> If a corporation reaches monopoly in a no-rules world, it won't lose
> easily and we will all suffer.
Now please explain why a corporate monopoly is bad, but a monopoly
one-world-government is good?
> A corporation with a monopoly status will
> have the better research facilities, the better marketing experts, it
> will even have the best criminals to take care of their opposition! It
> will become unstopable.
Firstly, anarchy == "no rulers", not "no rules". Secondly in a world where
there really were no rules, the competitors could get together, buy up one
of those rumored $1,000,000 Russian suitcase nukes, and destroy the
monopoly corporation.
> But if small shops go broke, the supermarkets will be able to put the
> prices they want and therefore harming everybody.
And more small shops will appear. In reality, of course, the supermarkets
are far too busy dropping prices to compete against each other to be able
to increase prices.
> The rules and regulations prevent the market from employing people? I
> can't believe that.
If you know that little about economics, then this discussion seems
pointless.
> Indirect control dilutes the power? Indirect control will make the most
> welthy persons have all the power and do what they want for the harm of
> consummers and general population.
Exactly. This is why we favor the direct economic control of consumers in
a free market over the indirect economic control of voting for a big
government.
Mark
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark@unicorn.com |
|WWW: http://www.unicorn.com/ MAILBOT: bot@unicorn.com |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|