go. If I lower the amount then people will devalue me, so I have to find a margin that I gain the most beneficial number of people at the right price while still being valued as a service provider.

 

The control is the people, the regulation is the people. If people are willing to buy something, then they'll buy it. If not, they wont and either live without it or find a way around it.

[Asimov]

Well, the introduction of new ways of obtaining energy.

 

In the hypothetical society you are discussing, the only ones who could possibly afford the R&D and the infrastructure to take on such a measure would be the monopolies themselves.

 

Not necessarily.

[Vigile]

The point is that even though a certain company or person may own intellectual property rights to a specific invention or idea (manufacturing oil, for example) and that it does mean they can set that price at whatever level they want doesn't mean that people wont buy it if they can't afford it or if they think it's too much.

 

There's a double negative in this sentance, but I think you are saying that the consumer won't buy if the price is too high. Is that right?

 

If so, that's an overly simplified statement. It doesn't take into account elasticity. Consumers, for example, will pay much, much more for energy than they currently pay because at present there are no alternatives available. Cigarette smokers will pay much more for their cancer sticks before they will quite because they are addicted to nicotine. Likewise, a heart patient will sell all of his assets to pay for his blood pressure meds because he will otherwise die for lack of alternatives.

 

I stand by my thinking that a true laissez faire system is unworkable in the real world. That doesn't mean that I don't think that a move more in that direction would not be beneficial.

 

You could of course just say "tough cookies" to those who can't afford services provided by a monopoly and by doing so you would not be rationally wrong. Even though there can be no rational bedrock behind my thinking on this matter, I would not wish to live in such a rational and "fair" society.

[chefranden]

Hi folks, I thought I'd weigh in on this chat.

 

1. There seem to be some pretty mercenary views regarding capitalism, which is probably why some socialists react negatively to it. Ayn Rand's intolerant views towards altruism probably went a long way to contribute to capitalism's bad image.

 

2. My question is this: we have, for time immemorial, had governments that operated on some combination of state pooled resources (socialism) and free market resources (capitalism). Why then, do people seem to discuss the ideas of collective resources and private resources as if they were mutually exclusive? I should think by now that we could agree that some resources, especially important ones which everyone in the population needs access to, regardless of income, can be collective, while other less essential ones can be private.

 

3. We've seen very successful models of socialized services in other countries (and here in the Sates). We've also seen very successful, rich, vibrant private markets. We've seen failures of collective services, and we've seen failures of private markets (notably when a monopoly or collusion occurs). Is it necessary to take a position which excludes either of these approaches to resource allocation? If so, why haven't we done it?

 

1. I view Rand as something like a fundamentalist religionist. She takes capitalism to its logical end -- everything I can get and screw you. Fundamentally Capitalism is about accumulating wealth and then using that wealth to accumulate even more. That ethos necessarily means exploitation of people and resources. Under capitalism a forest is meaningless until it is a pile of lumber in a lumber yard. People are meaningless except as labor to make the forest into a pile of lumber.

 

To me the idea of "TrueCapitalism™" is as nuts as "TrueChristianity™. TrueCapitalism™ whether Laissez Faire, Libertarian, or what have you is a religious belief in that it claims that if only X then everything will be hunky dorier. All the while it ignores the trouble trying to do X has caused as a symptom of a stupid idea. To the "TrueCapitalist" of the Laissez Faire sect like LB the solution is to be more pure. As we've seen with Marxism of what ever sect Capitalism of whatever sect doesn't work for the majority of people. This is pretty hard for an American, Canadian, or Western European to understand, because even the poor here seem to be ok. As a portion of population there are less abject poor here than in say India. As a consequence they are much less visible, but they are here and their numbers are increasing. In addition even most of those of us that are comfortable here are still in thrall to the few, though their comfort hides that fact from them.

 

The collapse of Marxism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is taken to mean that Capitalism is the TrueEconomic system. I say the argument is a non-sequitur. If the Roman Church imploded would that mean that Islam is the TrueReligion?

 

Lightbearer attempted to label me communist or fascist (a sect of capitalism) because in his mind if I'm not a capitalist then I must be one of them. This is the same sort of thinking that relgionists use, "If you are not like us, then you are of Satan." So what is my solution, my economic system? I don't have one (maybe I'm an aeconomist). I may not be able to make clothes, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing that the Emperor is bare-assed naked.

 

2. I agree pretty much. In practice it is hard to draw the line between essentials and less essentials. It would be difficult to tell the average wealthy guy that it is not essential that he own a mansion or even a house everywhere he likes to hang out.

