Libertarian governments and Anarcho-Capitalism.

[quentin]

I live in Taiwan. I should have qualified that: the most libertarian developed country in the world. Somalia is the most libertarian country in the world. Feel free to move there if you want to live in a genuine anarchy.

But this a topic for another thead.

[prometheus]

Somalia is the most libertarian country in the world. Feel free to move there if you want to live in a genuine anarchy.

But this a topic for another thead.

The government of Somalia is not anarcho-capitalist, part of it is:
A presidential representative democratic republic, To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And the rest is (whatever the hell this is):
The Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of the Somali Republic (Somali: Dowladda federaalka kumeelgaarka) is the present government of the nation of Somalia. It was established as one of the Transitional Federal Institutions (TFIs) of government as defined in the Transitional Federal Charter (TFC) adopted in November 2004 by the Transitional Federal Parliament (TFP).

The TFG officially comprises the executive branch of government, with the TFP as the legislative branch. The government is headed by the President of Somalia, to whom the cabinet reports through the Prime Minister. However, it is also used as a general term for referring to the new government inclusively inferring all branches (executive, legislative and judicial).

The various departments of government, such as the TFG Defense Ministry fall under the different cabinet portfolios.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.







You seem like a smart guy, but your understanding of anarchy is wrong, or intentionally biased.

Here is my (and every other anarchist I know, including here) flavor:

Anarcho-capitalism (a form of market anarchism or individualist anarchism[1]) is an anti-state political philosophy that reconciles anarchism with capitalism. It advocates the elimination of the state; the provision of law enforcement, courts, national defense, and all other security services by voluntarily-funded competitors in a free market rather than through compulsory taxation; the complete deregulation of nonintrusive personal and economic activities; and a self-regulated market. Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based in voluntary trade of private property (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) and services in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity, but also recognize charity and communal arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic.[2] Though anarcho-capitalists are known for asserting a right to private (individualized/non-public) property, non-state common property can also exist in an anarcho-capitalist society.[3] For them, what is important is that it is acquired and transferred without help or hindrance from the compulsory state. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud. Murray Rothbard coined the term anarcho-capitalism to distinguish it from anarchism that opposes private property.[4]

Anarcho-capitalists see free-market capitalism as the basis for a free society. Rothbard defined free-market capitalism as "peaceful voluntary exchange", in contrast to "state capitalism" which he defined as a collusive partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market.[5] "Capitalism," as anarcho-capitalists employ the term, is not to be confused with state monopoly capitalism, crony capitalism, corporatism, or contemporary mixed economies, wherein natural market incentives and disincentives are skewed by state intervention.[6] So they reject the state, based on the belief that states are aggressive entities which steal property (through taxation and expropriation), initiate aggression, are a compulsory monopoly on the use of defensive and/or punitive force, use their coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, create monopolies, and restrict trade. The embrace of unfettered capitalism leads to considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and many social anarchists who tend to distrust the market, and believe that free-market capitalism is inherently authoritarian – hence incompatible with socialist ideals.

Various theorists have differing, though similar, philosophies which are considered to fall under "anarcho-capitalism." The first well-known version of anarcho-capitalism was formulated by Austrian School economist and libertarian Murray Rothbard in the mid-twentieth century, synthesizing elements from the Austrian School of economics, classical liberalism, and nineteenth century American individualist anarchists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker (rejecting their labor theory of value and the normative implications they derived from it).[7] In Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, there would first be the implementation of a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow."[8] This legal code would recognize sovereignty of the individual and the principle of non-aggression. However, in David D. Friedman's anarcho-capitalism, "the systems of law will be produced for profit on the open market",[9] which he believes would lead to a generally libertarian society if not an absolute one. Rothbard bases his philosophy on absolutist natural law grounds but also gives economic explanations of why he thinks anarcho-capitalism is preferable on pragmatic grounds. Friedman says he is not an absolutist rights theorist but is also "not a utilitarian", but believes that "utilitarian arguments are usually the best way to defend libertarian views".[10] Hans-Hermann Hoppe, meanwhile, uses "argumentation ethics" for his foundation of "private property anarchism",[11] which is closer to Rothbard's natural law approach.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[thod]

All property in this world belongs to us. Any other claims to ownership are invalid.

