LibertarianSocialist

Actually I am currently doing all those things. Right now I am homesteading, trying to acquire such skills. I am learning all I can about farming, construction, power generation, engineering etc. all those things necessary to start a commune. Personally I am happy labouring in the community, but I would prefer to produce goods for exchange. I wish that were true, but my reality is that those companies loom large over the land here. I see every day people buying produce from the stores, when we have good farmers here trying to get by. Timber from burnings warehouse while sawmills lay idle. Sure the services cost more, are less efficient, but it helps the local economy. I know without those chain stores looming large we would have a healthy and vibrant economy.

I got half way through a reply, then I gave up. It is obvious that both of us hold differing opinions on what constitutes just income. Unless we address this, any back and forth will just be us talking past each other.

You mean the same society where one can move to another country in a half day on a coach fare? There is hardly a lack of monopoly in our current society. True, I may have the option of worker for a dozen or so employers, but my relations are always the same. I must work for HIM. I may have the option to choose my master, but I cannot choose to have no master without suffering unduly as a result. The monopoly of one may not exist, but the class monopoly is all pervasive. Would you say it just if governments were broken up by region, if only to be administered as tyrannically? Pick your flavour of despotism!

I was making a point about the distinction between unregulated and free markets. Free markets are not simply unregulated markets, but rather a specific type of market, with a distinctive set of rules. Unregulated, or darwinian, markets can and often do violate these requisites.

The free market actually makes some important assumptions: Perfect market information No participant with market power to set prices Non intervention by governments No barriers to entry or exit Equal access to factors of production Profit maximization No externalities These are the assumptions of a perfect market NECESSARY for a truly free market. In this we can see that the free market is actually a very fragile thing. I think the confusion lies with the conflation of free markets with what I term the Darwinian market. Look at exchange. There exists many types of exchange not permitted on the free market, the production of bullets to kill off a competitors firm is an investment which yields a return, and is also an exchange. But we are told such actions are not acceptable components of a free market. Why? Because free markets actually have a huge amount of rules and assumptions surrounding them. We don't need an absence of rules, we need an absence of rules incongruous with the existence of a free market. So who are the offenders to the free market? Simply put, anyone who has an interest, which he can back with a superiority of might, in violating the principles of free market exchange for their own ends.

It is about as okay as the paternalism of the company towns during the gilded age, or the 'charity' of feudal owner or church during the middle ages. I am not arguing in favour of the state.

I couldn't find the part where Stef talks about this. But I did listen to half an hour of the idea of forced multiculturalism. You have as much right to dissociate from a state as a corporation. It's is scale that makes the former harder. The state has a monopoly over a given area and the legal right to force. In most cases, it cannot obligate you to stay, but it needn't accommodate you on its land. It may withhold all the services and infrastructure it wishes. The same is true for the employer. What of the man who lives in the company town? In the company town the man finds all the analogs of state despotism, and if he is bound by debt he cannot leave any more than the man under the state. So it is rather a question of scale, and of legitimacy.

The free availability of credit would drive interest and rents below this point. No man would rent a house above the interest rate of buying it. It is the anarchist belief that private property titles require policing to maintain. Absent of such a state or private service, will you travel between your properties with a shotgun making sure people pay you for it? The workers will take back the factories they made and run, the renter will lay claim to the house they have paid by now in full. A system of surplus labour extraction is near impossible when capitalist monopoly is abolished, see: the enclosures. Violence has been a historical necessity of primitive accumulation and the creation of absentee private property. In the least, personal property rights stem from the universal preference for ownership, as extended to all people. What good is the 'sanctity of private property' when you or I will never own the large majority of that we have. Regarding my chair fish statement: Use value maximization is different from a loan as stated before. the borrower does not exchange an equal amount of goods in equal exchange for the money. He has nothing to exchange. That is why he must borrow at interest. The fact that he owns nothing gives him an inferior bargaining position, which the lender takes advantage of to extract value above what he would agree were he of sufficient means. One trade is just, the other, exploitative. The money does not increase in use value, it increases in amount. An amount which must necessarily be created by the borrower. Maybe the loan is good because the moneyless man has greater use value for it. But an equal trade without interest does this too, and without the usury. Interest based loans are inferior in every situation where the buyer is of sufficient means. Interest can only come about through coercion, the finding of penniless unfortunates and exploiting them. The conditions conducive to unearned income are removed through the abolition of all monopoly, including the capitalistic monopolies of money, land, patent etc. Okay, your sons smile example is odd. I will change it to the more plausible scenario of the man who pays a million dollars to sleep with a celebrity. Such examples are tricky. The celebrity obviously has a monopoly on what he wants, there is no free market competition among competitors here. This monopoly allows her to derive exorbitant profits on what is certainly a very one sided exchange. If she were to be forced to only ask for the labour (either a vulgar time function, or a subjective effort one) expended, she would perhaps not agree. At the same time, no competition exists to drive prices down to a reasonable level. Well, fuck. Good question. I would say the exchange was either illegitimate due to monopolistic coercion, or else legitimate only if society were secure enough to not have liberty threatened by such monopoly forming accumulations. I will certainly give more thought to this. As stated before, exchanges are handled on the free market. The best way to envisage individualist anarchism is anarcho-capitalism without the capitalist monopolies (tuckers big four). hmm, I have done the whole capitalism means opportunity and is voluntary thing to death. If you want to see my arguments look at some of my other posts.

