Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

The Largest Natural Monopoly

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 5:00:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
...is The State.

A fallacy is constantly being tossed around. The one that separates The State and The Market into two distinct entities in constant conflict. When, in reality, they have almost always been intrinsically tied up with one another. I'm not the first one to figure this out. The idea is generally called "TANSTAGI" or "There Ain't No Such Thing As Government Interference". The actions of The State are subject to the same tendencies of supply, demand and incentive. Similarly, it arises in ways just the same.

There are many instances of natural monopolies/oligopolies. I find it unwise for free-marketeers to run away from this. The market is never going to be a perfect place for the same reason that no manifestation of society will ever be a perfect place; people are strongly prone to a variety of irrationalities. Railways, telephone companies, gas and electric companies, some banks; these have all been traditional examples of natural monopoly/oligopoly. And it's easy to see how they form without the need for an outside force putting them into position. Railways became monopolies because once one company built a track going to a town, it becomes highly impractical for a second company to build another track right next to it to compete against it. Thus an entire area becomes depend on a single company for transport. This has been the exact case with telephone companies as well.

In all of these examples, there have only been two ways in which these unfortunate cases of clear exploitation have been avoided:
1. Some innovation came along that dissolved the incentives which lead to the ability to monopolize. Such as the case of telephones becoming replaced with cell phones.
2. The monopolized company came under the control of the consumer, leaving nothing to exploit. Such as the case of banks being replaced with credit unions or railways being replaced with cars that drive on public roads.

Now, this brings us to The State. Ancaps like to talk about replacing The State with private defense agencies. So we can essentially think of The State as a single private defense agency that eliminated all it's completion. It had a natural incentive and ability to do this because the group with the most guns can always out-wrestle the less powerful groups. In this sense, it could be more accurately said that the enemy of an anarchist is not The State but, instead, monopoly.

So this leaves us with a clear conclusion. If the exploitation inherent in The State, as a monopoly of defense, is to be abolished, it's service must either be rendered obsolete through some innovation or it must be collectivized.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 7:18:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The state is not a monopoly. If you don't like the state you can renounce your citizenship, and naturalize under a new state.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 7:20:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 7:18:51 PM, DanT wrote:
The state is not a monopoly. If you don't like the state you can renounce your citizenship, and naturalize under a new state.

Not necessarily.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 7:24:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Bravo. You articulated what I was trying to say but better.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 7:29:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 7:18:51 PM, DanT wrote:
The state is not a monopoly. If you don't like the state you can renounce your citizenship, and naturalize under a new state.

Exactly. Oh wait nevermind. I forgot the part where you presumed that a monopoly necessitates coercing someone into a contractual relationship. I can have a monopoly on the use of wheat in a town while still letting y'all go over into Cape Coral to get it. The ability to procure services elsewhere has no bearing on me having a monopoly brohammed.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 7:39:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 7:18:51 PM, DanT wrote:
The state is not a monopoly. If you don't like the state you can renounce your citizenship, and naturalize under a new state.

Lets replace that with a telephone company.

Want a different company? Just move to a different area. So at least they can abuse you up to the point that it doesn't make you discontent enough to move.

There is no practical importance behind your statement. The State is put in the same position that a telephone company would have to exploit people.

And that's before we even consider the affect of prisons.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 7:40:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 7:29:05 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 3/5/2013 7:18:51 PM, DanT wrote:
The state is not a monopoly. If you don't like the state you can renounce your citizenship, and naturalize under a new state.

Exactly. Oh wait nevermind. I forgot the part where you presumed that a monopoly necessitates coercing someone into a contractual relationship. I can have a monopoly on the use of wheat in a town while still letting y'all go over into Cape Coral to get it. The ability to procure services elsewhere has no bearing on me having a monopoly brohammed.

States are in competition with other states. If the most talented scientists of India decide to move to the US for better pay, India loses productivity. A country can have a monopoly over international trade, if they dominate the export of the specific goods or services, and a monopsony if they dominate the imports.

States are not a monopoly unless they prevent people from leaving; such as the Eastern bloc, or the 18th century British Empire.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 7:49:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 7:39:46 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/5/2013 7:18:51 PM, DanT wrote:
The state is not a monopoly. If you don't like the state you can renounce your citizenship, and naturalize under a new state.

Lets replace that with a telephone company.

Want a different company? Just move to a different area. So at least they can abuse you up to the point that it doesn't make you discontent enough to move.

There is no practical importance behind your statement. The State is put in the same position that a telephone company would have to exploit people.

And that's before we even consider the affect of prisons.

That's a different scenario. you cannot equate the telephone company with the state.

With the state, every citizen is a share holder, as well as a customer.

The state is more comparable to a geographical monopoly than a natural monopoly.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 7:57:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 7:49:58 PM, DanT wrote:
That's a different scenario. you cannot equate the telephone company with the state.

With the state, every citizen is a share holder, as well as a customer.


The state is more comparable to a geographical monopoly than a natural monopoly.

AHAW! That's my point. The further degree to which the monopolized company is aligned with the customers, the further the exploitation inherent in it's monopolization if minimized.

States began with Feudalism, where certain people had all the influence and continued that influence throughout their entire life. The further we are away from that, the further the exploitation is subverted.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 8:05:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 7:57:30 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/5/2013 7:49:58 PM, DanT wrote:
That's a different scenario. you cannot equate the telephone company with the state.

