Quote:
| Originally posted by Jet,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jet,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This is the main flaw of libertarianism. First, shrane talks about governmental regulation of the market but rarely about corporate regulation of market ...[/b] |
Corporations cannot lawfully force individuals to do anything. Only government can. In a free market, there is freedom of entry and exit; thus, as much as a corporation may want to prevent any would-be competitors from opening businesses, they are unable to do so.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jet,@
... not to mention the deus ex capital status of large monopolies and cartels. |
Monopolies and cartels are always government creations. "Natural monopolies" are not true monopolies in that they cannot restrict entry and exit in the market.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jet, Second, equating shrane with quarpie is extremely hard if not impossible, as while quarpie relates mainly to the private space, which can be completely unregulated, shrane relates entirely to the public space, where conflicts between different groups and different modes of action makes regulation necessary, if not by the government then by corporations, unions, or whoever is the strongest.[/quote]
This begs the question, "Where does private space end and public space begin?" I would say that the market is also private space, in terms of privately held property (that is, property that has a specific owner(s)). I think it is reasonable to say that one's property is part of his private space. Since corporations are treated as legal entities, this would apply to them as well.
- Rob