: You're referring to oligopolistic behavior, which historically has shown to disintergrate quickly. If one oligopolist pulls out then the whole structure evaporates; and parties always think other co-conspiritors are going to do this and try to beat them to the punch.
but new oligoplies usually arise to take their place...
: : and extort surplus value
: You mean profit? There is no such thing as "surplus value" it's mere metaphysical make-believe.
surplus value is value that does not go to the workers. The capitalists' investment is not necessary for a good to be produced, since the public sector can supply teh same investment. Therefore the capitalist contributes nothing necessary to the production. yet he makes money, where is this money coming from? It comes from the labor of the workers.
: : out of the capitalists in the form of rent? What about the road owners? How can you account for the state having a necessary monopoly on violence, or would anyone be allowed to resort to violence, in the free market of force? These issues need to be considered.
: Actually, they need to evolve. And yes there would be limits on violence. The Icelandic Sagas are perfect examples of markets supplying law-enforcement.
So are the Brazilian Death squads. These wonderful little institutions are funded by private businessmen as part of an initiative to clean up the streets- I think Brazil is an informative example of "anarcho-capitalism".
