Your political views

[Light of Truth]

In an Anarcho-Capitalist (minarchist) ran economy you don't have plutocracies or monopolies. Government intervention in the economy accounts for those. If you have a true lasseiz-faire economy, which the U.S.A. most certainly has not had, the market does not allow for plutocracies.

In a lasseiz-faire economy:
How would the market stop a monopoly from forming?
How would the market stop companies from keeping its employees in an endless pay loop where their cost of living is greater than their pay (which the company is glad to pick up as long as they stay employed.)
How would the small government keep the air clean enough to avoid major health risks?
How would the market make sure that the toys don't have lead paint in them?
How would the market solve this health-insurance healthcare debacle that the US recently passed a law about? The one where insurance companies rig the healthcare system to where they have a collective monopoly, can jack up their own prices on a whim, and cut people out of their program for getting sick.

The answer is that the market has no power over (and in fact promotes) these things. This is because good capitalists know that most of these stops can be circumvented and controlled. Disasters, shoddy products, and dangerous products can leak out into the marketplace and do damage long before there is even any kind of warning. Even with a watchdog group (a private one, since there would be no government body regulating anything) and assuming that they couldn't be bought off or otherwise removed from being important wouldn't be able to prevent the damage from being done beyond simply informing the public (likely at a marginal fee).

This isn't even to mention the fact that a monopoly has total control over an entire market and can quash any competition that manages to come along.

I'm not even going to begin to tread on how this sort of system is going to create an enormous wealth gap between the richest and poorest.

On monopolies - http://mises.org/daily/621

When discussing economics, one must always keep in mind the broken window fallacy. You have to take into consideration what is unseen. This is how it goes - a hooligan throws a brick through a baker's window and runs off. People gather by the broken window and state that it is actually a good thing for the economy because the baker will have to purchase a new window, which will boost the glass maker's business. This helps the economy. This is false because the glass maker's gain is merely the baker's loss. The baker had to spend $100 dollars on the new window and because of that he couldn't spend that money on a new coat he wanted, so the glass maker's gain is only the coat maker's loss. There is no gain in the overall economy. You have to take into consideration these unseen factors.

If a company doesn't pay its employees fairly, they will just leave to find a better job. The company will either fail because its production will go down significantly because of a lack of workers, or it will increase the amount it pays its employees, so that it remains viable as a company.

If a company puts out shitty products people will not buy those products. The company will fail or change their products.