We may grant you a limited licence to use our property in exchange for your labor. We reserve the right to revoke that licence at any time and at our sole discretion.

Any attempt occupy, use, or otherwise obtain benefit from our property shall be considered a violation of our rights and opposed by physical force.

Any judgement, ruling or consensus by parties other than ourselves, that deems ownership of our property to other parties shall be considered ultra vires.

Any attempt to enforce such a a ruling shall be considered an unlawful act of aggression against our property rights and met with physical force.

[quentin]

Is personal freedom always the highest good? Surely there are other values that on occasion trump individual freedoms. We are part of a civilization. A society.

Most economists seem to agree these days, and the empirical evidence seems to bear this out, that a necessary basis for a sound economy is the rule of law. A fair and impartial legal system that guarantees property rights and individual human rights. One problem that economists moan about third-world nations in Africa and Asia and other places is that justice is arbritrary and corruption is rampant because there is no impartial rule of law, but rule by might. I couldn't and wouldn't start a business in a place like Nigeria or Cambodia, and why? Because at any time I could lose it all and have no recompense. If the corrupt government didn't take it away or gouge my profits with corruption, the gangsters and thugs would gouge away at the rest. There is no economic stability in a country where rule of law is weak. I would have no genuine property rights that didn't extend past the barrel of my gun. Is that the kind of society you want to live in? Quasi-Libertarian societies such as Italy and Taiwan have huge problems with gangsters because the government is too weak to enforce the law. The cops are less than useless here. A lot of people here, if they want to settle a business dispute, they don't settle it in the courts, they seek out help from someone who's connected. So you see, if you get rid of the government, then that creates a power vacuum and someone else is going to fill that vacuum - corporations or gangsters, take your pick (same difference a lot of the time).

A strong legal system, unfortunately for anarchists, requires a strong state.

[prometheus]

Is personal freedom always the highest good? Surely there are other values that on occasion trump individual freedoms. We are part of a civilization. A society. A society is just a group of individuals, and all freedoms are "personal freedoms", there are no societal freedoms. If you think there are values that trump freedom, point them out and let's discuss them.


Most economists seem to agree these days, and the empirical evidence seems to bear this out, that a necessary basis for a sound economy is the rule of law. A fair and impartial legal system that guarantees property rights and individual human rights. One problem that economists moan about third-world nations in Africa and Asia and other places is that justice is arbritrary and corruption is rampant because there is no impartial rule of law, but rule by might. I couldn't and wouldn't start a business in a place like Nigeria or Cambodia, and why? Because at any time I could lose it all and have no recompense. If the corrupt government didn't take it away or gouge my profits with corruption, the gangsters and thugs would gouge away at the rest. There is no economic stability in a country where rule of law is weak. I would have no genuine property rights that didn't extend past the barrel of my gun. Is that the kind of society you want to live in? Quasi-Libertarian societies such as Italy and Taiwan have huge problems with gangsters because the government is too weak to enforce the law. The cops are less than useless here. A lot of people here, if they want to settle a business dispute, they don't settle it in the courts, they seek out help from someone who's connected. So you see, if you get rid of the government, then that creates a power vacuum and someone else is going to fill that vacuum - corporations or gangsters, take your pick (same difference a lot of the time).

A strong legal system, unfortunately for anarchists, requires a strong state.

What is the difference between government extortion (taxes), and organized crime extortion? The gangsters don't act like they are doing you a favor; they are honest about it.

There have been numerous historical examples of groups of individuals living without a central government. Viking age Iceland I've referenced here at least 3 three times now.

"Medieval Iceland had no bureaucrats, no taxes, no police, and no army. … Of the normal functions of governments elsewhere, some did not exist in Iceland, and others were privatized, including fire-fighting, criminal prosecutions and executions, and care of the poor."

Here is an excellent essay about the Icelandic Free State (930-1262)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I've also referenced "The Wild West" several times. Here is a great new (to me) essay (from my home state of Montana also) about the "anarchy" of that time.