With the state, every citizen is a share holder, as well as a customer.


The state is more comparable to a geographical monopoly than a natural monopoly.

AHAW! That's my point. The further degree to which the monopolized company is aligned with the customers, the further the exploitation inherent in it's monopolization if minimized.

Yes and No. It depends if the management gives a damn about it's shareholders. Also the more shareholders there are the less their share is worth. That's why a democracy used to be fawned upon; the larger the community, the greater number of people being oppressed by the majority.
States began with Feudalism, where certain people had all the influence and continued that influence throughout their entire life. The further we are away from that, the further the exploitation is subverted.
Not necessarily; majority rule is oppressive.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 8:14:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 8:05:01 PM, DanT wrote:
Yes and No. It depends if the management gives a damn about it's shareholders. Also the more shareholders there are the less their share is worth. That's why a democracy used to be fawned upon; the larger the community, the greater number of people being oppressed by the majority.

Notice that I mentioned degrees in inclusion. An evolution of inclusion looking something like: Monarchy -> Representative Democracy -> Direct Democracy.

Not necessarily; majority rule is oppressive.

It can be but it doesn't have to be. If the majority implements actions that only specifically act on certain groups of people, then it will often cause exploitation. If however, the same rules are applied to everybody, there is no one to exploit.

Like I said, there are two different ways to address the monopoly issue. Collectivization is the short-term solution until the second one can be achieved.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 8:39:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 8:14:29 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/5/2013 8:05:01 PM, DanT wrote:
Yes and No. It depends if the management gives a damn about it's shareholders. Also the more shareholders there are the less their share is worth. That's why a democracy used to be fawned upon; the larger the community, the greater number of people being oppressed by the majority.

Notice that I mentioned degrees in inclusion. An evolution of inclusion looking something like: Monarchy -> Representative Democracy -> Direct Democracy.

Not necessarily; majority rule is oppressive.

It can be but it doesn't have to be. If the majority implements actions that only specifically act on certain groups of people, then it will often cause exploitation. If however, the same rules are applied to everybody, there is no one to exploit.

Let's say everyone is taxed the same, with a flat tax. now let's say the direct democracy (consisting of farmers in the majority and industrialists in the minority) votes on how to use the taxes; 51% says crop subsidies, and 49% say improved posted roads. The farmers gain more while contributing the same as the industrialists.
Now let's say 51% votes for a progressive tax, and 41% votes for a flat tax. The majority managed to impose a higher tax on the minority, because there are less people in the higher tax brackets.
Like I said, there are two different ways to address the monopoly issue. Collectivization is the short-term solution until the second one can be achieved.

Collectivism is a horrible solution. When you have a representation issue, the best option is decentralization. If a monopoly decentralizes it's management (not necessarily breaking up the monopoly), it would have a better outcome than nationalizing the industry.
There is no such thing as a natural monopoly. I know of no historical example of a naturally forming monopoly.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 9:22:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 7:18:51 PM, DanT wrote:
The state is not a monopoly. If you don't like the state you can renounce your citizenship, and naturalize under a new state.

Going from one monopoly to another does not remove the fact that they are both monopolies.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 11:32:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 9:22:59 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 3/5/2013 7:18:51 PM, DanT wrote:
The state is not a monopoly. If you don't like the state you can renounce your citizenship, and naturalize under a new state.

Going from one monopoly to another does not remove the fact that they are both monopolies.

Which is why the state is called a monopoly on the initiation of violence within a particular geographical area.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 11:35:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 11:32:43 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/5/2013 9:22:59 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 3/5/2013 7:18:51 PM, DanT wrote:
The state is not a monopoly. If you don't like the state you can renounce your citizenship, and naturalize under a new state.

Going from one monopoly to another does not remove the fact that they are both monopolies.

Which is why the state is called a monopoly on the initiation of violence within a particular geographical area.

I don't know why you're telling me this.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 11:35:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Key difference: Could a state exist without a market? No. Could a market exist without a state? Yes.

Monkey market and state?!
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 11:38:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 11:35:49 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Key difference: Could a state exist without a market? No. Could a market exist without a state? Yes.

Monkey market and state?!

... Was this directed at me? If so, I don't know why you're telling me this.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 1:27:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 11:35:03 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 3/5/2013 11:32:43 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/5/2013 9:22:59 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 3/5/2013 7:18:51 PM, DanT wrote:
The state is not a monopoly. If you don't like the state you can renounce your citizenship, and naturalize under a new state.

Going from one monopoly to another does not remove the fact that they are both monopolies.

Which is why the state is called a monopoly on the initiation of violence within a particular geographical area.

I don't know why you're telling me this.

I'm telling everyone for clarification; I'm just adding on additional information to give the point some more meat. There could be 26 states: State A, State B...and State Z. They each exist as a monopolies on the initiation of violence in their respective geographical areas without meaningful overlap, which means that the option to change states (which is a costly, tedious, litigious process) doesn't change the fact that regardless of where you go, you will be extorted, controlled, and enslaved under the local monopoly.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 2:25:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 12:03:54 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Fuuuuuck. I've been trying to write up some stuff for this thread, but I've finally spiraled into a massive caffeine crash, and I'm only a zombie.

Still like to see this.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord