I often hear this kind of argumentation and I frankly don't buy it.
When businesses are in cahoots with each other it's called cartels.
Lets not pretend there is some pure version of capitalism that isn't tied to some special interest.
When businesses are in cahoots with each other it's called cartels.
Lets not pretend there is some pure version of capitalism that isn't tied to some special interest.
This is not a disagreement with you, by the way. But just as Rawlsian liberals can't postulate a government that's immune to corruption into existence, libertarians and market fundamentalists can't postulate businesses that don't co-opt government to entrench their market positions.
The less powerful the government, the less power there is to be had by co-opting it.
The less powerful ANY organization the less power. It's not exclusive to governments.
Not a monopoly. No real harm either. If you want to complain about where the money went after the transactions were made, that's another subject.
You're so set on arguing with me. I think it's best if you sat down.
There's nothing wrong with calling yourself libertarian and supporting some sentimentalized conservative version of government, but government by definition violates the "non-aggression principle".
I don't disagree with you either, in fact you've really only restated what I said.
You can't define your way out of that.
If you are trying to promote some sort of ancap/libertarian approach lets just stop here that view is in my mind as naive as a communist view and there is no basis for those kind of moral claims.
Again you can't define your way out of this.