[dventimi]

>>> There are countless things anyone can copy or do for free already right now, that countless people pay a company for, for no reason at all.

>> Name one.

> 3% tax on every transaction in your entire life going to Visa by using a debit card instead of cash.

There's a reason for that: Visa and MasterCard have monopoly power obtained via anti-competitive practices which were enabled by contract law. Visa and MasterCard prohibited member banks from issuing their own cards. Discover and American Express among others sued Visa and MasterCard for this about 15 years ago.

> the government does not enforce that you need to pay Burberry to get a bag exactly like it in both quality and aesthetic

The government does enforce that. A potential Burberry competitor cannot sell a bag "exactly like" Burberry's because to do that it would have to have the Burberry logo, which is a trademark protected by federal law.

[Brian_K_White]

But all the government is enforcing or protecting is an identity, not a thing. Burberry convinces people to do something they don't have to do, EVEN to get a bag of the same style and quality.

What do the customers get? They get nothing more than the social status of other people seeing them have it. That value is something that doesn't exist except that Burberry created it out of thin air. The tools that Burberry uses to to produce those sales are not the government protection of the exclusive right to sell a bag of a certain style, it's the knowledge of human nature, in this case, status displays.

[dventimi]

>What do the customers get? They get nothing more than the social status of other people seeing them have it. That value is something that doesn't exist except that Burberry created it out of thin air.

If those customers value that social status, how did you derive the authority to tell them they're wrong?

Of course, you don't have that authority. Nobody is in a position to tell other people what they should or shouldn't value. Some people value the exclusivity of fashionable brands, but that exclusivity cannot be maintained without government involvement. Without it, there's nothing to stop somebody besides Burberry from creating indistinguishable copies of Burberry bags, complete with the Burberry logo, at lower prices. If they're indistinguishable then who wouldn't buy them at the lower price? If they're indistinguishable, how would you even know it's a copy? If it's indistinguishable, is it EVEN a copy?

No. Monopoly control of something--a resource or in this case an idea--requires the power to enforce that monopoly. Typically, governments have that power and among the ways to exercise it is to grant and protect patent and copyright and trademark monopolies.

[Brian_K_White]

I never said monopoly control. The entire point was that enforced monopoly control is not required. That is thinking way too simplistic. Companies get people to pay for things that they don't have to _all the time_, by all kinds of different means. They only also use government granted monopoly because why not if it's available.

[dventimi]

>I never said monopoly control.

You didn't have to. When asked to name one example of corporations getting people to pay for things they don't have to, both of the examples you named were examples of a monopoly. Burberry, for instance, has a monopoly. Only Burberry can make bags with the iconic pattern and logo, and if you value the iconic pattern and logo for reasons you're not obliged to justify to anyone else, you DO have pay Burberry for the privilege. That's a monopoly, and it wouldn't exist if the government didn't maintain it.

[johnnyanmac]

we're clearly splitting microscopic hairs if you're going so far to call a logo a market to have "monopoly" over. Even if governments didn't exist, people find all kinds of ways to differentiate "value" from brands. The entire hobbyist collectors market works this way.

Governments just make it easier for people who can hire lawyers to assert this. Much easier to send out a C&D (which stops most infractions) than to generate some sort of "code of quality" or whatnot.

[dventimi]

>we're clearly splitting microscopic hairs if you're going so far to call a logo a market to have "monopoly" over

Your claim that we're splitting hairs, microscopic or otherwise, is not strengthened by adding the word "clearly." If you don't like calling a trademarked logo a monopoly then I suggest you take it up with Wikipedia. Go ahead and edit at least these pages to correct their errors which tend to confuse trademarks with government-granted monopolies, something that is "clearly" a mistake according to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly

>Even if governments didn't exist, people find all kinds of ways to differentiate "value" from brands. The entire hobbyist collectors market works this way.

Works what way? I have no idea what you're talking about.

>Governments just make it easier for people who can hire lawyers to assert this

Without governments there wouldn't even be lawyers.

>Much easier to send out a C&D (which stops most infractions)

Who's going to listen to a "C&D" if the government is unwilling to enforce it?

Again, there would not be big corporations without patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other forms of government-granted monopolies. If you think there somehow would be, I'd love to hear it.