From: Dick.Gray@bull.com
Date: Thu Dec 17 1998 - 09:53:40 MST
Joe writes:
<<<
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.
>>>
Can't you see that the very question implies the assumption that there's
something that needs to be stopped? "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
I deny your implicit proposition that an abusive monopoly can arise in a
free market. It's up to you, as the asserter, to establish that
proposition; until you make your case, there's nothing to argue about.
<<<
|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.
>>>
True but irrelevant. I was simply giving the dictionary definition as a
base to argue from; I never asserted the converse.
>If you do not have a State, then the State cannot grant nor enforce a
monopoly
>since the State does not exist.
Of course. One excellent reason to abolish the State, n'est-ce pas?
>A monopoly situation only requires that a group has the power to enforce
it.
So far, so good...
>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.
Hold it right there, sport. Let's examine the assumptions you're trying to
smuggle in here. You need to support your belief that there is likely to be
only one real actor (whatever that means) on the market, or a collusive
handful.
You're also overlooking the fact that the market is driven by competition
as much as by cooperation. What's to stop a new company taking market share
from a big conglomerate that tries to jack up prices beyond consumers'
willingness to pay? It happens all the time - despite the sometimes
enormous entry barriers erected by "government" regulations.
A minor point: an oligopoly is not _de facto_ a monopoly situation, though
it may be _de jure_, since it "smells" like a monopoly.
>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.
You're equivocating big time here, Joe, at least by implication. The power
a company has is a function of its ability to please its customers. The
power of the State, on the other hand, is the power to force compliance,
i.e. military/police power. No lexical sleight of hand can conceal the
fundamental difference between these two uses of the word. If you think
there's a necessary relationship between them, make an argument for it. I
deny that economic power is the same as political power.
>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.
I'm with you here. Power to the people! Sounds like the market to me.
>Therefore I asked how do you propose to do that. It does not happen by
magic.
No, unfortunately not. It'll take lots of hard work to educate enough
people to the point where they decide to laugh their "protectors" out of
town and take their lives into their own hands. It may never happen, though
I tend to be moderately optimistic. Meanwhile, we can steadily chip away at
the credibility of the "State".
Towards the revolution,
Dick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:02 MST