Who will prevent powerful actors from using violence to monopolise resources?
Discussion
What prevented it for 99% of human existence?
From 200k BC until ~1500 AD, a majority of humanity lived outside the rule of any State.
They had decentralised solutions to this problem. Different ones, in different cultures.
We need to work on this. Nostr and Bitcoin are a beginning.
you're describing war and violent conflict, not market-based voluntary exchange. yes, there will always be belligerent actors who choose violence, and that's what potent defense of private property is for.
I believe the strategy of violence will tend to lose / lead to financial and resource ruin on the part of the initiator of violence, if he is surrounded by the right kind of neighbors
I’m in Australia: we had a telecommunications business run by the government (Telstra) it was privatised in 1974 and became a monopoly, so in 1989 the government legislated that another telecommunications company (Optus) could use the infrastructure that the government have sold to telstra then we had a duopoly. Then the government built our national broadband network and now we have viable competition in the Telecommunications market with more players like vodaphone and ISP options. How would a laissez-faire market do a better job of creating competition in this situation?
a free market doesn't create competition. competition is the base nature of free individuals trading freely with eachother. competion creates the free market - monopolistic, violent States perturb competion and create perverse incentives. you can't centrally plan a system that "creates proper competition". the originating central plan is the poison that ruins the downstream market.
Can the state do no action to benefit free markets? We have an oligopoly in our banking sector, and a few years ago they were all charging the same rip off fees to customers. We had a royal commission and the bags were charged a fine and new laws now prevent them from charging excessive fees. How is this bad for competition?
what prevented a competing bank from forming and charging slightly lower fees and breaking that monopoly? could it be that a high barrier of laws and regulations ensure that it is too difficult to start a new, experimental, competive bank? (or one which otherwise upsets the entrenched interests who exist close to the State power centers?)
I would wager that it isn't "hard to start a bank" because the service itself is difficult to run, but rather because of laws and regulations that claim to "protect the customer". If I'm right about that, then the laws are clearly achieving the opposite of their goal if a monopoly was able to form and persist without natural competition doing its work.
The aim of entrepreneur in a free market is to come along and find a way to provide the same service cheaper, or a better service for the same price by reducing input costs (thereby drawing away customers from the higher cost product). when that opportunity exists, someone WILL take it, if it's open to them. why wouldn't they?
if, in a free market, productivity doesn't increase / prices don't come down there can only be two reaons why: you found the bottom. OR: someone is coercievly intervening (and the market is no longer free).
I asked Grok to compare the process of opening a new bank in Australia against the process of opening a new bank in other countries and it’s conclusion was “Australia’s APRA is among the strictest regulators globally”. So I’m starting to see your point.
I wouldn't be surprised if the more a sector is State regulated, the more monopoly-prone it is. I'd actually be surprised if the opposite was true.