Anarcho-Capitalism: The Solution To Monopoly and Cartels

A reader asks how anarcho-capitalism protects against monopolies.


I’m Gábriel from Hungary, one of your many readers; your articles about Bitcoin are of particular interest to me, but I frequently read the other ones as well.

 Of course I too sympathize with Libertarianism, but there is a single question that I don’t yet understand, and hope that as an expert of the field, you could explain this to me – but if you have already written an article about this and I just didn’t find it yet, then of course a single link pointing to that would be a perfect answer as well.

 So the question is simply this: in an ideal free market environment (this meaning completely and absolutely free from any and all sorts of state regulation and intervention), what defense would we have against trusts and monopolies? What would prevent the more powerful businesses from unscrupulously buying up or perhaps simply eliminating any and all emerging competition in their area through other, even more forceful means?

 So that was my question… I would really appreciate any answer you could give to it, since I’ve been looking for answer to this one for a long time, but couldn’t find any yet.

Thank you for time, and all the best to you. Regards,


Thanks for reading!  Great question Gábriel.

Let us suppose that you are a “monopolist.”  Suppose that you are the CEO of a widget producing corporation.  You currently have 100% of the market share for widgets.  Now ask yourself, why isn’t anyone competing against you?

Now ask yourself, what would happen to your market share if you decided to raise your price!  Isn’t that the whole point of a monopoly?  To be able to cut production and raise the price of your goods by reducing supply?

Let’s say I’m a venture capitalist.  My whole job is to scan the market looking for opportunities to invest other people’s capital in highly profitable business ventures.  I happen to notice that you have cut back your widget production in order to drive up the price of widgets.  I notice that there is a huge profit margin in widget production.  What do you think I’m going to do with my clients’ capital?  Isn’t it reasonable to assume that if you are not meeting the market demand for widgets, that someone like myself will come along and start a firm to compete against you?

What would my competition cause you to do?  Let’s say that my start up firm is tiny and only produces a tenth of the widgets that you produce – what would eventually happen if you did not lower your price by maximizing your production?  Clearly my start up firm would get bigger and bigger until it over-took your firm’s market share.  If you don’t want to lose market share, you have no choice but to maximize your production even if there are currently no other competitors in the market!  Because you know that if you don’t, someone like myself will come along and compete against you.

Let’s look at why people produce things in a free market.  Generally, people produce things in order to satisfy two basic types of human needs:  good feelings and solutions to problems.  If something does not satisfy either one of those two needs, it is highly unlikely that it will be worth anything to anyone in the open market.  Is it possible for ONE firm to meet all of humanity’s needs for a specific problem?  Is it possible for ONE firm to meet all of humanity’s needs for good feelings?  When put into this context, it should become clear that a monopoly by one firm in a free market is impossible.

It may be that there is only one firm producing goods to meet a specific market need, but that does not mean that firm meets the definition of a monopoly.  Remember, a monopoly must be able to cut production in order to raise the price of their goods without losing market share to competitors.  Clearly as soon as any firm starts cutting back its productive capacity intentionally, they will face new competitors who will move to meet the market’s needs.

A real monopoly can only be created through the use of violent force!  Let me give you some examples of a real monopoly:

1. US currency – there is a market need for money, but no one is allowed to create their own money which can be used for the payment of taxes.  US taxes must be paid in dollars, and the courts will always discharge debts that are paid in US dollars.  Businesses do not have a choice about accepting dollars as payment of debts.  These restrictions on currency production are enforced at gun point.

2. US First Class Mail – there is a market need for letter mail delivery.  In the United States, it is illegal for anyone to compete against the US Post Office in first class letter mail delivery.  The US Post Office has a legal monopoly on first class mail delivery.  If anyone tried to start up a company to compete against the Post Office, armed men would raid their business and shut them down.  The US Post Office can charge whatever it likes for first class delivery, and the people have no choice but to pay what the Post Office demands if they want first class letter delivery.

3.  iPhone production – there is a market demand for iPhones.  Apple holds a patent on iPhone production.  If anyone tried to copy Apple’s iPhone and sell it, armed men would raid their business establishment and shut them down.  Even if they called it something else, it doesn’t matter.  Apple has a monopoly privilege on the production of iPhones that has been granted to them by the State.  Of course, people could chose to buy a different brand of phone, but clearly if people want an iPhone, they must buy it specifically from Apple.  No competition is allowed in the production of iPhones.

