4chan and 8chan both have a monopoly on image boards. they didn't lobby any government it's just the way it is. anybody can set up a clone using open source software but it would never be as successful because a user base would not migrate. so why wouldn't this happen with a bunch of other platforms too in a free market?
what about spchan,7chan,masterchan, wizchan,krautchan,endchan, mewch ect
Literally whos is what they are. No one uses those. I could even argue that very few people use 8chan compared to 4chan
>I've never heard of it so it doesn't count.
I've heard of more than half of those. They are so unpopular. The image board market is as free as it gets but one (4chan) still dominates the image board market. It's almost like it would happen to Facebook too in a free market. Natural monopolies can exist.
I could further argue that 8chan is even superior too 4chan because custom boards, pdfs, multiple images etc. But it's still no where near as popular as 4chan. So it's not competitive either.
Why are you assuming the market is a zero-sum game? The fact that halfchan is dominant in the market doesn't preclude the competitive fringe from participating in the market, and from gaining a healthy core of customers to bring in profits. You don't need to be on top, or even in the top 50%, to succeed and get what you want. You see, unlike your leftist hellholes, where there's so little to go around you need to fight like jackals over the smallest scraps, markets generate wealth instead of whittling it away. There's much less need to concern yourself with how big your slice of the pie is when the size of the pie is growing all the time. Who cares if your competitors have more than you when you have more than you can possibly need? Any talk of "fairness" or "equality" in such scenarios is nothing more than envy wrapped up in a cover of righteousness to make it more palatable.
O.k., I don't know if the OP is a serious critic of free markets, or a libertarian who got sick of the strawmen of critics of free markets and made this as sarcasm.
>the year 12019 after discovery of agriculture
>demand proving non-existence
Being popular has little to do with monopolizing a market. In regards to the other sites, how well would they fare if 4Chan started charging a monthly fee? We saw how gamergate was enough to make people leave for another site, formed with barely any any barriers to entry.
The proper, original definition of a monopoly, under which economic theories pertaining to monopolies and why they're bad were formed, is an exclusive legal privilege to sell a given good or service in a given region. Without such a restriction, market forces result in limits to an actor's influence on the economy, because the possibility of competition always keeps them in check.
Any entity capable of imposing restrictive legislation on a given region is a state.
Therefore, a monopoly requires a state by definition.
Modern talk of so-called "de facto" monopolies does not fit the economically relevant characteristics of a proper monopoly. Merely happening to be the sole seller of a good or service in a region does not result in a monopoly. The general store in a one-horse town is not a monopoly, because they can only raise their prices so high or reduce the quality of their goods so much before it becomes profitable to open a competing general goods store.
So you're saying a large market share = monopoly?
>4chan and 8 chan have a monopoly
>2 different companies have a monopoly
<they don't because >>97301
>yeah but they do because I say so
That would be a shitty argument in all business schools. Even silicon valley liberals would understand that your consideration is retarded.
Popularity isn't a product of more features, and more features don't make a product superior anyway because sometimes people prefer things that have "less features" or maybe better features. You also don't know what features are needed for popularity and what aren't. For example if I visit 4chan on mobile the navigation is superior than 8ch, where nothing is fucking tappable, and therefore 4chan will have a more lot users reading and posting on it.
The point is that there is an infinite amount of putting thing together and no way of telling with absolute certainty what's better and what's not. You are the one that needs to choose for yourself.
Freedom is necessary to let people choose what they feel is the best solution for their needs. Of course this means that there will be products that are more popular than others, but this is not a bad thing.
>seriously replying to this thread
His argument for the obviousness of natural monopolies was that TWO websites exist and together they represent the most popular services used by several niche communities. Not even the solely used services, but the most popular services. What an amazing non-sequitur.
However, the current state of the "Free Market" does not inspire confidence. Some anarchists have argued "well, one drop of state fucks the whole thing, so we can't expect things to function correctly" which is likely true (it seems obviously true), but being that there is no market not interacted with by a state (markets->money, money->taxes) that means we really don't have a great idea of what a free market looks like and we certainly have no assurances.
I have little faith that even the freest market would cater to all of my whims because I am powerless and were I powerful it wouldn't matter how free the market was (since power is the universal currency).
That being said, OP you're a dumb nigger and you don't know anything about anything.
Even if natural monopolies do exist, why should that matter in terms of the role of government?
How would government solve the 8chan "monopoly?"
Why is it the role of government to squelch anticompetitive practices?
More cogently, how does the most anticompetitive entity that can possibly exist squelch anticompetitive practices?
