Nobody controls the means to production. Do you know many hundreds of thousands of processes go into making a cup of coffee, and the almost limitless alternatives for each of those processes?

vertical monopolies have gotten around that in the past, though we seem to have gotten past them, due in part to changes in the economy and in part to antitrust laws.

2 questions, actually. Are you in favor of antitrust laws, 1. and 2, yesterday you mentioned something about a currency system that doesn't require central bank intervention, which i would be curious to learn of, as everything from the advent of the gold standard on forward has had some sort of central force intervening.

Thanks to the structure of the economy, yes, verticle monopolies are pretty much impossible... in fact, I doubt any corporation would even try it, the aim of the game, nowadays, is outsourcing as much as possible. The greater the division of labour, the lower the costs, the greater the profit.

Anti-trust laws? In the current way of doing things, I am in favour of them (though I fear that through lobbying, and the like, the laws are in danger of being bent to actually help anti-competitive behaviour. I haven't looked up any examples of this, but it doesn't seem unlikely). In "Sam's perfect world", however, I think if a monopolistic entity started price gouging, or something, the barriers to entry would be so small, that just about anybody could get involved in the business. Thus giving the large players an incentive to play fairly - if they don't, they're in danger of being out-competed.

As for your second question... that's quite a long debate, to which I don't pretend to have a complete understand of.

Here's how I'd imagine it'd work, though, I'm guessing this is going to have some flaws. Like I said, I'm no expert. I'm sure there's plenty of stuff on mises.org regarding the matter:

You, as a saver, would be able to deposit anything into a bank: gold, silver, historic artifacts, even other bank notes, whatever. It'd be up to the bank as to what they'd accept, and what they don't, it would also be up to bank how much they value this stuff at. The bank, based on what you've deposited, would say that you account is worth X amount of "dollars" (I'm just using that for the sake of ease). The bank will mint its own dollars. People then use the bank's dollars in their everyday business, going out and buying goods.

If a bank starts handing out too many dollars compared to what it has in its chambers, ie, it becomes over-leveraged, people who hold on to the notes will no longer be able to withdraw the actual goods from the bank. News of this would spread fast, and there would be a run on the bank, causing the bank to collapse. This will be an incredibly strong incentive to ensure that no runaway printing will ever come about.

Overtime, I imagine that most of the currencies would die down, and the banks would start using a couple of "standard" currencies (I just think the market would favour this). Again, however, if any foul play starts, a new currency would quickly emerge.

This is effectively how the currency worked in the USA up until the civil war. There are some difference. There were some regulations, but this was done at the state level, not the federal. The Federal Government also set certain values. It said that a "dollar" was x amount of silver, there was also an "eagle" that was x amount of gold. Banks, when valuing your deposits, used these standards. I'd prefer a market-set valuation, rather than the fixed set. You also had the first and second national banks... which caused more troubles than they solved.

Well I exist on the completely opposite side of the economic spectrum from you.

I believe in a strong public sector and a regulated market.

In fact I really don't get the "Free market or serfdom" thing - a truly free market is what leads to essential serfdom. In a completely free market workers do not have rights. While skilled workers will still be treated well the unskilled and semi-skilled workers would be paid well below living wages, have to work extremely long hours and have no recourse in terms of working conditions

In terms of supply and demand, unskilled and semi-skilled workers have a high supply and their 'price' is being kept artificially high by the government. It is only through government intervention and through the intervention of unions (which are protected by the government) that workers rights exist.

"Free markets" doesn't mean "business-oriented markets". The principles of a free market is very much based on the rights of the individuals. In a free market, individuals have the right to assembly, and so the right to unionize. This right would be protected by the Government. Unions, however, cannot force themselves upon an individual. In many states, you can not legally enter a job without becoming a member of a union, this is an infringement of rights.

I don't understand this notion that businesses will be sticking their workers in the meat grinder if the Government/unions weren't there to protect them. Historically speaking, the USA has had the lowest union participation rate, and the lowest amount of Government intervention. Also, historically speaking, the USA has enjoyed the highest level of worker incomes and other compensations.

Typically speaking, I'm very weary of people claiming "special cases" like water. I'm sure, if given the chance, 99% of markets could be argued to be "special cases"

For example, with your case on water, there may only be one provider of water, but they still want you to consume as much of their water as possible. If the company charges too much, people will respond by conserving their water. They may even resort to collecting a portion of the water that falls on their property, and use it, instead of the water that this monopoly provides.

A particularly smart man might sign people up to a business where he installs large tanks, and fills them on a regular basis for a monthly charge, or something. Eventually, if the problem goes on for too long, another company WILL build a second set of pipes. I saw a statement by Coca Cola that said they now consider drinking water from the tap to be their number 1 competitor... if a water company starts acting in a bad way (in a free market), who knows what business proposition CC could sweep in with?

These are off the top of my head, but a natural monopoly in one form of supplying the water doesn't mean it's a monopoly on water. Apple have a monopoly on iPhones... but they don't have a monopoly on smartphones.

The same goes for the trains. If they do start price gauging, so what, people will begin to use alternative forms of transport, and, eventually the company will be forced to change its ways, or go out of business.

Yes but the government limits how a company can deal with unions. It is not legal, for example, to fire employees for belonging to a union, nor is it legal to fire employees on strike. Or at least I think that's the case, I'm not an expert on US employement law =P

The reason employement laws have passed is purely because of historic abuse by corporations of workers. They hired child workers, child labour laws were passed. They paid ridiculously low amounts of money, minimum wage laws were passed. They abused the inequality of bargaining power between employer and employee, union laws were passed. They fired at whim, laws on unfair dismissal were passed. They worked people for ridiculously long hours, maximum working hours were passed. They worked in unsafe or unhealthy conditions, health and safety laws were passed.

Historically everything was done in reaction to abuse by employers, removing the government interference that protects employees would almost certainly mean reverting to abuse of employees by employers again.

But what happens in these cases is that everyone suffers before we hit that breaking point. Hell, you can look at what cable companies do in America, where their natural monopoly capabilities are "dealt with" by having them run contracts in various municipalities, such that your township suddenly gets Comcast as its only Cable provider, and then you see the municipalities alone acting as the arbiter of market competition and Comcast gets to screw over the local folks on actual rates (although what got us off Comcast was when they started turning the pressure up for us to get digital cable by kicking essential channels off their analogue cable lineup, a rat tactic of a different mold)

When one farmer charges too much for his beets, its quick and easy to find the next farmer. When your cable company, or worse, your electric company, starts to get uppity, all you get is problems for everyone.

If your cable company become jerk-offs, pay for satellite.

The argument goes that in a free market, you wouldn't have to worry about hitting the breaking point. Because the barriers of entry would be much lower, the companies would be providing a good enough service, anyway, to protect from future competition. What would a company prefer? The price gauge for 5 years? Or to be the top player for 15 years?

When you put up artificial barriers, like contracting, licensing, zoning laws, regulations, taxes, and all the rest of it, you essentially create a barrier between the current people in the game, and anybody new who wants to get in. This enables companies like Comcast to come in and act in an uncompetitive way, and get away with it, because it is so much more expensive (and potentially illegal) for anybody else to compete.