Quote from: Mike Christ on December 09, 2013, 07:47:59 AM

Quote from: ataulf on December 09, 2013, 05:35:39 AM

We view the original state of nature as pure freedom. These groups formed corporations to provide security to their customers in exchange for tribute - payment - which was given to their shareholders: the warriors or nobility. Doesn't history then prove that over the course of time a state of infinite competition settles into one of multiple monopolies which band together to stamp out potential challengers in their market? This entirely disproves libertarianism's main argument that infinite competition will provide infinite freedom.

That's not the main argument; the main argument is on ethics, claiming that using coercion is immoral, and the use of systematic coercion through the state is still systematically immoral.

actually there are two main lines of reasoning against the coercive power of state: the moral and the practical. The moral argument says: "it is wrong to force people to give up their resources and be ordered around under threat of force". The practical argument says: "the state is a hierarchical monopolistic structure and as such provides perverse incentives for its managers and absolutely SUCKS at collecting accurate information and making intelligent decisions based on it". Personally, I don't give a shit about the moral argument, I leave that to the moralists