[dools]

If one could have a "free market" in the sense that there were no state to begin with (which one can't) then you wind up with anarcho capitalism, in which a single entity wins because returns to capital accelerate. This single entity can then do whatever it likes.

In reality, you start with a state and then have increasing regulatory capture by large private entities who turn the state into a system that exists purely to enforce their property rights. As they do so they eliminate public purpose.

Whether you have planned totalitarianism or anarcho capitalist totalitarianism the result is the same. If you have 100% returns to either labour or capital, or you try to eliminate either public or private purpose, then you must have totalitarianism.

The Techno-Optimist Manifesto imagines that you can have no state AND no regulatory capture, it's garbage. There are only 2 things in the economy: labour and capital. You have public purpose and private purpose. You balance those things, you have social democracy and innovation. You let it slip to any extreme and you're gonna have a bad time.

[nyokodo]

> anarcho capitalism, in which a single entity wins because returns to capital accelerate. This single entity can then do whatever it likes.

You could have a natural monopoly form in anarcho-capitalism but unless they also grabbed a monopoly on the use of force and barred competition (basically became the state) then if they did abuse their monopoly position they would inevitably have competition arise even if it was required to route around whatever their monopoly was.

[dools]

> unless they also grabbed a monopoly on the use of force and barred competition (basically became the state)

That's absolutely inevitable.

That's why I call it feudalism. What you just described is like the middle ages with various independent scattered kingdoms, or like a collapsed state where rival warlords compete for control, with the occassional uprising.

[satvikpendem]

Well, that is any modern (or even pre-modern) nation-state too, vying for control over land and resources. Just because we don't have wars as much today over these things does not mean that they were not historically the norm. It's not feudalism, it's is the nature of humans to conquer and be conquered, regardless of whatever system they're in, political or economical.