But I would be disgusted. Someone told me they planned their vacation with an llm and I couldn't help but express disdain for this friend of mine.

Why are we outsourcing creativity and research and interest in discovery to an llm?

I am saying this isn't theory. That this happens basically any time a company has monopolistic power. We cannot expect companies to behave altruistically (nor should we, the purpose of a corporation is to make a profit).

> "Companies would engage in anticompetitive behavior and avoid scrutiny" in which case that's a regulatory failing

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. And the regulatory response is to break the company apart or provide a public service that meets the need of the public if the monopoly is natural.

The legal duty is to maximize shareholder value. Because that is the only interest of a shareholder. I am aware I'm repeating myself here but that necessarily means the company must behave in a way that they maximize their profit under the law as it currently stands regardless of morality/ethics. Given the US government has not done any monopoly control since I can remember, avoiding regulatory scrutiny is a farcical risk.

The original point we were discussing is that private monopolies by themselves can be okay but monopolistic manipulation should be punished. And I disagree with that point because monopolies (and any company) must maximize their profit. Nevermind the legal duty to their shareholders, companies must maximize profit.

What do you think this looks like in practice? Because it makes logical sense to me that monopolistic companies would use their monopolistic power to come as close as they can with anti competitive behavior without attracting scrutiny which is why you break them up in the first place. And it's not theoretical, there are many examples not least of which is Microsoft.

Can you elaborate your thoughts here because the point of breaking up companies with monopolistic power is they cannot be divorced from monopolistic abuse of that power. It is written into US law that the company has a legal duty to it's shareholders. It seems your point is a distinction without a difference.

Your comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchism and Rand. Her philosophy is particularly odious to people on the left and is especially incompatible with anarchist political philosophy. The idea that there are special super intelligent humans who should be placed at the top of society's hierarchy and be given free range to make any and all decisions for those lower on the hierarchy is outright rejected as baseline anarchist political thought.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...

Edit: you're also very wrong about number 2, you just haven't been exposed to people proposing solutions.

Here is a 20 year old very famous book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_Prisons_Obsolete%3F?wprov=...

Fox news. The right wing in the US could never do what Nixon did because they'll get hung in the media machine designed to protect them (and keep them in lockstep)

There's a baseline level of consumption required to survive. Meaning everyone eats, rents, drives to work, buys an entertainment system. Paying for what you consume is a regressive way of generating tax revenue as the tax is raised from the poor masses.

Progressive taxation exists because people with more income have more disposable income. When you tax a poor working single mother of three and she must choose between buying food or paying tax, you will get riots eventually. When you tax a millionaire who's choice is buying a sports car or paying tax, riots don't usually happen.