Dunatis Posted:

You may not be able to have legislation in place to create coercive monopoly, but to say that those are the only means by which a coercive monopoly could exist is rather absurd.

No, it isn’t. You cannot completely prevent competition except via legal fiat.

Dunatis Posted:

Using the protective agency as an example, they would have some sort of violent means with which to establish protection from either outside forces or violent individuals within the area (Because of course everyone is free to own weapons, no matter how deranged, as long as they have money). The only thing stopping a large enough agency from creating a coercive monopoly would be their own conscience

Not really. There’s this thing called “market forces”. Let’s look at restaurants. In the absence of anti-competition laws aka antitrust laws, McDonalds STILL would not be able to create a coercive monopoly, as it would not be able to force people to patronize McDonalds, no matter what. It’s no different from a private defense agency.

Dunatis Posted:

Organized crime groups will do this and their competition is the apparently horrendously corrupt state run police and of course other gangs. Obviously other gangs are a potential threat but for argument’s sake, let’s say that the company in question becomes rather large as they offered good deals for a long time and now pretty much own 80% of all protective services in the US. At this point they steal whatever employees from competing companies that they can while killing and threatening the rest until they own everything.

And how does it do that? Remember: there will be people to stop them. The Hollywood nonsense of one company buying out all the other protection agencies is a load of fictitious nonsense. People would cancel their contracts and create their own agencies. Without the power of taxation, there’s nothing the large agency could do.

Remember: if something supposedly bad applies to the market, it applies doubly so to the coercive monopoly known as government.

Dunatis Posted:

Your system relies very heavily on not only good people with a proper conscience

No, it doesn’t. I realize that such is a common objection among those who take 0 time to think about it and who have been brainwashed by the state. But such isn’t my problem. As you do state: government is precisely the sort of entity which you are railing against wrt the market. So I fail to see how your objections are in any way valid.

Dunatis Posted:

Wal-Mart offers great savings and flourishes despite competition. But it does so by cutting corners in production costs at the expense of their workers. Overnight lock-ins, shutting down stores who try to unionize (Quebec), use of sweatshop labor overseas and strategic divvying of hours so that their employees don’t qualify for benefits.

And yet these things happen because of government regulations. Further, there’s no such thing as stealing market share. There is no such thing as the right to any specific market share. As for sweatshops: nothing wrong with them. Organ-donation wait lists: I have never understood the idiotic reason that such should not be taken care of by market forces.