From: KPJ (kpj@sics.se)
Date: Wed Dec 16 1998 - 22:28:16 MST
It appears as if <Dick.Gray@bull.com> complained:
|
|There you go again. You simply assume that without Big Brother, companies
|will become monopolies. You also make the odd assumption that a monopoly is
|a defacto state. Where are the premises to back up these assertions?
No, I do not assume that. I asked what stops them from doing it.
|In point of fact, a true monopoly is an exclusive franchise _granted and
|enforced by government_. F'rinstance, the Post Office, or AT&T before the
|breakup, or most utilities. So your question is absurd.
GOVERNMENT GRANTS AND ENFORCES EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE -> MONOPOLY
does not imply that
MONOPOLY -> GOVERNMENT GRANTS AND ENFORCES EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE.
If you do not have a State, then the State cannot grant nor enforce a monopoly
since the State does not exist.
A monopoly situation only requires that a group has the power to enforce it.
This happens for instance when there exists only one real actor on the market.
Or when there exists a few organizations on the market that cooperate and
make sure that the prices stay high (an oligopole or trust situation), which
de facto comprises a monopoly situation.
The organizations then have the power to decide on the market. With no power
to stop them, they can decide whatever they wish. Thus, you get yourself
the State, except the State now consists of boardroom executives.
Those who wield the power _become_ the State, whether it be
o the military (as in a number of Third World countries)
o a political party (like SSSR, China, etc.)
o parlamentarism (random Western states)
o a religious group (Iran comes to mind)
o a king or emperor (not many of those today)
and so on.
I can only see one way to get rid of the State and not get it back: that power
cannot become centralized in the hands of any one group.
Therefore I asked how do you propose to do that. It does not happen by magic.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:02 MST