[phpisthebest]

well now we will get in a Hobbes vs Locke, I am more Lockean

I disagree, and history has shown that free markets absent government control doe not instantly become monopolized, and infact through out most of history monopolize form when the government regulates the most

Look at todays market as an example, the most competition is present in markets where the government has the least influence, where markets like energy, healthcare, etc which are the most regulated are also the most monopolized

[mjburgess]

I know of no example in all of human history of a free market without a state, at least one of more than a short period -- so my position is very weak here, if you can show only one, i'd have to at least modify it. Yet, I bet you cannot.

Neutrally, using the term "anarchical market", i'd say that these markets are empheral. Everyone them has to act against rules which are not in their self-interest, it's highly unclear why a subgroup of market participants wouldnt immediately collectivise and outcompete everyone else.

Collectivisation is human's superpower, and the obvious an immediate thing basically everyone does (hence: mafia, warlords, cartels, etc.). It would be remarkable to see this anarchical market of yours remain free for very long, so I'd gladly hear of one case.

The main mechanism against collectivisation is that some biggest baddest collective decides to prohibit it (hence the state). There may be others, but I can think of none that would operate under anarchical conditions.

[tremon]

[an] example in all of human history of a free market without a state

The Hanseatic League. This was basically its own trade association across North Europe, based on maritime trade. It had considerable market/economic power, but no legislative power; most participants were city-states so they were self-reliant to a degree, but none of them had jurisdiction or power over the entire group.

[mjburgess]

I can't speak to the example other than skimming wikipedia, but:

> Hanseatic Cities gradually developed common trade regulations.

> That year, the merchants of the Hansa in Cologne convinced King Henry II of England to exempt them from all tolls in London[26] and to grant protection to merchants and goods throughout England.[27]: 14–17

> etc.

> By the mid-16th century, these weak connections left the Hanseatic League vulnerable, and it gradually unraveled as members became consolidated into other realms or departed, ultimately disintegrating in 1669.

So it looks like the league was parasitic on the relevant states involved being able to implement regulations, so, basically exactly the point i'm making.

And secondarily, insofar as the legague itself lacked a mechanism to enforce transnational agreeement, it was weak and collpased.

So QED: insofar as participating states had viable regulating mechanisms the system work; insofar as challenges arose which requrired transnational mechanisms, it fell apart.

[mcv]

Markets do not instantly become monopolized, but they do tend that way, and will also eagerly form cartels unless stopped by regulation.

Of course it matters what kind of regulation; it's also possible to regulate markets in a way that protects monopolies, and some governments do that. So it's important to have a government that understands the importance of a free market.

To give you some examples, the Dutch markets for health insurance and energy are entirely privatised but heavily regulated, and quite competitive. It's easy to switch from one provider to another, and so they compete hard on price. Although perhaps more so in the early days after privatisation than more recently.

On the other hand, the market for software is not very regulated, it's heavily monopolised. Sometimes the EU makes moves to increase competition, but that's only piecemeal and not always terribly effective; Microsoft still rules the desktop, except in those areas where Apple now rules it.

[ludwigDual]

> Markets do not instantly become monopolized, but they do tend that way, and will also eagerly form cartels unless stopped by regulation.

Monopolization requires control of land or resources. This is because any cartel's attempt to set artificially high prices can be undercut by new entrants to the market who aren't in the cartel.

> On the other hand, the market for software is not very regulated, it's heavily monopolised.

Software is monopolized primarily through regulated monopolies on software (re)production i.e. copyright.

[mcv]

There's plenty of pirated Windows around, but everybody still has to use Windows. Linux got into the gaming market only by supporting the Windows apis, and that support is still not quite perfect.

It's not copyright that monopolises software, but api support. The need to reverse engineer other people's work. A lack of open standards. There would be more competition possible in software if regulation mandated open standards and open apis.

So no, you don't need control of land to enable monopolization. You don't need IP law either. There are a million different factors that can drive monopolization, and many of those factors do require some degree of regulation to mitigate them.

Although you could argue that corporations themselves are a government-created construct, and removing those would remove the problem. That could be true, but that's a very big step.

[ludwigDual]

> There's plenty of pirated Windows around, but everybody still has to use Windows.

The threat of jail time for people sharing pirated copies or circumventing copyright protected measures changes the pros/cons people weigh whether or not some people copy or reverse engineer despite those risks. There would be a lot more competition if pirates weren't incurring all these additional risks and were able to compete fairly without state backed copyright monopolies.

> There are a million different factors that can drive monopolization

The primary driver is restricting competition. If your competition is unrestricted then why would they join your cartel when they can outcompete you? Someone will always see that they can get a larger piece of the pie by outcompeting the cartel. Monopolies always use force to prevent winning in fair competition.

[mcv]

One thing that they have often done in the past, is to temporarily drop their prices to outcompete newcomers, making it impossible for newcomers to outcompete them, and raising their prices back up once the newcomer is gone. The established monopolists always have deeper pockets than the newcomers. I'd love to see how you stop that without regulation.

[ludwigDual]

> One thing that they have often done in the past, is to temporarily drop their prices to outcompete newcomers, making it impossible for newcomers to outcompete them, and raising their prices back up once the newcomer is gone.

Could you give examples of this happening? When the prices are low that sounds like a good outcome for their customers. Assuming the price drop doesn't affect other aspects customers care about like quality.

The problem is when prices are raised above what they would otherwise be in a competitive market. You phrased this as "once the newcomer is gone", but there isn't anything preventing another newcomer from emerging, or several. The action of raising prices is openly visible to the market. This will attract entrepreneurs to the industry as a result of the perceived success of the monopolistic firm. In other words greedily raising prices above what the market wants to pay is a suicidal move for a single firm that relies on its customers to continue to buy whatever it is selling. This opens a market opportunity for newcomers where it did not exist before the price hike as customers would be encouraged to look for an alternatives.

Monopolies backed by force are not reliant on their customers' voluntary decisions in this way so the analysis above only applies to situations that prevent forcing customers to choose a particular firm against their wishes.