"Although the early West was not completely anarchistic, we believe that government as a legitimate agency of coercion was absent for a long enough period to provide insights into the operation and viability of property rights in the absence of a formal state. The nature of contracts for the provision of "public goods" and the evolution of western "laws" for the period from 1830 to 1900 will provide the data for this case study."

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[1OFMANY]

What is the difference between government extortion (taxes), and organized crime extortion? The gangsters don't act like they are doing you a favor; they are honest about it.

As much as we agree on almost everything else, I have to disagree with this one.

My taxes give me roads, a cop, a teacher( as much as they suck), and in the words of one of our famous posters here "super-high-tech-bombs" to protect me.

Gangsters give you:...................... nothing. Except a promise they wont kill you til next week.

[prometheus]

As much as we agree on almost everything else, I have to disagree with this one.

My taxes give me roads, a cop, a teacher( as much as they suck), and in the words of one of our famous posters here "super-high-tech-bombs" to protect me.

Gangsters give you:...................... nothing. Except a promise they wont kill you til next week.

Roads are (mostly) paid for by local property taxes (the balance being your tax funds being returned to your state with strings attached), cops are mostly just for raising funds for government (when is the last time one actually protected you), teachers are also mostly supported by your local property taxes. My argument is all of these functions could be provided better and cheaper by the free market.

[1OFMANY]

My argument is all of these functions could be provided better and cheaper by the free market.

Who is going to regulate that free market?

[prometheus]

Who is going to regulate that free market?

Nobody.

People with speak with their wallets.

[1OFMANY]

Tell me how this will end then...

You live in a area that seems to be ok, good population, good neighbors, a volunteer police service, 2.5 kids and a dog and a few smith & wessons...life seems good right?


I show up with 35 friends and say " Im the new "volunteer police force" and thank the former cops for their service and dismiss them with an ugly look.

[prometheus]

Tell me how this will end then...

You live in a area that seems to be ok, good population, good neighbors, a volunteer police service, 2.5 kids and a dog and a few smith & wessons...life seems good right?


I show up with 35 friends and say " Im the new "volunteer police force" and thank the former cops for their service and dismiss them with an ugly look.


I don't know about your neighborhood, so I will speak of mine.
In my small town community everybody has lots o' guns, everybody knows one another. There is also a history of people helping each other out in emergencies. There is also a natural tendency to be wary (for good or bad) of "outsiders".

So one of two things would happen, with the same end result:

1) They would realize since they took the position by force, they would need to disarm the populace to limit reprisals. This would have the same effect as trying to swim through an Hydroelectric turbine. Result: a bunch of dead mercenaries.

2) They vastly outnumber the people (not really a legitimate scenario, since the community couldn't "support" them) the people would put their MBRs and Elk guns to good use thinning them out one or two at a time. Result: a bunch of dead mercenaries.

If you live in DC or Kalifornia, your situation would be more difficult, since you gave up your Natural Right to be able to defend your self. Have you read the book The Postman?

[thod]

3) They put the population to the sword and take what they want. I loved those vikings.

Doesnt matter where in the world or when. In the end people are ruled by warlords, I can shoot a few of them but there are always more and they will come get me. Its better to live under a warlord than be dead. Those that dont agree die and their ideas die with them.

From a military perspective you are a bunch of untrained light infintry. There is nothing below that. You wouldnt be able to resist an attack by a better geared and armed force. I dount any of you have anything to knock out a tank.

[1OFMANY]

I dount any of you have anything to knock out a tank.

TM 31-210 :)

[Dreamer]

I don't know about your neighborhood, so I will speak of mine.
In my small town community everybody has lots o' guns, everybody knows one another. There is also a history of people helping each other out in emergencies. There is also a natural tendency to be wary (for good or bad) of "outsiders".

So one of two things would happen, with the same end result:

1) They would realize since they took the position by force, they would need to disarm the populace to limit reprisals. This would have the same effect as trying to swim through an Hydroelectric turbine. Result: a bunch of dead mercenaries.

2) They vastly outnumber the people (not really a legitimate scenario, since the community couldn't "support" them) the people would put their MBRs and Elk guns to good use thinning them out one or two at a time. Result: a bunch of dead mercenaries.

If you live in DC or Kalifornia, your situation would be more difficult, since you gave up your Natural Right to be able to defend your self. Have you read the book The Postman?