Consider that if I use my own factory and my own resources to produce an iPhone replica, I have not stolen any property from Apple at all.  Apple hasn’t lost a single transistor to theft.  Ask yourself why the State should prevent me from using my own property to create a replica iPhone?  Are consumers of iPhones helped or harmed by the State’s actions?  Clearly they are harmed because this means there are less iPhones available and their prices will be higher.

What you should take away from my examples is that the State is necessary in order for any corporation to have a monopoly.  Violent force or threats of force must be leveled against people in order to prevent them from competing in the open market.  In the absence of the State, anyone could compete against anyone by utilizing their own resources as they saw fit.  Private security can only protect physical property owned by individuals, they can not go out running around looting people simply because they are copying each other’s ideas.  If they did, they would have to face the private security of those whom they wished to shut down.

In a real free market, if Apple wanted to protect itself from iPhone competitors, they would simply have to keep the technical details of iPhone production a secret.  If I wanted to replicate Apple’s phone, I would have to first discover how it is produced.  Today, all I have to do is look up the patents they have filed with the State in order to discover how an iPhone is built.  Patents not only grant monopoly privilege, but they also destroy trade secrets.

For a more thorough explanation of why free markets prevent monopolies, listen to these lectures by professional economist Thomas DiLorenzo:

The Myth of Natural Monopoly, by Thomas DiLorenzo:

Most so-called public utilities have been granted governmental franchise monopolies because they are thought to be “natural monopolies.” Put simply, a natural monopoly is said to occur when production technology, such as relatively high fixed costs, causes long-run average total costs to decline as output expands. In such industries, the theory goes, a single producer will eventually be able to produce at a lower cost than any two other producers, thereby creating a “natural” monopoly. Higher prices will result if more than one producer supplies the market.

Furthermore, competition is said to cause consumer inconvenience because of the construction of duplicative facilities, e.g., digging up the streets to put in dual gas or water lines. Avoiding such inconveniences is another reason offered for government franchise monopolies for industries with declining long-run average total costs.

It is a myth that natural-monopoly theory was developed first by economists, and then used by legislators to “justify” franchise monopolies. The truth is that the monopolies were created decades before the theory was formalized by intervention-minded economists, who then used the theory as an ex post rationale for government intervention. At the time when the first government franchise monopolies were being granted, the large majority of economists understood that large-scale, capital-intensive production did not lead to monopoly, but was an absolutely desirable aspect of the competitive process.

The word “process” is important here. If competition is viewed as a dynamic, rivalrous process of entrepreneurship, then the fact that a single producer happens to have the lowest costs at any one point in time is of little or no consequence. The enduring forces of competition — including potential competition — will render free-market monopoly an impossibility.

The theory of natural monopoly is also ahistorical. There is no evidence of the “natural-monopoly” story ever having been carried out — of one producer achieving lower long-run average total costs than everyone else in the industry and thereby establishing a permanent monopoly. As discussed below, in many of the so-called public-utility industries of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, there were often literally dozens of competitors.

continue reading.


  • Next President, Ron Paul Signed Zimbabwe One Hundred Trillion Dollar Bill Price now is $20.50  spread the word!

  • david oconnor

    this guys is so naive, his THEORY has no base on in reality. He counts on fair play by a monopolizer. Has never happened in any system ever and ain’t going to happen in AC or AL system either. He’s dreaming. At least now if we get the politicians accountabable and transparent, out of the pocket of such monopolizers then we have a chance to regulate fair play. Thats the only way its ever going to happen. A good referee or individuals and and teams get away with cheating. Its human nature and this guy is in theoritical fantasy land to think otherwise. He has no evidence for it ever having been the case. NONE! 

    • As usual the anti-libertarians simply claims that libertarian theory doesn’t work in reality, without any actual reference to what happens in reality.  In reality monopolists routinely capture the regulators and the politicians are mostly accountable to the monopolists, who unlike the rest of us, actually have a motive to pay attention.  When has their been an abusive free market monopoly?  Look at what actually happens with monopolies under the state?  When has the state ever been a good referee? 

