A cartel just means colluding to limit supply to increase profit for cartel members. There is nothing in the definition of a cartel that requires violence or illegality.

For instance, Canada has a legal maple syrup cartel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Quebec_Maple_Syr...

Not just supply, cartels are a group working together to manipulate markets in a variety of ways, also including:

Hold prices for their own suppliers artificially low by agreeing a price cap and refusing to pay more. They rely on suppliers having nowhere else to sell. e.g. British supermarkets have been repeatedly accused and sometimes IIRC convicted of operating a cartel to demand unfairly low prices from food producers.

Agree to split geographies so that there's effectively no competition to supply and each member of the cartel has local monopolies in all or most territory. This should be familiar to US folks who want High Speed Internet outside of a major city.

All agree never to offer a product which would hurt the overall market but be profitable for the first to offer it. Some have claimed the long delay in electric cars coming to market is evidence of this sort of cartel.

Cartels are illegal in much of the world (but ordinary laws don't apply to sovereign entities). If you're ever part of some big industry insider meeting and the lawyers make everybody agree not to talk about prices, future products or other commercial issues it's not because they're commercially sensitive, it's because your executives could do jail time if a court decides your group is a cartel.

> with increased density comes increased crime, stressed parking, and other problems.

Increased density does not increase crime. There's no evidence for this. There are very dense places with low crime and very low density place with lots of crime.

"stressed parking" is probably true, but part of the point of increased density is that you have less need for a car.

"other problems" is dog whistle.

>Increased density does not increase crime. There's no evidence for this.

I think I agree with you, but you are over simplifying the issue. Increased density does not increase crime per capita. It does increase crime per other measures of crime intensity (crime per square ft?). https://nycdatascience.com/blog/student-works/pressure-cooke...

Accusing me of dog whistling seems to be an extremely bad faith interpretation of anything I said. There is absolutely a well supported, highly researched and discussed relationship between density and increased crime rates and that you simply dismissed my point reeks of preconceived notions that you aren't attempting to actually grapple with.

http://theipti.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/covariance.pdf

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/13030.html (non-primary)

If I attempt to build an apartment building on your block, on land I own, the police will eventually arrest me and take me away.

Damn right you're using violence to gain a profit.

So I should be able to build a fracking site next to your apartment building then, since it's "land I own".

Unless you are an anarcho-pacifist, you have accepted that there are some legitimate uses of violence, so just because they don't think you should be able to frack next door to them doesn't mean that they don't think violence is involved in keeping you from fracking next door to them.

That sounds like more of a zoning issue. You can't just build an apartment somewhere because you own the land.

That's exactly what the parent was saying, just differently.

When you violate zoning they don't ask nicely you know.