The money comes from people who must survive. I would like to see you boycott food producers or electricity providers. What you are advocating for is undemocratic: the wealthy have more influence and can (and will) use influence to get more wealth and influence. A democracy offers more (not perfect obviously) protection against the elite dominating everyone else.
Boycotting certain food producers, and distributors, isn't a death sentence. Ever gone to a supermarket? The majority of the various products there, you don't buy, and haven't bought in your life. If there's a boycott, it's up to the people who do buy that product to simply buy something else, or even the same thing from a different brand, if they disagree with it. That brand's competitors have the opportunity to make money off the boycotters by not doing the same thing as the other company.
It's a lot harder to do this when the government sets regulations that prevent small, start-up businesses from taking advantage of this and catering to the boycotters. Wal-Mart does not get destroyed by a minimum wage increase, but potential local competitors do. Kraft is just fine with the FDA regulations (that should be preventing them from selling that disgusting rubber to people), but if you wanted to start a business and sell actual cheese, good luck staying in business while you wait for the FDA to approve you.
Before you claim that my examples of food producers or utilities are only monopolies because of government, let me explain how monopolies form in free markets. It is known that corporations don't like the threat of less profits that is represented by competitors. The incumbent is able to operate at a loss for longer than the up-and-coming competitor can, and so they are able to use immoral market fuckery to remain on top. Thus a large company acts to deliberatly eliminate competition.
And how exactly are they deliberately eliminating competition? Without a government to manipulate the market in your favor, intentionally (through lobbying) or otherwise, you would have to form a cartel. There is no immoral market fuckery without a government or a cartel involved.
Please, tell me how governments are responsible for the immoral fuckery that is melamine in food, aloe lotions without any trace of aloe, cheese bulked out with cellulose, or emissions lies. These companies decided that quality and ethics weren't worth the cost, that profits were more important than moral behaviour. Some regulations are a necessary market restriction; companies routinely demonstrate that they value profit more than ethics and consumer health.
That's because consumers don't care enough either, and the ones that do will turn to politicians to save them, instead of taking action in the market themselves. If you don't want to buy food with poison in it, don't buy it, buy something else. If you don't want others to buy it, start convincing others not to buy it, which is a million times easier now thanks to the internet. Regulation is necessary, but it doesn't have to come from legislation, it can come from common sense and reason, which comes with a whole hell of a lot less unintended consequences, and is much less immoral.
And if the corporation in question is actually violating the NAP (fraud is coercion, so selling rubber and calling it cheese for example, would be considered a criminal act), then private courts can absolutely take care of that. Just like oil companies, which are guilty of mass vandalism, would not survive without a government to protect them. According to legislative law, enacted by a democratic government, they aren't doing a damn thing wrong. The NAP on the other hand, forbids any form of coercion except as a form of self defense, so if someone is destroying the environment, and with it, everyone's property, then they are violating the NAP, and it's justified to use force to stop them.
Boycotting certain food producers, and distributors, isn't a death sentence. [...] That brand's competitors have the opportunity to make money off the boycotters by not doing the same thing as the other company.
Assuming there are no monopolies. And, as I said later, monopolies can form and maintain themselves in a Free Market.
Kraft is just fine with the FDA regulations (that should be preventing them from selling that disgusting rubber to people), but if you wanted to start a business and sell actual cheese, good luck staying in business while you wait for the FDA to approve you.
That's interesting, there are quite a few (and growing) artisan cheese (and cured meat) producers near me, despite no change in regulations. It's almost as if the regulations are aimed at conglomerates who use exotic addititves to make the "disgusting rubber" and stray far from the traditional (and well supported by regulations) recipes.
The incumbent is able to operate at a loss for longer than the up-and-coming competitor can,
And how exactly are they deliberately eliminating competition?
You didn't read what I wrote.
Without a government to manipulate the market in your favor, intentionally (through lobbying) or otherwise, you would have to form a cartel
Ah, the old "the government creates all monopolies" argument. Utter bullshit. Monopolies form easily because competitors form an unstable equilibrium. If one gets slightly ahead (by any means, ethical or not) it has more resources to spend marketing, buying up resources, or otherwise pushing out its competitors. Bingo! A monopoly.
This is why the Monopoly board game is no fun. Because monopolies are inevitable in a free market.
If you don't want to buy food with poison in it, don't buy it, buy something else.
LOL you're funny.
Regulation is necessary,
See, we agree.
but it doesn't have to come from legislation, it can come from common sense and reason.
And the finale, the classic assumption that consumers have perfect information. Putting aside consumer rumour and hearsay, and average consumer education levels, the existence of the marketing industry shows that companies are seriously invested in providing imperfect information. The internet is not magic, it facilitates misinformation and disinformation just as well as it does true information.
The incumbent is able to operate at a loss for longer than the up-and-coming competitor can,
And how exactly are they deliberately eliminating competition?
You didn't read what I wrote.
I see what you mean by that now. That's not necessarily a deliberate attempt at getting rid of competitors though, it's simply a larger business surviving while another dies.
Ah, the old "the government creates all monopolies" argument. Utter bullshit. Monopolies form easily because competitors form an unstable equilibrium. If one gets slightly ahead (by any means, ethical or not) it has more resources to spend marketing, buying up resources, or otherwise pushing out its competitors. Bingo! A monopoly.
Right, that is an example of a justified monopoly, where, like I said earlier, they achieve that status by simply being a good business, not by using government to force out competition.
The reason this is a problem, when there's government regulation, is because if that monopoly decides to start fucking people over, it's a lot harder for new, potential competitors to come around and fill the now angry consumer's demand for better quality/less expensive products.
I'll admit, Kraft cheese was a shitty example. A much better one would be pharmaceuticals. FDA regulations, and intellectual property laws, have really effected healthcare in America. Martin Shkreli and his HIV medications, or the more recent EpiPen price hike, these were only possible because FDA regulations, and patents and other IP laws, made it impossible for new competitors to show up.
There's a great video by That Guy T that can explain monopolies in an Ancap society much better than I can.
And the finale, the classic assumption that consumers have perfect information. Putting aside consumer rumour and hearsay, and average consumer education levels, the existence of the marketing industry shows that companies are seriously invested in providing imperfect information. The internet is not magic, it facilitates misinformation and disinformation just as well as it does true information.
It's up to the individual to make smart decisions for themselves. Society has no obligation to protect people from misinformation or poor choices, and no right to force anyone to stop making poor choices available in the market.
Another thing to keep in mind, like I said earlier, fraud is a form of coercion. If a company says something is or isn't in their product, when that isn't true, then an Ancap society would consider that criminal.
The money comes from people who must survive. I would like to see you boycott food producers or electricity providers. What you are advocating for is undemocratic: the wealthy have more influence and can (and will) use influence to get more wealth and influence. A democracy offers more (not perfect obviously) protection against the elite dominating everyone else.
Before you claim that my examples of food producers or utilities are only monopolies because of government, let me explain how monopolies form in free markets. It is known that corporations don't like the threat of less profits that is represented by competitors. The incumbent is able to operate at a loss for longer than the up-and-coming competitor can, and so they are able to use immoral market fuckery to remain on top. Thus a large company acts to deliberatly eliminate competition.
Please, tell me how governments are responsible for the immoral fuckery that is melamine in food, aloe lotions without any trace of aloe, cheese bulked out with cellulose, or emissions lies. These companies decided that quality and ethics weren't worth the cost, that profits were more important than moral behaviour. Some regulations are a necessary market restriction; companies routinely demonstrate that they value profit more than ethics and consumer health.