Two scenarios come to my mind when we talk of breakdown of government in urban areas:The Los Angeles Rodney King riots(or whatever was that black fat man's name was) and New Orleans.

In both,the National Guard had to be sent in order to restore order. In both, there are examples of private citizens making good use of their right to keep and bear arms (the Korean populace of LA comes to mind), but they have been completely unable to restore the peace.

What makes you think that the people will nescessarly win against the various gangs/criminal organizations espescially in an urban scenario? If so, what is your perspective on to why the good guys failed to restore order in the above two scenarios?

[prometheus]

Two scenarios come to my mind when we talk of breakdown of government in urban areas:The Los Angeles Rodney King riots(or whatever was that black fat man's name was) and New Orleans.

In both,the National Guard had to be sent in order to restore order. In both, there are examples of private citizens making good use of their right to keep and bear arms (the Korean populace of LA comes to mind), but they have been completely unable to restore the peace.

What makes you think that the people will nescessarly win against the various gangs/criminal organizations espescially in an urban scenario? If so, what is your perspective on to why the good guys failed to restore order in the above two scenarios?

This is a PC trap but I'll point out the fact that these riots, took place in extremly poor areas that had high gang populations.

When is the last time you heard of riots in a rural area, even the extremely poor rural areas (more so than ghettos), like the Appalachian Mountains.

Gangs are criminal organizations, so are you really asking why areas high in criminals were having problems with people not respecting the property rights of others?


IIRC: The end of the LA riots was caused the the USPS declaration that it was too dangerous to deliver mail and welfare checks wouldn't be delivered.





prometheus added to this post, 42 minutes and 31 seconds later...

TM 31-210 :)

Has DHS knocked on your door yet?

[Dreamer]

This is a PC trap but I'll point out the fact that these riots, took place in extremly poor areas that had high gang populations.
When is the last time you heard of riots in a rural area, even the extremely poor rural areas (more so than ghettos), like the Appalachian Mountains.
The majority of the earth's population will be living in cities in the near future.

To dismiss them is to subscribe to a very localized view. It is okay if that is what you are aiming for(the betterment of your community above all else), and you will get no argument from me. But it is a view that is totally myopic on a national and international level.


Gangs are criminal organizations, so are you really asking why areas high in criminals were having problems with people not respecting the property rights of others?
The problem of criminal organisations does not disappear overnight. In the case of New Orleans, the whole city was in chaos. The criminal elements, formerly limited by government forces, spilled over its pre-Katrina borders into the richer quarters.

Bloods and crypts used to be a problem that was unique to Los Angeles. Today we find them all over North America(in different strands:some are more dangerous than others). The corruption in Mexico and Columbia affects crime in the US and the terrorist havens in Canada affects American national security.

Your neighbours' crime problems are your problems as well,whether you want it or not. And they will certainly spill over chaotic cities into your rural paradise if the libertarian leadership leaves urban questions unresolved.

I have trouble believing that you have failed to consider these points before stating your views.

[errrzarrr]

I live in Taiwan. I should have qualified that: the most libertarian developed country in the world. Somalia is the most libertarian country in the world. Feel free to move there if you want to live in a genuine anarchy.

But this a topic for another thead.
Maybe I am wrong, but Somalia is not a anarchy, is a democratic republic, as far as i Know.

A anarchy is not chaos, by the way. Anarchism is an idealistic and utopic social-economic-politic system, where citizens have 100% of economic liberty and 100% of social liberties (such system is not possible to implement in real life, therefore is idealistic).


Ahm, btw, I admire Libertarian coutries and I admire Taiwan too. Many of political experts in my country have Tawain as model. Here's even a group of taiwanese experts.

[AgentofGaming]

Wouldn't the military or whoever is paying the military takeover if there was a sudden loss of government?
Not to mention if there was a loss of government and everything was property, the country would be auctioned off to the highest bidder.
I don't see this free state existing too long as the highest bidder wants to make some money off it.

[yondyr]

Lets say such a system as anarchy couldn't be overlaid upon present society and its mind set to fix the problems arising out of other social systems that are presently failing. But you're right, errrzarrr, in that it is utopian, i.e. unlikely to ever be applied in its pure form without mind wipes of the populace.