Absentee ownership is land you are not personally using. It will be decided by social norms. People don't want to wake up to their stuff gone so norms will reflect this. The demarcation is really quite clear. Interest free credit is made through the monetization of personal possessions, collateral for loans. Will the currency be subject to inflation? Not sure, it is one of many workable anarchic solutions, though I think unlikely. Time is effort, effort is subjective. The market based labour theory of value simply states that prices in a freed market will come to rest at this level. Use value is also subjective, that is why the market handles it. People can and should try to maximize their use values, this is not the same as a moneylender deriving profit through loans. For your point about (time preference?) just extrapolate my last post. The money they did not earn never reaches their hands. This is not retrospective taxation, it is removing the conditions that facilitate unearned incomes. I think all the philosophers have done is obscure happiness from the obvious common sense position. Really all anyone wants is to be comfortable, to have those things he needs, and enough of what he wants. To be free to make his own choices and pursue those things which he thinks will bring him joy. He wants these things for everyone he cares about. In short he wants freedom, prosperity and opportunity. Each man is the same.

So I was reading confiscation and the homestead principle by Rothbard, in which among other arguments in favor of workers cooperatives and nationalization, he gives an interesting example that could be used as justification for government welfare programs: "Suppose, for example, that A steals B’s horse. Then C comes along and takes the horse from A. Can C be called a thief? Certainly not, for we cannot call a man a criminal for stealing goods from a thief. On the contrary, C is performing a virtuous act of confiscation, for he is depriving thief A of the fruits of his crime of aggression, and he is at least returning the horse to the innocent “private” sector and out of the “criminal” sector. C has done a noble act and should be applauded. Of course, it would be still better if he returned the horse to B, the original victim. But even if he does not, the horse is far more justly in C’s hands than it is in the hands of A, the thief and criminal." Applied to welfare, B is the owner of the wealth, A is a joint of both the state and privileged groups, in which the privileged group Aa uses its privilege to steal B's wealth which is then stolen again by the state Ab, and then demanded by a welfare recipient C. C is also B in turn, he both gives and receives. Only those who take more than they receive are bad (group A). I know, involuntary taxation is bad, no one denies that. But in the absence of preventing the thief, is a third party stealing back better?

