It's not just that they say they own it, again it's that billions of people around the world agree that they own it. Most people don't recognize the legitimacy of the mafias claim.

There has never been a vote for recognition of the states; so no, they don't agree, they are never presented a oppurtunity to disagree in a measurable capacity.

It's not your property, and it never was. It is the land of the sovereign state that is your country, and frankly you have no right to use it if you refuse to follow the rules of it's owner.

I have all the right to do things on this land, and the government has no right to rob me because someone paid me.

Except this is literally how it works

This is literally how robbery works

Monopolies not always are created by the market, although influent, the market doesnt always create a monopoly. If there's a limited supply of diamonds and one company owns all the mines, I would love to see how the market can find a competitor.

One company controlling all the mines is pretty unrealistic

Anti-trust laws are very needed to prevent such things that already happen in some degrees to become the rule. Plus non-private institutions are also needed to tell the truth when companies and the media have no interest in doing so.

Anti-trust laws more or less are pick and choose for the state. Some monopolies that gained their positions through efficiency are broken, while some failing companies are bolstered even though they hurt the consumer. Also, the state is untrustworthy; they say they don't control the news in anyway; it's exposed that they do, lies about killings, etc. There's also private watchdogs that look at quality and review things; lots of them on the internet.

Tobacco is a good example, imagine that today an ad told you that tobacco was good for health. You'd think it's absurd; but yet if a company like Philip Morris 70 years ago did an ad like that, you could think it's true. Then imagine CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC and idk which other crappy very watched News cable there is in the us all taked 5 million dollars each month not to talk about tobacco being bad for health. Soon you could have tons of people smoking tobacco cause it's good for health and in your dream ancap world most people wouldn't find about it.

https://mises.org/library/state-science-bad-your-health

The government has been really wrong about what's good for you in the past, and since giving the government results they might not like would result in less funding, there's incentive to fudge reports.

in your dream ancap world most people wouldn't find about it

Go to heck (I am bad at passive aggressiveness)

Now that's just an example, it could be applied to tons of fields and companies. In a capitalist world companies need to do profit: media, oil, big pharma, tobacco, weapon, and other companies all work for profit and will never put their customers before their income. In such a world you need one institution that works (even if badly) for the people.

Companies are dependent on the consumer for profit, so they serve them first and foremost. Governments though? They poison alcohol to keep folk from drinking it. This actually happened, and killed 10,000+ folk.

You can't have a good capitalist economy if all consumers are dumb and uninformed about the services/products they're acquiring.

Yes, which is why the government shouldn't be dumbing down folk. Also, the internet is great for education, and is helping folk more. A

thats what the government wants you to think

Monopolies do not exist, only laziness to create an opposing company or state does

*Microsoft, Apple, and Google all merge. Mission: Make your own successful telephone and computer business.

*Communist version: You're a Choson denizen. Private business is banned. Overthrow Gim Jong Il (millions of folk and several governments are just too "lazy" I guess to save themselves or their friends).

I've read what you wrote but since I have to wake up early tomorrow I won't uselessely argue about all of it. I just have two remarks:

controlling all the mines is pretty unrealistic

Unrealic maybe, but it was an example. Near total control can also work as de facto control, like Standart Oil monopoly of the oil business in the early 1890s. But what mostly happens today are cartels when companies agree with each other to spike the price of a product, btw that's illegal, but good luck preventing it from happening or at least punish companies that so this without a law against it and some kind of institution enforcing it.

Yes, which is why the government shouldn't be dumbing down folk. Also, the internet is great for education, and is helping folk more. A

Dumbing down is relative. As long as schools give you some knowlage, any knowlage, it's not dumbing down. You can argue that public school is crappy at it and follow biased programs, but it depends on the country and even then, it is better than nothing.

For the internet commentary, I will as you did, be more agressive. WTF dude? Why the heck will you charge the internet of teaching kids, that's one hell of a stupid idea. OK, the internet is a good tool for learning, but it's more of like an ax type of tool, you don't give a kid an ax and expect him to build a house. Sure, I guess one kid or two may build a house, but half of them would die playing with your ax and the other would abandon. Just a figure of style. The internet is dangerous, even though we often forget about it; a kid needs to learn how to read, how to do basic maths, learn history and expose himself to divergent ideas. The internet can offer this, but may offer it in the wrong way and probably would form legions of degenerates for the society. And if you think our generation is bad, I'd fear one that never went to school and learned how to live off the internet.

