I am simply trying to make the point that it is legislation (government granted privilege) that is enacted for the benefit of business (cartelization) to move away from perfect competition inorder to protect profits (price minus costs)...
Your point is mostly valid indeed. I would only argue that
perfect competition is both unattainable and undesirable anyway. Legislation restricting business is not passed to protect
profits but to protect well established corporations (and thus
their profits). It is not passed to move away from
perfect competition but to further restrict natural competition (which is very different from one place/time/sector to another and could/should never be
perfect).
Take my profits away and you take my incentive away...
what would be the effect on economies of scale to remove the government granted privilege of limited liability protection which was enacted inorder to encourage the pooling of capital to scale operations?
Remove the LLC status and free market alternatives might very well emulate it. In fact, I would argue this is mostly the case already. Most contracts do have limitations of liability clauses.
The major difference would be that individuals would not be shielded from responsibility unless by contact (this does not, obviously, include third parties, as with today's LLCs).
But then again, you are free to only deal with mom 'n pop shops and buy a home made car to anyone not requiring you to sign such a contract.
what if all privileges were removed that are subtly built into our property laws posing as a nuetral legal framework?
Not sure what you are referring to...
I am going to posit just as Ralph Borsodi did that actually the family homestead is the most efficient goods producing system...
I would argue that it is not. But we don't need to convince each other on that one either...
and once profits and capital formation are squeezed out via revoking government granted privilege & the resulting intense competitive pressures that the logical system that people would gravitate towards is mutualism - voluntary cooperative trade based on mutual benefit (reciprocity).
Although I do not expect the same results, I would help you remove all government granted privileges and regulations because it is the only moral thing to do.
I do not care about utilitarian arguments, so I wouldn't want to go back even if profits and capital formation went away as a result (but it will not).
Trade is voluntary (at least it is in free societies) and necessarily based on mutual benefit, actual or perceived.
Cooperative is a word you might want to explain in your definition. If what you mean is common ownership or redistribution... then you can have your little cooperative business but I want no part in it.
I can go on and on.
Have you ever noticed how it is always those who know least about running one particular business that always seem to know best how to run it? (I'm not targeting anyone btw)
In a free society, this is either amusing or annoying... in today's society, this is very dangerous because these people often have the biggest political clout.
In the end, what's important is that I think we would all go in the same direction.. we would all abolish government interference in the operation of the free market. Some would do this on practical grounds, others on philosophical grounds and others on both. Some would like to see unbridled capital flourish and expand.. other would like to see profits totally go away.
But none of us are violent individuals and we all understand that legislation is violence enacted by cowards using their pens to control the guns of mindless automatons.