Quote from: Alpaca John on June 01, 2013, 09:30:53 AM

As long as prices are fixed, I don't care if it is one corporation doing the job, or several that are colluding. Same difference. Centralization of power.

This is a valid point, but in a free market, the same things that would topple a natural monopoly would topple or disintegrate a cartel. In addition, there is the possibility of internal strife. A cartel is less of an issue than a monopoly.

Quote from: Alpaca John on June 01, 2013, 09:30:53 AM

Quote

Monopolies are anything but illegal in the US. You just have to go through proper channels to establish one.

"The law's treatment of monopolies is potentially the strongest in the field of antitrust law. Judicial remedies can force large organizations to be broken up, be run subject to positive obligations, or massive penalties may be imposed the people involved can be sentenced to jail."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Monopoly_and_power

As I said, you have to go through proper channels to get a monopoly in the US. If you don't, the penalties are harsh. But if you do, the benefits are enormous. And just like you can't go into a smoke shop and ask for a bong (it has to be called a "water pipe"), you can't call it a monopoly. It's a "government contract."

Quote from: Alpaca John on June 01, 2013, 09:30:53 AM

Quote

The reason violence is the dispute resolution method of choice in the drug market is because of the regulations making participation in that market illegal. They have no legal means of resolving disputes.

Wait, so we do need a state in order to legally resolve disputes then?

No. They need peaceful means of dispute resolution. Such as arbitration. But since any participation in that market is illegal, and punished by the government, it's difficult for them to get it. My point was that the drug market is anything but "unregulated." It's been regulated to death, in fact.

Now, a side note:

Quote

The fact that you are only here to prove other people wrong, instead of trying to actually progress your way of thinking, is exactly why I do not like to argue with you at all; there is not really a point in doing so.

I am not here to "prove people wrong." I am in fact here to see if my ideas can be knocked down by anyone else's. If you can prove my logic faulty, I will discard it, and take up the superior point. The plain fact is that nobody has been able to prove me wrong yet, and I don't see much hope in you doing so. But I wish you the best of luck in trying.