/liberty/ - Liberty

>>94999

>/b/

pff

>>94998

We should push for trust busting of Google, but ancaps cucks will never support that. Competition is what would make this better, but competition as the life blood of the free market is cut off when monopolies form

https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/5/17805162/monopoly-antitrust-regulation-google-amazon-uber-facebook

Google was hit with a $5Billion, yes Billion with a B, fine by the EU for violating their antitrust laws

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-antitrust/europe-hits-google-with-record-5-billion-antitrust-fine-appeal-ahead-idUSKBN1K80U8

I will point out this contradiction every time one of you makes this thread until your forced to admit it

>Trust bust google

No no no that breaks the NAP

>censorship

Their property their Buisness Amirite XD

>>95010

>life blood [sic] of the free market is cut off when monopolies form

And monopolies form because of government subsidies, government kickbacks, and government regulatory capture. "Trust-busting" some company or another is just removing the symptom and not solving any kind of long-term problem. The only workable long-term solution is to limit the fed's power to create monopolies in the first place, but because high time-preference fucks such as yourself exist and control political discourse we're stuck with applying band-aids to broken limbs.

>>95020

This thread is rarely if ever made by an ancap, faggamuffin, so there's no contradiction.

>>94998

implying social media isn't the right arm of the CIA

>>95021

>>95021

>"Trust-busting" some company or another is just removing the symptom and not solving any kind of long-term problem. The only workable long-term solution is to limit the fed's power to create monopolies in the first place, but because high time-preference fucks such as yourself exist and control political discourse we're stuck with applying band-aids to broken limbs.

You cant just cut it off and say that now its a free market and playing field when certain companies already have that unfair advantage. Businesses buy out politicians in order to make them put out certain regulations in order to knee cap any upcoming rivals. Trust busting is just a natural and perfectly fine consequence of the free market. Like pulling weeds from a garden

>>95033

>You cant just cut it off and say that now its a free market

>when certain companies already have that unfair advantage

>Businesses buy out politicians

>Trust busting is just a natural and perfectly fine consequence of the free market

You are really stupid, aren't you?

>>95044

Youre the one defending monopolies because youre some dumb teenager who thinks ancap shit is viable

>>95080

if the government didn't fund social media through the intelligence agencies to steal data we wouldn't be in this mess.

>>95080

>Can't spell "You're"

>Calls other people dumb teenagers

Nitpicking aside, a monopoly is inherently against anarcho-capitalist philosophy so your assertion is as moronic as you are.

>>95087

youre=you are

your means ownership. ex. "thats your bike"

learn proper grammar before you decide to be a smug cunt about it

>>95085

I know. What Im saying is that you cant just declare a fair playing field right now while all these monopolies exist. You need to trust bust first.

>>95115

Government is the trust.

>>95123

Because government is the monopoly.

>>95128

youre just spurting out ideological slogans in the face of you not knowing what trust even are anon.

>we wont host your speech

<okay, I realize now that you wont host a lot of peoples speech, so I might actually make a pretty penny by hosting those you wont

<wait wtf why did the government step in

like all monopolies, its government enforced

>>95123

>standard oil for example was broken up into 34 other businesses for its illegal monopolistic practices.

Why do /pol/acks call themselves redpilled when they follow the normie progressive narrative of history is religiously as anyone else?

https://mises.org/library/truth-about-robber-barons

>>95130

monopolies arent when the government gives a business money, its when a business controls everyone in a certain field.

So if say a solar panel company like Solyndra gets money from the government, that doesnt make them a monopoly. But if Solyndra bought out and owned all rival companies, and owned all the major solar panel companies through subsidiaries, that would make them a monopoly. Thats why they are bad. They are so powerful that competition against them is literally impossible so no one cant just make their own rival company.

>>95133

How am I /pol/ when Im stating an objective fact that standard oil was broken up? Especially when youre the one with a dixie flag and who always has teenager tier ancap takes on every topic.

>>95137

>And if "ancap takes" trigger you so badly you're really in the wrong place.

…of course, there's a sticky at the top that an-socialist is to the right of most of what's actually invited to post here.

