From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Date: Sun Dec 20 1998 - 14:33:58 MST
KPJ wrote:
> It appears as if <Dick.Gray@bull.com> wrote:
> |
> |Joe writes:
> |>No gov't = no anti-trust or anti-monopoly laws.
> |
> |Yes indeed. And good riddance.
>
> What would you suggest to stop a Company from becoming a monopoly and
> a defacto State?
> (I see no inherent difference between a State and a monopolistic Company.)
You are correct here. There is no real difference except in degree. A
corporate monopoly only controls one product or market, or at most a couple
markets. A government controls them all in an exclusive territory. A
government is also an absolute monopoly, while a corporate monopoly may have
competitors in the market that have relatively minor market shares. This is a
very important distinction, as even in a monopolized market, there is still
the possiblity of using a competitors products, but at some cost to the
consumer. Under a government there is no choice under any circumstances,
unless you count emigration to another government's territory and any
attendant fees or asset losses as a result as a cost. In which case, the cost
of using any competitor to a particular government is rather high, if it is
present at all (note governments that do not allow emigration, and governments
that make immigration rather difficult).
In order to prevent any company from becoming a monopoly for a long enough
period to gain significant control over people lives, enough to become a
government, there needs to be a relatively low cost of innovation (which will
result in a high rate of technological change). There also needs to be a lack
of existing government that will protect such companies.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:04 MST