If people use a company, why woudl government getting involved solve it? If the government theoretically got involved with this hypothetical halfchan/8chan thing, they have a few options.
1) Sue and/or close down halfchan/8chan
2) Prevent more than so many people accessing halfchan/8chan
3) Try to "split up" halfchan/8chan
In the first two cases, like pirating, just because people can't access the material illegitimately doesn't mean they will willingly purchase it. In the third case, how the fuck would you even split it? How would you keep someone from making "totally not /liberty/" board on the half of 8chan that isn't allowed a /liberty/ board and how would you force people to follow that stipulation? I really don't understand how you think anti-competitive practices is an excuse or how the government would enforce it, especially not in this shitty niche meme internet subsphere that we're working from.
This place has the most intelligent discussion on any imageboard
I think it's because our positions are so unimpeacbeable
The ones left might want to stay in the shadows because they dont want the retards to emmigrate there, like they did here.
>4chan and 8chan both
And I thought leftists on pol had no clue…
just because its natural dosnt mean it is intrinsically good. but if i was to believe that i would ask you if it is not just as natural for those monopolies to be fought against and eventually crumble?
>ITT retardation that floods of 4lebbit refugees here would be a good thing.
That place is now a full tribute to luggage lad. Let it be.
Monopolies depend on the state to exist for a prolonged period of time, they can't mantain themselves in a truly free market where competition is relentless. On the slim chance that they actually provide the best services for the best price (without resorting to crime obviously) to the point that people stop trying to compete, then they're not really a problem.
I can't, Dan Murphy is proof that Natural Monopolies exist
If you can even hope but to refute that Dan Murphy's strength isn't natural hint it is then maybe we can talk but as they say
NOBODY CAN BEAT DAN MURPHYS
Also lets be honest 4chan has the monopoly, while 8chan serves as a very small neiche
Where Dan Murphy is fucking dominating the competition who can't compete with his prices and this is in luie of the Australian government trying to cap a minimum for prices
You can't prove that something doesn't exist.
Market dominance does not mean it is a monopoly. The mere existence of competitors is proof of this.
But what causes market dominance then?
They're the best at what they do. Just like Standard Oil back in the day, they offer the best product at the lowest price and their market share will increase until the competition gets its act together.
This is false. Amazon does not compete by offering the best products and services, instead they actively try to form monopolies by dumping prices at a loss until their competition goes under, in which case they jack up the prices again for that given product category. This predatory competition killing is part and parcel of companies that have reached a certain market share threshold, and guarantees an eventual monopoly unless they become complacent. The sheer prevalence of this practice in almost every industry has firmly convinced me in the necessity of anti trust laws.
1. Amazon is not a monopoly.
2. Amazon is not "natural" since they rely on tax subsidies.
3. Amazon has had a speculative run since Day 1 and are heavily in debt. This model is unsustainable in the long run.
what about luminiferous ether (at least in this universe)?
Either meeting demand efficiently or through the state (regulatory capture, subsidies, quotas, tariffs, etc.). Also, I am skeptical about those Amazon press releases. Nd why is overstock not on there?
Did you just get out of your ECON 102 class or something?
>he sheer prevalence of this practice in almost every industry
There has not been a single confirmed instance of this practice in all of history.
>Therefore, a monopoly requires a state by definition.
Disingenuous, a company can achieve the same result with sufficient power and anti-competitive behaviour.
>with sufficient power
Only if it acquired monopoly on force, at which point it becomes a state for most purposes, differing only in looks and proclamations.
Rare Earths. Steel. Photovoltaic panels.
Just on top of my head.
Accusations aren't confirmed instances, just impotent kvetching used to lobby for protectionism.
Chinese state corporations control most of the supply because there's virtually only rare earths in China. Besides, these companies are state owned.
US steel was never a monopoly. They produced, at most, 2/3 of steel in the US (not the world), and despite never getting antitrusted now make up a pathetic sliver of the market. What's more, the US govt at one point got them to *decrease* prices for fear of inflation. Dumping didn't seem to work out for them now did it?
TATA would be a better example, but you wouldn't know about that because your assesment on what's a monopoly is based entirely on aesthetics.
…no? What are you even talking about?
>a company can achieve the same result with sufficient power and anti-competitive behaviour
Please provide a single example in the history of the world of a company obtaining and sustaining any abusive market position WITHOUT the assistance of the state. No state charters, no licensure, no regulatory bodies, no subsidies, no price controls, nothing. Find one.