>>95139

Pretending there were arguments is not an argument, and anon#95138 posted exactly one post in this thread before this message.

You're a god damned 'tard and a fool. You should go away; that's the single thing that would most improve the quality of the board.

>>95129

How fucking stupid are you, you insufferable retarded faggot?

>>95134

>it's not monopolistic to lobby the government to regulate your rivals out of existence

>>95134

God you're one dumb fuck lol.

>>95129

It is not ideological. It is a fact that government has a monopoly on force.

>>95155

>>95154

>>95150

>>95148

Great responses from the clueless highschoolers who make up the glorious ancap online community. Fucking simpletons with nothing to say.

>>95137

>>95137

>it's an economically illiterate /pol/ack.

You faggots keep thinking a monopoly is when a company receives money from the government. You also keep just avoiding the very obvious need for trust busting if you want to have any sort of even playing field simply because it throws a wrench in your ideology.

Too often, ancaps are these middle class teenagers with no real work experience who are way too invested in a really short sighted meme ideology. You literally cant have a market economy or capitalist system without a government to enforce property laws.

>>95162

>implying the government will bust trusts instead of working with them

>>95162

>You faggots keep thinking a monopoly is when a company receives money from the government.

Again, read the article. Companies become monopolies because of the high barriers of entry for their competitors. Regulatory capture and subsidies are just some of these tools in achieving this.

>>95162

>You faggots keep thinking a monopoly is when a company receives money from the government.

We don't think it, we know it. Show me a stable monopoly and I will show you a firm that received government assistance, either directly through subsidy, or indirectly through regulatory capture or other barriers to entry. Carnegie Steel, JP Morgan, the railroads, Google, Facebook, take your goddamn pick, each and every one has its snout shoved into the government trough.

>You also keep just avoiding the very obvious need for trust busting

Removing government favoritism is the closest to "trust busting" that you can get. Any actual breaking up of companies is only going to result in more favoritism and some other company receiving government benefits and a monopoly position. You know who was behind the Sherman Anti-Trust Act getting passed? It was lobbying by big oil companies. They realized that it was cheaper to bribe Congress into destroying Standard Oil than it was to make their own businesses profitable, so instead of competing in the market they competed on bribes. Whenever a "trust-bust" happens, it's just some other big company using the government as a hammer to destroy a rival.

The free market will prevail over censorship. Ultimately, these companies are only hurting themselves by reducing their userbase, and they will eventually be eclipsed by companies which respect their users' freedoms.

>Except that alternatives to censorious social media companies that actually respect freedom of speech are constantly being threatened with being shut down, or even with prison time for not being quick enough to censor users that practice their free speech in a way not approved by the powers that be.

Oh yeah, I guess we're fucked. The thing is, once you mandate that everyone must use censorship, you're pretty much at the mercy of the censors' whims. You can either have free speech and deal with stormfront, pedos, and other undesirables, or you can have something other than free speech. Freely choosing the latter and then complaining that it isn't the former is a willful rejection of reality, and therefore both pointless and dishonest.

>>95279

Or you can stop being autistic and enjoy free association of different people on different platforms.

>>95279

>y choosing the latter and then complaining that it isn't the former is a willful rejection of reality, and therefore both pointless and dishonest.

There is going to be a few hard line censorship of Pedophiles, Terrorists, foreign actors, and subversive ideologies. Who cares?

The cost of publishing on alternative outlets are near Zero. Stop being a poorfag.

>>95346

>Censoring people is fine

>Unless they're people I agree with, that's going too far

Why do authoritarians always seem to think they'll be the ones calling the shots?

Threadly reminder that Gab is a shitty honeypot, Vidme and Hatreon were purely performative nonsense that was never intended to last longer than a single year. if an alleged 'alternative' doesn't even have a ground floor foundation for federalization let alone decentralization, this supposed "alternative rebellion" has the structural integrity of a paper tiger or a calf idol made of printer paper. But a developer or startup must take into knowledge of human nature, or else you get broken shit that less than 40 people use like MediaGoblin or Matrix/Riot.

>>95410

The only alternatives I know of that seem to be stable are Minds, Bitchute and maybe dtube.