[AgentofGaming]

I think all the extreme political systems are ideal. Like Communism, Fascism and pure democracy.
The moderate/flexible ones are those that survive.
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Sir Winston Churchill

[prometheus]

I have trouble believing that you have failed to consider these points before stating your views.

I have considered these facts. That is why I live in the most libertarian county, in the most libertarian state in America. We also happen to be a net exporter, with vast amounts of natural resources, and damn near everybody here is militant individualist, and armed to the teeth. Also, this community could be shut off from the outside with less than 1% of the population. I have pity upon people living in places like the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia. Just not a whole lot, everyone has made choices in their life and will have to live with the consequences of them eventually. When the house of cards comes tumbling down, it's going to be ugly. I'm not discounting the possibility of a slow decline similar to the roman empire, but I like to be prepared for the worst.

Maybe I am wrong, but Somalia is not a anarchy, is a democratic republic, as far as i Know.

Errrzarrr you are right, I pointed this out earlier.

Wouldn't the military or whoever is paying the military takeover if there was a sudden loss of government?
Not to mention if there was a loss of government and everything was property, the country would be auctioned off to the highest bidder.
I don't see this free state existing too long as the highest bidder wants to make some money off it.

I picture the bulk of the military abandoning their posts (from lack of pay) before it gets truly ugly. OTOH most of the military guys I've met are individualists, and when I ask them (and I ask everyone of them I meet) if the scenario we are speaking of goes down, they will be siding with the populace, they will never try to disarm the people, which WILL be one of the first steps of a totalitarian regime. As for property being sold off, so what? Do you think the Forest Circus's stance on burning down trees instead of logging is a healthy economic decision?

[thod]

I picture the bulk of the military abandoning their posts (from lack of pay) before it gets truly ugly. OTOH most of the military guys I've met are individualists, and when I ask them (and I ask everyone of them I meet) if the scenario we are speaking of goes down, they will be siding with the populace, they will never try to disarm the people, which WILL be one of the first steps of a totalitarian regime. As for property being sold off, so what? Do you think the Forest Circus's stance on burning down trees instead of logging is a healthy economic decision?

If for some reason the military wasnt paid/fed they wouldnt all disperse to become farmers. They are a team and they respect their commanders (at least some) and they have guns. The commander will take charge and see his priority as feeding his men. He will confiscate foodstuffs, ammo, fuel etc for use by the army. He will ensure that a percentage of local production of farms is diverted to his army. He will maintain production and trade with other warlords. There will be no anarchy. Each area will be run by a warlord. There will be wars between them and a high warlord will emerge. Any citizen that attempts to disrupt production or refuses to work will be sanctioned. The farmers will resent handing thier produce to the warlord and hide it. They will be made examples of, the other farmers will comply since its better than the alternatives.

[prometheus]

If for some reason the military wasnt paid/fed they wouldnt all disperse to become farmers. They are a team and they respect their commanders (at least some) and they have guns. The commander will take charge and see his priority as feeding his men. He will confiscate foodstuffs, ammo, fuel etc for use by the army. He will ensure that a percentage of local production of farms is diverted to his army. He will maintain production and trade with other warlords. There will be no anarchy. Each area will be run by a warlord. There will be wars between them and a high warlord will emerge. Any citizen that attempts to disrupt production or refuses to work will be sanctioned. The farmers will resent handing thier produce to the warlord and hide it. They will be made examples of, the other farmers will comply since its better than the alternatives.

Hey, did Mad Max make your time machine himself.

That would never happen in Montana, LOL, they might have nukes up here, but they are way out numbered, and we are better shots than most of them to boot.

MTA: Here is your worst nightmare, feudalboy. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And, guess what, this is a very popular book in Montana.

[thod]

I see your survivalist types as a psychologicly damaged. They are afraid of the modern world and their place in it. They are in retreat from that world. They hide in their log cabins pointing guns out at the world. They are afraid of getting hurt. People have hurt him in the past so his solution is to not be attached to other people. He would rather give up the benefits and joys of interaction than be hurt.