 

3. Just what is a rich vibrant market? Most of the world's people don't have any practical access to them. It does no good to ague that people will have access eventually as things trickle down. First, pie on the ground when your time comes around is no better justice than pie in the sky by and by. Secondly under any present major economic system wealth does not trickle down; it flows up. A rich vibrant market still operates to concentrate wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

 

I would say that just as there is no absolute truth in religion, there is no absolute truth in economics. However, I've noticed this in my 57 years: the more centralized anything gets the worse it is for most people and for most species, even though things get much better for the centralizers and the rats. This leads me to think that the more different governments the better, the more political practices the better, the more economic systems the better, and so on. Nature shows us that the more diversified systems are the healthier they are for life in general. The more concentrated something is the less healthy it is. It makes sense that this would include economics.

[Mike D]

Currently there exists many monopolies in both Canada and the US (for example).

There are? I don't know about Canada but in the private sector I can't think of any in the US other than industries that were once monopolized and forced to break up, like the telcos. As I said, there are antitrust laws in place in the US to prevent monopolies and unfair competition.

 

Anything that is government controlled is monopolized.

Not sure what you mean here. By "control" do you mean "own" or "regulate"? In the US other than the functions it manages such as schools, roads, infrastructure, mail, etc., the government doesn't own any businesses aside from seized assets or assets in receivership (e.g. an insolvent bank) or for limited functions (i.e. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp). They regulate many industries (i.e. the airline industry, telcos, etc.) for the purpose of enforcing antitrust laws, not to form monopolies.

 

Healthcare? Private clinics will be set up that provide care at a lower cost. We see this occurring all the time in communications, media, even operating systems.

I can't comment on Canada but in the US we currently see this only in industries where no monopolies exist and it is financially feasible to do so. We don't see this in the local telecommunications industry or utilities, because it wouldn't be profitabe for anyone to do so. Why would this be any different in a laissez faire economy?

 

The point is that even though a certain company or person may own intellectual property rights to a specific invention or idea (manufacturing oil, for example) and that it does mean they can set that price at whatever level they want doesn't mean that people wont buy it if they can't afford it or if they think it's too much. I can sell Personal Training at any level I want, and the number of people who can afford me will drop the higher I go. If I lower the amount then people will devalue me, so I have to find a margin that I gain the most beneficial number of people at the right price while still being valued as a service provider.

I understand what you are saying, but you are not taking into consideration the capital required to compete in certain industries. Starting your own fitness training business requires little if any capital at all, so anyone can come in and compete with you, which forces you to price your services accordingly. But want to start your own local telephone company to compete with the one company that currently monopolizes a given region? Well if you don't have a billion dollars or so laying around your house required for the buildout of infrastructure required to do that, I hope you have a very rich uncle because no bank, venture capitalist, capital market or private investor in their right mind is going to loan your the money or provide you the capital to fund a project like that. And that's why in the US even though the telco's have been broken up, the local markets are still dominated by only one company..... there's just no money to be made by competing with them. And that's why they are heavily regulated by the government.

 

The control is the people, the regulation is the people. If people are willing to buy something, then they'll buy it. If not, they wont and either live without it or find a way around it.

As I said originally I was mainly talking about essential services. Yes people can live without an Ipod or a new bike if the price is too high, but people can't live without food, healthcare, energy, etc. And what about services that are not essential to life, but essential to commerce and a healthy economy, such as a bank? Sure nobody needs to do business with a bank to survive, but our economy wouldn't be in very good shape if only 1 bank existed and only 10% of the population could afford their services. And we're not only talking about individuals here, were also talking about corporations who do business with other corporations. If I own a company that needs telephone service to do business and the only existing local telephone company decides to charge me a million $ a month for service, then i've just been bent over and fucked with no lube. I either can't afford to use the telephone which means my business can't function, or I pay the money and pass the cost on to my own customers, which itself might put me out of business if my customers can't afford or won't pay the higher price. As I said before an essential service monopoly that can do whatever it wants has a ripple effect throughout the entire economy, in fact it may have the power to totally collapse the economy given the right conditions.

 

I guess the entire point of my posts is that after I really thought about it, I am a bit skeptical that laissez faire economy would be any better than what is currently in place, at least here in the US.

[Asimov]

Not sure what you mean here. By "control" do you mean "own" or "regulate"? In the US other than the functions it manages such as schools, roads, infrastructure, mail, etc., the government doesn't own any businesses aside from seized assets or assets in receivership (e.g. an insolvent bank) or for limited functions (i.e. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp). They regulate many industries (i.e. the airline industry, telcos, etc.) for the purpose of enforcing antitrust laws, not to form monopolies.

 

Mail is a monopolized industry, they control the pricing and we have no where else to go to get our mail delivered. Unless we want parcel service, that is, but that's different. In canada they own and control a lot more than that. Ferry service, Liquor Stores, Hydro Energy, Hospitals, etc.

 

I can't comment on Canada but in the US we currently see this only in industries where no monopolies exist and it is financially feasible to do so. We don't see this in the local telecommunications industry or utilities, because it wouldn't be profitabe for anyone to do so. Why would this be any different in a laissez faire economy?

