It was implied, but whatever.
So your reply to a question of fact is "whatever". Again, your response says a lot about you.
I do read it sometimes, there is no reason for someone to be a lawyer to understand the law.
No, but one has to have knowledge of the law to understand the law. You obviously is clueless of them if you can claim that you can only steal physical things, and then say that the Law is illogical because you disagree with it. Do you have any sense at all of your inability to discern fact from your own opinion? You seem to think that your opinion and fact are one and the same, when in fact they are not.
Do you have to consult a lawyer to understand that murdering someone is illegal?
No, but I have to consult a lawyer to know what the Law says about the differences between copyrights and patent and when certain things should be granted what and the precedents. Or maybe I'm just particular about not speaking out of my ass, unlike you.
Or maybe you ought to read the denifition of that fallacy again.
That does it is interference at all.
If one company or business is given privileged or subsidy over another, that is interference.
When a group of companies is given privilege or subsidy over the body of people, that is interference.
"
A free market requires protection of property rights, but no regulation, no subsidization, no single monetary system, and no governmental monopolies. It is the opposite of a controlled market, where the government regulates prices or how property is used."
Free market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A big difference from what your stating.
What did I state? Let's see you put in into your own words so we know if you actually got the point in the first place.
"Protection of property rights" need not exclude violence. And that's not all you asked of government if you read your previous post.
Harry Guerrilla said:
That is not free market in any sense, free markets run on legal frameworks and not on complete anarchy.
The government exists to protect life and liberty of all people not just the wallets of corporations and businesses.
Basically, you are making up what a "free market" is as you along. :roll:
Sarcasm, you stated that if there are no railroads there is no market.
You are obviously wrong.
I said 'it's really "no market"', as oppose to "free market". Meaning that since the market for railway would not exist under "free market" solution, it's really more accurate to call it "no market" solution. Forgive me for not sticking to simple language so you could understand.
There is nothing that says a company deserves a profit.
That is not an excuse to build a railroad with public funds.
No they don't have a right to profit, but it's profit that motivate firms to engage in business. Why am I having to explain this in a discussion about "free market"?
It should be common knowledge and easily deduced.
Are you just going to throw out names of fallacy in place of actual arguement? If I made a fallacy, point out how it is a fallacy. That you didn't just make it seem like a cope out on your part.
And while populism doesn't make it right, popular government is part and parcel of this country, and it's a legitimate way to make decisions. Not a fallacy as you suggest. If instead of throwing out all these names of fallacy you keep a list of, you had explain your arguement properly like an intelligent person would have, you wouldn't have been met with ridicule.
Here we go again. :roll:
I have shown that all of those companies described as monopolies, got their monopoly power from government privilege.
Care to show how they didn't?[/
No. You didn't. All you did was argue against first copyright, then against the collarboration between the big firms, and then against the idea of firms using violence to get their own ends without the government. And you kept shifting the goal post as you go along, so that the aguement fits whatever's in your head instead of objective facts.
And Pete made the point already about these firms being opportunistics and working with other firms to control the market, I don't see why I have to go over the whole thing again so you can act clueless all over again.
No I use the definition provided by Wikipedia, it is adequate enough.
Except you haven't done so with regards to "free market", and there's no definion for "government privileges" in the wiki quote. So will you please read properly before you write your replies?
It's pretty funny but when you look at companies like DeBeers, you find out that even though they had some control, they couldn't maintain it.
Not only that but they had to go break the law in many circumstances in order to maintain most of it.
Google isn't a monopoly.
Cable and telephone providers have been granted regional monopolies by the government.
The fact that you can't provide an example of a single long standing monopoly speaks volumes.
I see you have moved the goal post from "monoploies" to "long standing monopoly". And if a period of nearly a hundred years or more is not "long lasting", I don't know what the heck is.
Google have the largest share of english searches, and firms and websites go out of their way to conform to google's methods and standards, we can split hair about the term "monopoly", but google is a monopoly in all the sense that matters.
And you are wrong about cable and phone network. There are very few instances where a country restrict other firms from setting up infrastructures to compete with existing ones. Most would welcome it given the amount of investment. But there are simply very few firms that have the capital to invest in such infrastructure, and those that set up first tend to have a customer base and knowledge that give them natural advantages, so they tend to control the market.