They love to think of themselves as the supreme competior. They will only ever cooperate in a temporary alliance if its to their benefit and they will break that alliance as soon as it is not. They wont specialise and gain the benefits of a community of specialists because that brings dependence and the oppurtunity to be hurt.

They are not forward looking and open. They are regressing back to the safety of the womb. They are not willing to change because change means loss of identity. They fear loss of identity. They build a shell around their true identity and allow nothing through including truth. They were not always like this, they were probaly normal playful inquisative children. Some event has caused them to become so defensive and indrawn. Perhaps psychiatirc help would help them discover what it is. The alternative is to send them out to the leper colonies of montana.

[1OFMANY]

They love to think of themselves as the supreme competior. They will only ever cooperate in a temporary alliance if its to their benefit and they will break that alliance as soon as it is not. They wont specialise and gain the benefits of a community of specialists because that brings dependence and the oppurtunity to be hurt.


I disagree with that part. You have to have a medical specialist, a demolition specialist, etc. No good team is without its specialists :P

[yondyr]

Thod, "They build a shell around their true identity and allow nothing through including truth".......other than the fact that the sun comes up and such like, there are very few 'truths' that aren't skewed by personal opinions.

[jdc127]

Libertarians are selfish if they understand the full implications of their theories and world views. Sorry, no offense folks.





jdc127 added to this post, 0 minutes and 59 seconds later...

Oh, and yodyr, the sun doesn't come up or set. That is just an illusion caused by the world spinning round...

[yondyr]

sighs, I hope you were punning, jdc, but I see no smilies anywhere.

[prometheus]

sighs, I hope you were punning, jdc, but I see no smilies anywhere.

Yea..............How dare you expect to keep anything you earn. Next thing you know people will think the veggies they grow in "their" garden belong to them, or that "their" vehicles shouldn't be taken and given to the more needy. Or even want to kick transients out of "their" spare bedrooms. HOW DARE YOU, MA'AM! YOU AND YOUR TYPE MAKE ME SICK!

;D :p

[yondyr]

yeah and I own the sun, so if I say it comes up, so it do!

[prometheus]

yeah and I own the sun, so if I say it comes up, so it do!


Good damn fucking straight............show me title if you say you own it. ;D

[xanodel]

There's just one thing that always disturbs me when I see anything that starts with the particle, "anarch." Be it social anarchy, economic anarchy, political anarchy, etc if viewed in the greater whole of human history and social economic development, they were the origins for the modern mess we have. So why go back full circle only to end up years later in the same place? Other than the fact that each of those propositions assumes that human nature is good, wholesome, and each individual can to a degree agree with the greater whole ideology. And therein lies a problem. How do we even know, in a libertarian sense that we "earned" something? In the end that's also a subjective value judged separately on each individual. What if someone thinks they "earned" more than they have?

In the case of anarch-capitalism, the question is how to prevent monopolies? Wouldn't a monopoly be justified since it "earned" its place?

[yondyr]

It's possible a cycle would ensue of a monopoly taking over... which then raises its prices, then opposition kicking in to undercut the monopoly....

[AgentofGaming]

It's possible a cycle would ensue of a monopoly taking over... which then raises its prices, then opposition kicking in to undercut the monopoly....

It might not be so easy if the company has a trade secret or a patent.
Especially in the high-tech sector where huge R&D is required to get the expected products, how can a small company even compete at the high end?
There's also the risk of being kicked out Walmart style where they offer everything in a local area at low prices until the competition is gone and raise it back.

It's difficult to match the capital of established companies.

[yondyr]

I'd still like to give the cycle a chance to work, artificially supporting competition disturbs me. Patents, trade secrets are a separate subject and I'm not even sure I support their exclusivity by having a patent office... a notoriously flawed race to be first.

[AgentofGaming]

I'm not too sure about the cycle, I'm worried about the potential losses to consumers due to market monopolies, after all a monopoly means that a company/companies has/have are able to force the consumers to some extent. From a motives perspective me spending more is a win for the business and a loss for me.

As for patents, if there were no patents how can someone protect their own inventions? and rightfully "earn" from them?
Theft of ideas would pose concern as those who create ideas won't be able to retain the full benefit from them.
Although I agree, patents do lead to stagnation as everyone not only claims an idea, but also claim the ideas that extend from the original.