They're not really similar at all. It is possible to have a free market whether in the minority or majority. The key is that all interactions must be voluntary on both sides of a deal.
As soon as you have one side or another (or an external party such as government) applying any sort of coercion, force or threat of force then you no longer have a free market system. The fact that there may be entities that wish to cheat, swindle or steal your property is why a free market required the enforcement of property rights (you cannot take another person's property other than by a mutually agreed voluntary exchange).
Oh they are not similar at all until "some people" murder their way to the top lol
...
What place do have assassins in a "free market"? And organized crime to a larger extent?
Because if those businesses are not allowed by law... Then it's not really free market...
Did I mention monopolies already?
until "some people" murder their way to the top lol
Literally not a free market. They are not engaging in the voluntary exchange of goods and services, they are just murdering their way to power.
What place do have assassins in a "free market"?
Maybe you could make an argument for assisted suicide services? Other than that I don't see many targets voluntarily agreeing to be killed.
And organized crime to a larger extent?
Again, organized crime is predicated on the use of force, or the threat of the use of force. E.g. Extortion and protection rackets that are prevalent in organized crime syndicates. Literally not a free market.
Did I mention monopolies already?
Monopolies generally require the co-operation of the government in order to maintain their monopoly status. Again, not a free market as the government is actively preventing competition, usually through things like barriers to entry. This is why large corporations love complex legislation, it provides a barrier to entry for small competitors. Otherwise, the smaller competitors who are often much more nimble in the marketplace, more innovative and have lower overheads would gain market share and eventually topple the monopolies. Then, once they grow to large and clumsy corporations, new smaller competitors who are more nimble and innovative will come in and topple them.
>Literally not a free market. They are not engaging in the voluntary exchange of goods and services, they are just murdering their way to power.
PWAHAHAHAHAH
And who's going to stop them??? (government can't be the answer)
>Maybe you could make an argument for assisted suicide services? Other than that I don't see many targets voluntarily agreeing to be killed.
Supply and demand my dear idealist friend, forces of supply and demand ONLY, to regulate the market....
>Monopolies generally require the co-operation of the government...
"Generally" which implies not always... In that case we agree...
Otherwise it's false
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp
A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate a sector or industry. Monopolies can be considered an extreme result of free-market capitalism in that absent any restriction or restraints, a single company or group becomes large enough to own all or nearly all of the market (goods, supplies, commodities, infrastructure, and assets) for a particular type of product or service. The term monopoly is often used to describe an entity that has total or near-total control of a market.
(post is archived)