You won't, because it's never happened, because it CAN'T happen. There are plenty of examples of when they've TRIED, but it has never succeeded. Cartels don't work. Predatory pricing doesn't work. Restricting production doesn't work. Flooding the market doesn't work. Buying out the competition doesn't work. Straight up muscling them out doesn't work. It just doesn't work. So long as there's a profit in competition, there will be competition, and abusing your customers makes competition more profitable.
You can be the sole firm providing a good or service in a region, provided the optimal firm size lines up with the regional market, but as explained above, that doesn't make you a monopolist; the minute you stray from market clearing, you create profit opportunities for competitors.
glownigger, pls. you have to do you're own homework. don't they even give you diversity hires an introductory course on proper shitposting?
/thread. you can't logically prove a negative tbh.
>at which point it becomes a state for most purposes
Bingo, that's exactly what I am talking about.
>WITHOUT the assistance of the state.
This would become a goalposts race, in which any presence of any state in the general direction of any involved party is used as "evidence" that it's fault of a state.
Given that most places on the planet are at least formally part of a state, that would be very easy to do.
Can you prove that?
You're really not helping your case here, bruv.
Nah, if your idea is to blame everything on states based on techincalities you can't be convinced anyways.
Dude, you've failed the argument from definition, and you've refused the argument from history. You have neither an a priori case nor an a posteriori one. If you can argue from neither first principles nor evidence, then how do you imagine that you even have an argument? All you have left is an assertion. You made a claim, were asked to substantiate it, and now you're acting all intellectually superior because you refuse to answer the basic challenge necessitated by your claim.
Ya got nothin'.
>coca cola has illegal death squads
>"dude it's the fault of the state for not stopping them"
>coca cola makes their death squads legal
>"dude it's the fault of the state for allowing that"
I'm saying you don't even have the slightest hint of an argument, you have an unfalsifiable pile of ideology with built in excuses.
>coca cola has illegal death squads
>coca cola gets gunned down and never talked about again
>coca cola makes their death squads legal
>coca cola makes legal
But keep being a retarded cocksucking subhuman with the only knowledge being the memory of your cum drinking mother sucking off your black dad's dick before he got away.
Literally barriers of entry create monopolies. One company could be so large no one could hope to compete
> These barriers include: economies of scale that lead to natural monopoly;control of a physical resource; legal restrictions on competition; patent, trademark and copyright protection; and practices to intimidate thecompetition like predatory pricing.
>coca cola gets gunned down and never talked about again
This literally did not happen, and coca cola literally had illegal death squads.
There were literally never "Coca Cola(tm) Death Squads(tm)". You literally need to stop literally posting since you literally write like a fag and your shit is literally all retarded.
Where have I read those mannerisms before…
Hey would you look at that. Another communist literally shitting up the board by being a literal disingenuous shill.
Until that company eventually fucks up and comes crashing down. Remember, companies are made up of fallible human beings, not robots.
>Prove that natural monopolies don't exist
Today's monopolies are created and sustained by government, not a damned one of them came about naturally.
What do I win?
Did you mean…
Good fucking question, abolish state-backed ones to find out the truth.
ITT: commie-equivalent retards
>just abolish private property somehow
>just abolish states somehow
>wanting to abolish the natural order of things is equivalent to wanting to remove a parasite
>>"dude it's the fault of the state for not stopping them"
>>"dude it's the fault of the state for allowing that"
Those are specifically NOT examples of the state helping or enabling monopolies. Go ahead and show me Coca-Cola death squads that haven't been actively enabled by the state, either through direct support or by preventing competition from others.
See, you've specifically given examples that I WOULD accept as evidence, if they had ever happened, but they haven't, because it CAN'T happen. You just gave an example of how you could advance your case if you had one, but in doing so, you've merely highlighted that you don't.
no AoC -> men can shape mentality of girls -> no more gynocracy
Ancaps win again. /liberty/ is always right.
Pretty accurate picture. Alsthough if you look at islam, it does smashing good job at abolishing the "modern era" AND abolishing consent. I've got the same idea as a nazi actually.
Abolishing the age of consent has nothing to do with abolishing the concept of consent and more to do with raising the importance of the logical definition of consent, as opposed to the legal definition.
>both have a monopoly on image boards.
Notice only two of those squares are technically possible, and only one square is relatively feasible
I am definitely a left-libertarian. Three out of four.
I'm actually kind of pissed off that my left-anarchist background puts me at "authoritarian bolshevik" on that chart.
Nazbol tankies and aynclaps wait for Big Daddy to do it for them… but the leftists have the hackers. FUCK the laws of physics!