Capitalism, unbridled, leads to monopolies which, in turn, strangle capitalism. In other words, this economic system, unregulated, contains the seeds of its own destruction. Consequently, even pure libertarians must concede that some form of coercive regulation has to be emplaced to prevent monopolies from developing and stifling the economic liberties of the individual.
Daveinyork wrote:
Capitalism does not lead inevitably to monopoly.
Except in the short term, a monopoly can only exist if it is supported by the government, which is not capitalism, unless that monopoly continuously reduces its prices, raises its wages and the price that it pays for its materials, which is a good thing, others will enter the market and compete, either with the same products at lower prices, or alternative products.
Lucky Dog wrote:
So, its alright to deny someone's economic freedom if its only a "short term?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note that in his initial post Lucky is advocating that "-- some form of coercive regulation has to be emplaced to prevent monopolies from developing --"
In his rejoiner, instead of debating the issue as framed by dave, he jumps on the 'short term' line in an effort to confuse; -- so he can avoid defending his "unbridled' attack on capitalism.