This will be fun hehe. Just a theoretical for lolz, I find such an idea unlikely at this point in time, this was a best case scenario, and highly optimistic. Upon the resurrection of zombie Rothbard following advances made possible from recent breakthroughs in gene splicing technology by Ayn Rand and Andrew Ryan in the underground utopia Rapture, zombie Rothbard finds allegiance in the growing dissent of libertarians and liberals to the social conservatism and increasingly corporatist policies of the two party system, forming a new left which rapidly rises to political power. Growing conflict ensues as peaceful strategies of utilizing government land without permission escalate protests with police forces. Rothbardian policies turn militant. It is resolved that the state is willing to use violent repression to defend the interests of the corporatist and bureaucratic elite, that their can be no peace in the face of institutionalized violence, and that resistance, by whatever means, has become a duty to all lovers of liberty. The Rothbardians seize much of the institutions of power, forming barricades in the streets to secure certain strongholds. Dispersed conflict is taking place within much of the country, political affiliations each asserting their own agendas. The culture of gun ownership ensures an effective resistance, except by the liberals who, much like dodos, are still trying to stage unarmed peaceful sit-ins. Conservative forces form a counter revolutionary army to drive back the 'terrorists' and enemies of law and order. Extensive propaganda ensues as media outlets signal the rallying cry for patriots to take up arms against the anarchists, neo-secessionists and enemies of traditional American values. Many conservatives and religious conservatives join the ranks, oppositional to the cries of dismantling the current illegitimate power structures, and of 'leftist' attitudes to social problems such as gay marriage etc. Growing discontent amongst the military after continuing conflict in the middle-east has left many unwilling to obey command. Many desert from their positions when asked to attack their fellow countrymen. Many join the revolution. The world's nations give a cold shoulder to the Rothbardians, who have been labelled as 'terrorists', and so aid is made illegal by otherwise willing citizens. Regardless, many join the ranks. Discussions of military assistance of the US government threatens mass civil protests in many countries, assistance is withheld by most major powers. The police and conservative forces fight several pitched battles with the Rothbardians. The Rothbardians while suffering disproportionate casualties, eventually drive off the conservative forces by virtue of their superior popular support and numbers. Zombie Rothbard takes the stage to declare victory, surrounded by huge masses of militia men and women. The question of what to do with the property of the state and corporatists comes up. It is decided after a majority vote, not without discord, that homesteading will be applied to all state property and all corporations which received a majority of its funding from the state. Workers immediately went about turning all illegitimate property into workers cooperatives. Either parcelling out the objects themselves, or allocating shares equally amongst occupants. Much state owned land was left simply unused. Pockets of private ownership existed in parts, but largely, the documentation needed to claim land was not worth the acquisition. Many areas were simply treated as common land, free to all to use for the time being. The economic profile of society changed rapidly. Wages for workers increased dramatically. Workers asked for near the entire product of their labour, having to pay no rents for land our house or machinery due to their ownership of these. Management was engaged, as one engages a doctor, but many preferred self management within voluntary organisation's of workers cooperatives. Competition brought the prices of goods and services down to near cost levels. Incomes were high and fairly equitable, costs were low, job satisfaction was higher than ever, and levels of happiness outstripped nearly all other nations. But the following years saw problems arise. Some of the larger cooperatives, notably the shipping industry, which had formed an economic bloc, securing all the major ports and potential port sites, had begun importing products from other countries. These products being cheaper due to state wage suppression gave them the ability to undercut other sellers. Many of the workers were unwilling to compete on such terms, instead forming unions for the enactment of protectionist legislation to defend 'the free market against state interference'. Okay, I am bored so will stop here.

Lol at vanilla, is true. Technically the bolsheviks wanted to utilize authoritarian state socialism as a means of transitioning to voluntary communism, communism being a stateless and classless society. Needless to say the authoritarians 'forgot' that second part and cemented their despotic rule.

What? This was not even an anarchist proposal? It was an idea for a voluntarily funded government with monopoly privilege, correct me if I am wrong. Of course they would think out the problems first, that is why competition is the inevitable conclusion. If that was achieved it would be straight to full ancapism. Historically, attempts at reformism has failed every time. Anarchism can't be achieved through the state, the bolsheviks already tried.