Edited 9/2/2016 22:57:01

*Communist version: You're a Choson denizen. Private business is banned. Overthrow Gim Jong Il (millions of folk and several governments are just too "lazy" I guess to save themselves or their friends).

Join the military, become an officer, push for us going to Syria to show off strength, make the force assigned to this more independent from the government than the rest of the military, when you return, take Pyongyang and kill Kim. Also, have ten luck, very necessary attribute to this.

Unrealic maybe, but it was an example. Near total control can also work as de facto control, like Standart Oil monopoly of the oil business in the early 90s

I was really troubled by this, but then I realized you meant 1890s; anyway, Baku hadn't even started driving up oil production, and neither did sources in the Middle East.

But what mostly happens today are cartels when companies agree with each other to spike the price of a product, btw that's illegal, but good luck preventing it from happening or at least punish companies that so this without a law against it and some kind of institution enforcing it.

Usually it's governments supporting these, look at Da Biers and South Africa.

Sorry for the 90s forgot to add the 18 hahahaha I will edit.

Usually it's governments supporting these, look at Da Biers and South Africa.

I didnt said governments don't support cartels, sometimes they may, but I think it has loads to do with corruption more than anything else. And I highly doubt that this is the case for most corporate cartels. I for example believe that Samsung and Apple do coordinate to keep the smartphone costs way higher than production costs to ensure fatass profits doing de facto no real concurrence in the prices. I doubt the US government forced them to do that.

http://www.itproportal.com/2015/05/04/samsung-apple-ditch-lawsuits-team-smartphones/

Eh, they are already working together. Anyway, they are probably not doing so in term of prices. If both of you are keeping your prices up, lowering them would essentially get you a big bit of the other's share of the market, while preventing more loss of your share overtime to other companies. Also, there's other smartphone producers, and they haven't really beaten them out yet.

There has never been a vote for recognition of the states; so no, they don't agree, they are never presented a oppurtunity to disagree in a measurable capacity.

Government usually derives its legitimacy from war.

I have all the right to do things on this land, and the government has no right to rob me because someone paid me. This is literally how robbery works

Democracy is a means of justifying government precisely because of anarchist tendencies such as yours.

Anti-trust laws more or less are pick and choose for the state. Some monopolies that gained their positions through efficiency are broken, while some failing companies are bolstered even though they hurt the consumer. Also, the state is untrustworthy; they say they don't control the news in anyway; it's exposed that they do, lies about killings, etc. There's also private watchdogs that look at quality and review things; lots of them on the internet.

The problem is that you do not know who is behind almost anything in the media. That's why you mustn't seek news from a single source, but source all your information from a variety of different newspapers and websites. I myself take from:

-BBC (primarily)
-Daily Mail
-Mirror
-Washington Post
-Guardian
-Independent
-CNN
-Breitbart
-AlJazeera
-Channel 4
-Russia Today
-Vice News

The government has been really wrong about what's good for you in the past, and since giving the government results they might not like would result in less funding, there's incentive to fudge reports.

That's the problem with the EU. Universities, think-tanks and various supposedly "independent" institutions in EU - and even some non-EU eastern - countries rely on their pro-EU propaganda for funding with direct consequences if they stray. This defeats their purpose and robs people of a healthy variety of views and opinions.

Companies are dependent on the consumer for profit, so they serve them first and foremost. Governments though? They poison alcohol to keep folk from drinking it. This actually happened, and killed 10,000+ folk.

If people insist on engaging in illegal behaviours by consuming a substance which is outlawed, they can't blame the government if they get are poisoned.

However, it is quite foolish to introduce an outright ban on alcohol in a country in which consumption of the stuff is so widespread. It would have been more productive if they weaned people off of the drink before banning it outright. The process should have taken several generations.

Government usually derives its legitimacy from war.

That is no means for legitimacy

Democracy is a means of justifying government precisely because of anarchist tendencies such as yours.

Democracy doesn't justify anything, there are never votes on the governments existence.

If people insist on engaging in illegal behaviours by consuming a substance which is outlawed, they can't blame the government if they get are poisoned.

Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after placing a ban, federal officials had decided to try a different method of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The plan was to scare people into giving up illegal drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal “poisoning program”, by some estimates, had killed over 10,000 people.

https://sites.psu.edu/shivensblog/2014/02/20/fbi-poisoning-alcohol-during-prohibition/

If you dispute the legitimacy of the authority of the state, you cannot legally challenge that. You can only usurp the established authority with military force, thereby legitimising your claim. Even in an anarchist uprising scenario.