Communication is hugely profitable. Telus was basicaly the only phone company that we could go to for the longest time, it essentially had a monopoly (although there were a few other plans available). That was until digital phones came out. Now if I don't want telus, I can go anywhere I want for better service.

 

I understand what you are saying, but you are not taking into consideration the capital required to compete in certain industries. Starting your own fitness training business requires little if any capital at all,

 

Does it? Depends.

 

But want to start your own local telephone company to compete with the one company that currently monopolizes a given region? Well if you don't have a billion dollars or so laying around your house required for the buildout of infrastructure required to do that, I hope you have a very rich uncle because no bank, venture capitalist, capital market or private investor in their right mind is going to loan your the money or provide you the capital to fund a project like that.

 

Why can't a number of people band together and form a company? Or another company see an opportunity and start up their own in that market?

 

As I said originally I was mainly talking about essential services. Yes people can live without an Ipod or a new bike if the price is too high, but people can't live without food, healthcare, energy, etc.

We already have different private grocery stores, and no government grocery stores as far as I"m aware. If the price is too high, and nobody goes there then they will be forced to lower their prices. That or smaller, simpler businesses will open up offering affordable services and goods.

 

I guess the entire point of my posts is that after I really thought about it, I am a bit skeptical that laissez faire economy would be any better than what is currently in place, at least here in the US.

 

I understand what you're saying mike. If we were to just magically revert to a laissez-faire economy, then chaos would ensue and everything would collapse. The system we have now is apparently irreducibly complex. It's completely unfeasible and would be like sticking human legs on a chicken; it wouldn't know what to do with them.

 

That doesn't mean that laissez-faire capitalism isn't feasible in other population settings, where the conditions are different (and more ideal in my opinion), and simpler.

[Asimov]

1. I view Rand as something like a fundamentalist religionist. She takes capitalism to its logical end -- everything I can get and screw you. Fundamentally Capitalism is about accumulating wealth and then using that wealth to accumulate even more. That ethos necessarily means exploitation of people and resources. Under capitalism a forest is meaningless until it is a pile of lumber in a lumber yard. People are meaningless except as labor to make the forest into a pile of lumber.

 

Except that it's not like that, and neither is she.

[Mike D]

Mail is a monopolized industry, they control the pricing and we have no where else to go to get our mail delivered. Unless we want parcel service, that is, but that's different. In canada they own and control a lot more than that. Ferry service, Liquor Stores, Hydro Energy, Hospitals, etc.

Ok, i'll give you that, mail is a monopoly. But in the US the government is subject to it's own laws, so it can't charge whatever it wants to deliver mail.

 

Communication is hugely profitable. Telus was basicaly the only phone company that we could go to for the longest time, it essentially had a monopoly (although there were a few other plans available). That was until digital phones came out. Now if I don't want telus, I can go anywhere I want for better service.

Again I can't comment on Canada but here in the US for the most part there's no competition when it comes to local phone service. Same thing with cable service. There's only one cable company here and if you don't like them, tough shit, you don't get cable then. They own all the underground cable so for someone to compete the would have to build out their own infrastructure and system. I think in some local markets where there is compeition the only reason there is, is because the government stepped in an forced them to offer leases to their competetitors on the infrastructure that they themselves own.

 

I understand what you are saying, but you are not taking into consideration the capital required to compete in certain industries. Starting your own fitness training business requires little if any capital at all,

Does it? Depends.

 

What do you need capital for? Advertising? Gas for your car to get to the gym? That's nothing.

 

Why can't a number of people band together and form a company? Or another company see an opportunity and start up their own in that market?

They can, but they're still going to need that billion dollars in capital just like you would yourself. And they're only going to do that if they can make a profit, nobody is going to invest in building out a billion $ telco system infrastructure out of the goodness of their heart.

 

We already have different private grocery stores, and no government grocery stores as far as I"m aware. If the price is too high, and nobody goes there then they will be forced to lower their prices. That or smaller, simpler businesses will open up offering affordable services and goods.

Based on what you've said here, maybe I misunderstood before. I definitely don't advocate government ownership of anything, but I do think a certain amount of regulation is needed, such as antitrust laws which prevent the formation of monopolies in the private sector.

 

That doesn't mean that laissez-faire capitalism isn't feasible in other population settings, where the conditions are different (and more ideal in my opinion), and simpler.

Well sure, in an ideal enviornment (a perfect world?) anything is possible. I guess I could see where laissez-faire might work in a simple society, but as we evolve (as people, technology, etc) it seems things are getting more complex. Anyway I guess the only way to know for sure is to test laissez-faire capitalism out in the real world, eh?

[Vigile]

I view Rand as something like a fundamentalist religionist.

 

Yeah, ditto that.