I'm sure that most here would agree to work with the premise that monopolies, if they do pop up, will eventually destabilize, assuming a free society. For common commodities, I can understand why this is the case. However, take the example of security, if we have a private security firm that enjoys a local monopoly by generally doing good business (as this should be the only way such a business could get so far in a free society), it would either have to continue with these good business practices before other agencies eventually pick up on them, and the monopoly the agency once held slowly devolves yet again.
My question is if the decentralization of monopolies is a natural occurence in the free market, why do the governments (functional monopolies) in the current state of the world not seem to follow a similar decentralization?
I mean this in two ways, one in that the State still exists, i.e., for more than 10,000 years States have existed, and that even with the existence of the State, there seems no progress, at least bearing the last holocaustarific century in mind, in that the power of State is really decentralizing at all.
Latest Projects
"Even when leftists talk about discrimination and sexism, they're damn well talking about the results of the economic system" ~Neodoxy
Fephisto: My question is if the decentralization of monopolies is a natural occurence in the free market, why do the governments (functional monopolies) in the current state of the world not seem to follow a similar decentralization?
I guess, that one reason would have to be that modern states are recognized and supported by others. In the case of an internal revolt the government can do pretty much everything without any external criticism or serious reaction. They can use agression against any possible competitor and there isn't anyone to check upon them. Perhaps one could even say that the governments have reached a free-market solution among themselves. They've stopped fighting against each other so they could all pillage the citizens of respective countries.
On the other hand, I think, one can actually find some proof of decentralization, although it seems to be a very slow process with many setbacks. Today the ruler already has to give some explanation why a person was executed or put in jail. Another point I consider showing the problems of decentralization for the state is public education. Everyone who has attended school can tell in their sleep why it is good to have the government that is currently ruling.
One night I dreamed of chewing up my debetcard - there simply is nothing like hard cash in your pocket!
Fephisto:I'm sure that most here would agree to work with the premise that monopolies, if they do pop up, will eventually destabilize, assuming a free society. For common commodities, I can understand why this is the case. However, take the example of security, if we have a private security firm that enjoys a local monopoly by generally doing good business (as this should be the only way such a business could get so far in a free society), it would either have to continue with these good business practices before other agencies eventually pick up on them, and the monopoly the agency once held slowly devolves yet again.
Firstly that is not a monopoly in the classical sense of the word. It is a super-productive firm that can supply the whole market at lower prices than any competitor, which is why, if it becomes inefficient, competitors will reappear, if only in the form of customers canceling their contract and producing the good themselves.
Now, to the classical definition of monopoly, an exclusive right to supply a market backed by force...
Because people believe that a monopoly on justice is absolutely indispensible to their safety and will submit to just about any such monopoly.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Byzantine:"Because people believe that a monopoly on justice is absolutely indispensible to their safety and will submit to just about any such monopoly." Too, people require certainty for future planning, and a justice system where an arbitrator's decision can simply be trumped by a higher bid, a warlord's decree, or by the losing party announcing that he's opting out provides no such certainty.
"Because people believe that a monopoly on justice is absolutely indispensible to their safety and will submit to just about any such monopoly."
Too, people require certainty for future planning, and a justice system where an arbitrator's decision can simply be trumped by a higher bid, a warlord's decree, or by the losing party announcing that he's opting out provides no such certainty.
That certainly hasn't stopped people obeying the U.S. congress.
Byzantine:"That certainly hasn't stopped people obeying the U.S. congress." The US is pretty bad to us kooks who think gold is money and 2/3 of the USG is unconstitutional, but overall the system still carries a good deal of legitimacy. We are a long way from banana republic status, not that we aren't determined to get there.
"That certainly hasn't stopped people obeying the U.S. congress."
The US is pretty bad to us kooks who think gold is money and 2/3 of the USG is unconstitutional, but overall the system still carries a good deal of legitimacy. We are a long way from banana republic status, not that we aren't determined to get there.
People who believe in the state will obey even a banana republic. They will obey a dictator. They will fight for Saddam Hussein. They will complain about how nasty the government is and how great it would be to have a different government, but never in their life will they question the fact that there must be only one government and that whatever government there is must be obeyed.
The difference with Afghanistan is that there never was a legitimate state there in the first place. If you look at what is happening Zimbabwe, you will find people continue to obey government despite the fact that is has lost all credibility.
I've asked this quite a few times on other forums, and usually, as in here, it comes down to three common replies (@Inquisitor, I may be misconstruing your reply, but I'm at least sure in all the posts so far, at least these three have been mentioned):
1) It actually is de-centralizing.
2) The State uses coercion.
3) The critical density of libertarian people has not been met.
In the places I've heard these replies, I wasn't entirely convinced from them; but I wasn't entirely fair in at the very least replying to convey some sort of idea of why I was not entirely convinced. So at least for you guys I will attempt to do so:
1) In my opinion, this is probably the strongest argument; however, it runs along rather shaky historical facts. Yes, it is true that the fall of the U.S.S.R., fall of Allende-ism, etc. can be considered as steps in the right direction; but one can just as well point to the advent of the E.U.(U.R.), bureaucratization of the U.S., etc. so that the conflicting facts at least make it very difficult to posit this as an argument to a minarchist.
2) My objection to this is that if you assume that force is the crucial element in monopolization, then I still don't see what stops security agencies (force markets) from monopolizing. So, he'll sign under another security agency, but since he probably values his life, he would not under threat of violence, just as today. Sometimes this objection of mine becomes construed to that of 'education' being the crucial distinction that allows monopolization in a soceity. Then....
3) Just like how if force is the element for monopolization, then it will cause monopolization in any market that deals with force; the same argument would apply if the argument becomes that the intellectual sphere is the element for allowance in monopolization, then this will cause a monopolization in education. If X is the element for monopolization and that causes the upkeep of our current monopolization, then the market for X, surrounding X, or dealing with X will be monopolized, because the agents in market X use it to monopolize.
You left out the other reply: what people think is wrong.