Proudhon simply saw no need to restrict such acts. Like Tucker, Proudhon felt the simply presence of mutual banking schemes would be sufficient to undermine the capitalist money monopoly (alongside a rejection of absentee property rights). Tucker likewise held this belief, later recanting it after he deemed capitalist consolidation had reached a critical level which nothing short of revolution could reverse. (Amendment to state socialism and anarchism). It is their belief that the ready availability of essentially interest free credit would drive all capital incomes down to below this level of interest. I am personally critical of the non-revolutionary approach. We already have mutual credit societies, and the major difference would be the universal availability of collateral, ensured via the abolition of absentee property rights, which is certainly a very revolutionary act. The administration costs cover payment for labour done. This is not a speculative job, their are no returns on speculation. Providing the capital outlay may be a service, but it is so interwoven with usury. Market anarchists believe the limit of price is labour cost. For example, look at exchange. A fair exchange is one in which two people exchange objects at a ratio which represents their embodied labour (there exists the posibility of higher prices for unavoidable scarce objects or unforeseeable anomolies, but this is hardly a just freed market exchange). A chair which took one unit of effort to make for a fish of one unit, say. It is an exchange of one commodity for another commodity, in which each's aim is to maximize his use value. The chair maker has enough chairs and values a fish more. A chair maker would not trade a chair for another identical chair by another chair maker. Thus the lender of money requires pay above what his product is worth. He needs in essence one chair now for 1.1 chairs later. Such a term can only come about through coercion. It may not seem too bad on Robinson Crusoes island, but taken to its logical extreme such coercive usury becomes entirely detached from any just payment. When it comes down to it, production is generally done for three ends: direct consumption or personal capital, trade for an equivalent item of higher personal utility/subjective value, or for the extraction of value above the embodied cost of the product via coercion. Regarding the lender: My belief is that a general acceptance that cost is the limit of price, and that the only just trade is the one done without coercion, in which only equivalent values are exchanged, would remove the incentive of the lender. The lender is entitled to pay for the full cost of his labour as embodied in his products and services, paid once and in full. I hold these beliefs on the grounds that coercion is immoral and no one ought to profit off it. I am not sure what makes this a valid claim, it is just what I believe. Would the receiver benefit? Perhaps he would. Maybe such a loan would be entirely valid if the financial capital was justly earned by the lender. The problem lies with figuring out what is justly earned, and what is a product of coercion and privilege. The heir of a fortune can hardly be said to be deserving of his income, he himself made none of it, yet he derives profit from it. Such a calculation of "fair interest" is nearly impossible, and the permitting of income not derived from direct labour leads to absurdity as returns become cumulatively removed from any just remuneration. It is a pragmatic solution, perhaps not an ideal one. I don't know what makes my beliefs any more valid than any others. My only grounds are that such a state of affairs would maximize the aggregate happiness and liberty of mankind, and so is the rational choice for humanity present and future. If I was provided with empirical evidence otherwise, I would readily drop my beliefs.

Here is my thinking: the state is a monopoly over a given area with legal right to the use of violence. This is also the definition of private property. The difference is scale. I can leave a country, it is just hard to do, and I may not get accepted into another. Leaving a job may also be quite hard, I may desperately need the income, it may be one of few in the area, perhaps I have dependants or a support network there, I may not get accepted elsewhere. You see, the barriers are the same, the latter just smaller and more localized. So where is the line drawn?

What happens when people no longer want the services? Imagine if defence was funded so. Once income streams dry up, could you imagine a fully fledged army of government wage dependent soldiers simply disbanding? My bet is they make up some excuse why involuntary taxation is necessary, or simply violently impose their demands through the creation of a new military state. If we check this by ensuring multiple competing service providers, we are straight back to vanilla ancapism.

I hate the argument that one can 'just leave', mind you I get it a lot from ancaps regarding employment. To be fair there is a large difference in scale. At what scale it becomes unacceptable to you guys?

Under capitalism workers cannot freely chose to accept or reject a job offer. Think about it. Why would anyone ever accept a wage below their entire product? In a functioning free market wouldn't everyone shuffle around until they reach their optimal positions? They don't do this however due to the myriad of coercive factors, natural and artificial, which shape their decisions. Cutting pretty faces is in no way analogous to my arguments against the capitalist system. People are free to choose. Did you agree to your birth? A person cannot wait around for a better offer, all those environmental conditions are thrust upon him. He is held accountable, or at least heavily effected, by the decisions of his forebears. It stands that anything past this point is non-consensual if the original circumstance was rejected. The overwhelming majority of actions under capitalism are not random coincidence, but rather conscious efforts to engineer a specific state of affairs. They are not biological differences, but rather an artificial web of legal privileges aimed at driving a wedge between those original differences, to the point where it is so estranged from them it has no justification. It is cumulative injustice and theft. What exactly constitutes force? Does structural violence count as force? If due to the pervading social system I am forced to sell my labour or die, due to the fact that all the resources I need are owned, have I not been forced? Because it seems the only obstacle is the ownership of the others. All those 'stupid platitudes' are actually very important concepts. So the fact that by inheritance you make the child responsible for the actions of the parents (it effects him all the same), seems totally fine to you? So you don't care that people receive what they don't earn? (you didn't build that) Tell me, why does anyone have a right to payment above (embodied labour) cost? How, unless by coercion, can prices in a free market go above this? Doesn't coercion preclude a free market? Monopoly, the same. I know why you reject the concept of coercion, capitalism necessitates it. But can't you see how weak it makes your claims of consent? Your society would allow the sex trafficking of children because their parents defaulted, or they themselves needed money. It would legalize debt bondage, essentially slavery. How can such things truly be considered voluntary?