      Why would a monopolist expect to get away with “cheating” (you don’t say what sort of cheating) easier under anarcho-capitalism than under the State?  Do you have ANY evidence that the state is actually good at being a referee or preventing cheating?  Because there is a lot of evidence that it’s rubbish at that.  About 100 million pieces of evidence, all of them dead bodies. 

    • Jimblimm

      Of course the would-be monopolist will TRY to cheat, but exactly how can he do so, if he can’t use force? A more real problem is when people count on fair play by the government, which can and does use force and is hardly an impartial referee. Statists never seem to consider this problem; the government is simply magic for them, the normal rules don’t apply. The reality is that government consists of people, same as corporations. The only real difference is that government can and does use force to get its way – so it has far greater leeway to “cheat”.

  • Anonymous

    Hi and thanks fot this most detailed answer to my question!
    I was somewhat surprised to see that a monopoly is apparently defined by the ability to cut production to drive up prices without losing share. In my line of thought, a monopoly was simply defined as being the only supplier in a given area, with the ability to “remove” (by any means necessary) any competition.

    That is – furthering your example -, another thing I could – and what in this case I would – do as the monopolist is – instead of cutting production and driving up price – to just max production and meet the demand, since even if the prices are lower, due to huge amount produced, I’ll still make a fortune – possibly even more than I could with higher prices but smaller quantity.
    And if you still come along to compete, well, I just buy you out. Since there is no authority to tell me that I cannot, I will. And if you don’t want to sell your business, then I don’t even have to cheat – I can just simply let you try, confident in my superiority (since I’ve already maxed production, the prices are low, and you can’t bid under them, because you have only a small startup production facility, while I have many factories throughout the planet, and can produce much more a lot cheaply and with better quality than you), knowing that you are going to fail anyway.

    So that was my theory – but now I see that this apparently does not count as a _real_ monopoly, since in this case competition is still possible… with low starting chances, but still possible. I see. Thanks again for the answer!

    • Chris Hobson

      But if you max out production to keep costs low, then that is good for the consumer.  Really monoploy is only bad when it is used as a means to create non-market driven pricing.  Besides, just because you currently have the lowest cost of production, that doesn’t mean that a new tech development cannot decrease that cost of production for a competitor to an even lower level.

      Remember, the whole point behind having monopolies stopped is that they are bad for the consumer, and result in higher prices.

      • Anonymous

        Yes, as I said, this really hinges on how you define monopoly as such. Indeed, what I described, would be good for the consumer, but why should that disturb me as a monopolist if I’m content with market-driven pricing IF I can still keep competition at bay AND my profits sky-high (as I wrote before, even with low prices, huge amounts sold still can make a great income).
        And regarding new developments, well, where are those most likely to occur? In one of my many state-of-the-art R&D facilities worldwide, or in some startup-founder’s private lab? The latter one is possible as well, of course, after all, many startups are based on just that, but then again, what happens to most of them? They are bought up by the big players. Only the remaining few can pose a threat – if the monopolist is not smart enough to adapt quickly to the new ideas.

        So my whole point here is that a monopolist does not necessarily have to be a stupid idiot bastard, basing his profits solely on evil and unethical behavior. He can be smart and adaptive as well, even bowing his head to the market to some extent, but still use all his available resources and advantage to always keep at least a step ahead of all and any of his rivals that might emerge. So while this is not a monopoly in the classic sense as described above, but in its effects, it would be quite similar.

        • Rockefeller tried to buy up all the oil refineries in the US in order to monopolize the market.

          What eventually happened was that refinery producers began building refineries just so they could sell them to Rockefeller because they knew he would buy them.

          Rockefeller eventually realized that he couldn’t keep buying all the oil refineries because he would bankrupt himself since people would simply keep building them until he ran out of money.

          Obviously the lesson to be learned here is that it is impossible for any single corporation to buy up all the productive capacity of a given market because people will keep building more production facilities until the monopolist stops buying them or is driven into bankruptcy.

          • Gabriel_H

            Good point indeed, thanks. You’re right.

          • Max Hastings

            Good point, but here’s the problem I think is more likely and harder to counter.