Everything above the banking part was misconstrued.It is probably much less nowadays, this number was decided In the 1800's. Think of how much resources it takes to shift Immense digital numbers online nowadays, hardly any. I am not educated enough yet to say how mutual banking would work, I am still dubious tbh. Just started listening to the mutual banking audio book, perhaps it will help me understand. You make some good points in regards. The Spanish Revolution article is very misleading. It tells too many half truths. I could go through it at depth but I think would take along time. To summarize, all anarchists consider the revolution a success, and despite isolated issues, the revolution showed the viability of anarchist beliefs. Perhaps the biggest issue was the CNT deciding to defer the revolution to "beat fascism first" and join in the statist political arena. This was due to an informal weapons anarchists aid embargo by all other nations on the anarchists. The anarchists sided with the communists so they could get soviet arms to fight the fascists. The communists eventually outlawed anarchism and betrayed our movement, as they have done in every socialist revolution. Many anarchists fought against the decisions of the CNT, including the durrutti column, and the CNT's actions have been widely condemned since. Also the "crimes" against the clergy etc. were a result of conflicts with the traditional centers of power and authority. Much of those businessmen and clergy they left alone came right back with fascist forces to kill the "enemies of law and order".

Well the question is, was that Jaguar afforded through your own personal labour, or did you exploit a coercive situation to extract surplus labour of a precarious class? You seriously think the heirs of wallmart got what they had through fairly remunerated labour? No, they got it by exploiting the current societal conditions for their own ends. Their empire, like all empires, was built on the backs of those below them. Brave New World is not anarchistic, it is perhaps the logical extreme of USSR "state capitalism" or fascism/corporatocracy. It has a clear class structure and encourages deliberate waste to encourage economic production and growth. Socialism is not a bunch of cry babies asking for handouts or trying to steal your fairly acquired stuff. It is a ideology aimed at uprooting of all monopoly. Particularly class based economic, political and social monopoly. We don't ask you give us what is yours, but to ask others not to take what is ours, (our labour and all its fruits). You want an example? Look at Gina Rinehart, you think she can reach over to scratch her ass, let alone single handedly mine several billion worth of iron ore? Or was it she inherited a fortune which she uses as coercive leverage to extract further wealth from labour. Two things: Social mobility is not 100%. Unless you believe in a considerable level of class based genetic superiority, that is all you need to know about how "lazy" the underclass is. Workers Cooperatives have shown the expandability of the capitalists/managerial class, with efficiencies increasing under such conditions in the Spanish Revolution. So in light of this, what is their justification for the supposed contribution of the "capital outlay"/greater productivity from efficient management?

Please do some more research socialism, in particular the distinction between anarchism and state "socialism". The Anarchist FAQ I linked you should answer all your q's. It is pretty long so just brush through the index?

Hey Torero. Essentially the term libertarian socialist was a term used in the 1850s to get around bans in France on using the term anarchist, which is roughly synonymous. Anarchists propose a system of personal property, as distinct from private property, not "no property" as is generally assumed. Section B.3.1 of an An Anarchist FAQ discusses this. http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionB3

I'm not citing sources for the current state of affairs, it is evident, your philosophy acknowledges such too. The Lockean Proviso represents an important concept. If the world was made by none, it stands to belong to all equally. This includes those currently and yet to come. If by your ownership you deny another his ownership of his rightful share, you negatively impose upon him. Your only right to ownership is that of equal measure. Now, whatever society you choose to embrace is up to you, but you cannot say "this is my property, above what is my equal share, but it had been decided before that such rights were valid, you must respect my property rights, agreed beforehand and without your consent". The claim to private property has no natural justification, it is an arbitrary concept, with arbitrary components like homesteading. What of the man who rejects such an arbitrary state of affairs? He is of course labelled an "aggressor" against "property rights" and jailed or perhaps killed. Saying it is not a free market if "x" is useless. What is useful is demonstrating that "x" would not exist in such a society, that such a state of affairs can actually come about, all evidence points to the contrary. That would be like me supporting the dictatorship of the proletariat and saying "I support it when it works out like in theory" if it fails it wasn't a true dotp, see? Your argument completely ignores the coercive nature of our system. If a minority is allowed to monopolize the means of life, it will cause a coercive state of affairs for those in need. It creates creates a clear imbalance in bargaining power. If a man needs to eat, but he is landless, he must sell his labour to another for a wage only a fraction of what he produces by labour. If he worked for himself he could get this entire product. Therefore the only reason he works for another is due to coercive conditions, whatever they may be, and so he cannot be said to be making a completely voluntary choice. If a friend came late to a game of monopoly, it would not be just to bind him to the consequences taken before his ability to consent to them. If he comes to a board completely covered In hotels, and he has nothing, of course he would be indignant. Such a state of affairs cries out to the moral sensibilities of everyone. Interest is less than 1% to cover administration. The idea is to abolish interest and rent seeking. I can't say I can give a mutualist account of mutual banking, but I can give my own anarchist synthesis viewpoint. I think the idea is to fund the mutual banks is to use Individuals' property as collateral in seeking loans. That property being granted via occupancy and use. Admittedly I need to learn more about this facet of mutualism, I am mostly familiar with communism/syndicalism. I see no reason a system of privatized money lending is necessary, it has not been necessary historically (Free Territory, Spanish Revolution, etc.).

Capitalist monopoly is the monopoly forming tendencies inherent in the capitalist system. Private property, specifically the right to absentee ownership, and the use of said absentee property to generate profits not derived from personal labour, incentivizes a system of continual growth and consolidation. The history of capitalist accumulation shows the ever increasing consolidation of wealth into fewer hands. This is true of the present, the Gilded Age, and the Roman Empire, as well as many periods. The link I gave about Eve Online is to demonstrate what I believe to be one of the closest approximations to a stateless free market I know, and to show the presence of capitalist accumulation and consolidation even in such a setting, with violent conflict, hierarchical domination (including state-like corporations) and market manipulations all outgrowths of the desire to consolidate private wealth and power. Look at how the game works, we see the formation of highly bureaucratic corporations, in market competition if advantageous, in violent conflict where likewise. Violent conflict is just a facet of the freest of markets, the Darwinian one. We end up with the champion of the battle (goonswarm federation) utilizing it's monopoly on force to coercively manipulate the market through cartelization, violent intimidation and overt theft. Extortion is the use of violence or coercion to take what is not rightfully yours. Such a state of affairs certainly exists under or current society, and would even in a theoretical ancapistan, should you reject any of the societal premises on the grounds of the Lockean proviso. The basic premise of the ltv is that all wealth is derived from either natural inputs (the world), or labour. Of which only labour, being defined as a subjective value, is the only just form of Income. It is a rejection of "unearned" income from capital. Take a man who homesteads an island. If later the population increases 10 fold, he is able to rent out his property for a profit. He has not done any work or only little, but soon the island is rich off the toil of the others. His paltry investment is paid back 100 fold. But if he did not create anything, from where did the profits come? From the labour of the workers. This is because only labour creates wealth. They have mixed 100 times more labour with the soil than he, but they will never own it. What we see now is factories netting owners huge profits. They did not build it, some workers did, nor does he run it, again workers do. So we have a system in which by no fault of their own, working class people are born into a reality they never consented to, which ensures they must sacrifice the majority of their labour to a person who never earned it. It is simply cumulative theft and unjustified legal privilege. The "product" in this instance would be financial reimbursement for the cost of production (the embodied labour). In a free market the exact amount is likely up for competition, but will tend towards the full value under a truly freed market. Mutualists also stress the use of "labour notes" while under non free-market conditions. Having said that, such usury would be made unviable by the abolishment of the various capitalist monopolies (money, land, tariff, patent etc.) (see Tuckers state socialism and anarchism). I disagree that capitalism is voluntary. I have addressed this in numerous other posts.

So you deny the existence of an organizational body with a monopoly of force which manipulates the market in the favour of a chosen class? I know you don't. Or is it that government policy is dominated by the machinations of single black mothers on welfare? Also, you might want to examine the basic principles of a free market. One of the requirements is zero barriers to entry. Capitalist monopoly is a barrier to entry. The closest example to a stateless capitalist free market I know is eve online, feel free to show me a better example. http://justinandrewjohnson.com/gaming/The-EVE-Online-Monopoly-Part-1