            Let’s say I am a largest producer of a product. I am competing against a few smaller producers of the same product. I drop my prices below my competitors for a given amount of time to drive them out of business. Now I’m the only producer and raise my prices. A worker with a family sees this opportunity to underbid my prices and become a rich capitalist like me, so he uses all his life savings to be an entrepreneur and compete with me. While he does this I’ve already recovered my losses from dropping my prices and has made a small profit from increasing my prices since I am still a monopoly. The worker finally opens up his business all excited and starts producing and selling a lower price than me. I see this as a threat to my monopoly and instead of purchasing him out I drop my prices significantly below his and run his newly found company out of business and now he lost his entire life savings and his family is driven into poverty. So what prevents me from doing that? No individual worker will try to compete with me since I’ll just drop my prices. I’ve made friends with other big capitalists in other industries and sectors so we don’t butt into each other’s business. And become rich off of exploiting workers 😂

            The only solution is a shit ton of people boycotting and make an oath to purchasing from my competitors to punish me for my unethical behavior. I doubt this will happen especially if the working class is struggling to survive. It would be difficult to organize millions of people to boycott a business they depend on.

          • bpbatista

            As production increases, cost per product for the producer decreases. So it would behoove a business to increase production, thus increasing their margin of profit. This being said, your largest producer would gain no benefit in dropping their prices and taking the loss simply to gain a larger market share.
            I also noticed that you’re scenario is very specific and based on emotions, a common tactic of anti-capitalists. In the real world, it is survival of the fittest. This is a truth that will always persist, whether it is in a free market (where success is based on intelligence and wit), or in a controlled market (where success is based on how much power can be extorted i.e. government)

  • Pingback: 60 Things NOT To Do If You Hate The Free Market - Page 4 - Forums()

  • Pingback: Questions for Statists | Brave The World()

  • iakovos
  • iakovos
  • A more relevant and practical example than your fictional widget company, one that’s already a practical monopoly in the real world, is the US ISP and cable providers. Comcast is the king of this market, being the sole ISP choice in quite a few areas, and if their merger with TWC is approved they will be the king of kings, becoming a de facto monopoly. In a system without competition authorities the Comcast-TWC conglomerate could swallow up all the smaller ISPs, transit providers, and eventually even content providers, if they provided them with a lucrative price – which they could afford due to their endless piles of cash.

    Nothing and no-one could stop that. Besides the financial gains the small guys would opt to be bought out because they could not compete with the hyper monster. We are talking about a resulting giant with absolute monopoly on wired and wireless networks, distribution and content (including streaming services). Which newcomer could possibly compete with them by lowering prices? The start-ups who would want to compete and resisted to be bought out would have to start small, in limited areas. The giant would own all the networks, and they could not be forced to lease any part of them to the newcomers, so these guys would have to invest in building new infrastructure, assuming they were able to raise the funds.

    Now, say that someone managed to spent a few billions on installing new fibers or for a nice slice of bandwidth of the LTE spectrum (assuming the giant would not have bought the entire spectrum). The giant charged on average $50 per month for both wired and LTE accounts, so the start-up, who would start operating in Albuquerque, New Mexico, would charge $40 for the same plans. The giant instantly responds by cutting the Albuquerque accounts to $35 per month, while leaving the accounts of all the other areas intact.

    The giant does the same in any other location the start-up operates, and to any other start-up, forcing them to either join them or perish. There is no-one to stop that, no fines are or can be ordered, so the start-ups cave in, join the giant and the same happens to every other start-up. In the meantime the giant does not drain its customers completely dry, but charges “whatever they think their clients can bear”, many people cannot afford them so they are forced to remain without internet and cable TV, while the giant pockets all the profits, does not invest in new technologies because they have no competition, invests barely on new content, and the entire internet/cable/content market stagnates. Expensive shows like Game of Thrones are a cozy past memory, and even premium cable stations such as HBO and Showtime have their content degenerated to a sub network level quality. Is that the wet dream of anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-libertarians?

    • The cable market is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the nation. The regulatory barriers to entry are enormous. Did you even watch the lecture?

  • Pingback: That’s a Good Question, and I Have an Answer – Altar & Throne()

  • Only the remaining few can pose a threat – if the monopolist is not smart enough to adapt quickly to the new ideas.

  • Good point, but here’s the problem I think is more likely and harder to counter.