Why advocate natural monopoly? Why not just let the free market work itself out. There will be many companies providing multiple goods over services.
WAater, electricity, etc can all be provided by multiple companies, no need for monopolies there.
I dont see your point?
If you look on the bright side, minarchist, you are better off than those who actually advocate for a state!
As far as i go, im afraid i wont be having sex, nor playing any video games.
Sleep is very valuable i heard.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Sleep when you're dead.
F.C.P.M.S.I.T.S.G.E.P.G.E.P.G.E.P.
Minarchist:I advocate a natural (aka non-aggressive) monopolist in legal services.
What happens to me when I decide to [peacefully] compete with your "natural monopoly" on the market?
wat the fuck is F.C.P.M.S.I.T.S.G.E.P.G.E.P.G.E.P.
If you're asking whether anyone will aggress against you to keep you from competing, the answer is no.
What will happen to you is that you will be unsuccessful.
I've been planning for a while to make a long post explaining why I think the dispute resolution industry is unique among industries in being able to sustain a natural monopolist. When I do, we can have that debate. It would be a long OT digression to have it here and now.
Says you and your crystal ball of competition. Seriously, you are the most blocked headed person on here. What instance can you refer to where there is a lasting "natural monopoly", JSM?
@kelvin_silva
Why advocate natural monopoly? Why not just let the free market work itself out.
This is exactly my point, if the market for dispute resolution services works itself out, the result will be a number of territorial natural monopolies.
Why not just let this happen rather than prescribe a certain kind of natural monopoly from the start?
Two reasons: 1) the natural monopolies that will form may not practice libertarian law (and we libertarians want to make sure they do), and 2) the natural monopolies that form may become states (and we libertarians want to make sure they don't).
The idea is to design a model DRO that will be structured in such a way as to minimize the risk that it either drifts away from libertarian law or becomes a state. We have centuries of history and millions of pages of intelligent political theory to guide us in designing such a model DRO. I think using our knowledge of institutional dynamics to design a model DRO that we can promote as a replacement for the state is a more prudent course than pushing the magic button to abolish the state and hoping that the market works itself out as we would like.
so a dro so big, noone would even think of competing? like romneys a military so expensive , people would not think of attacking, although people have attacked in guerrilla methods and more expensive militarys have lost
so a dro so big, noone would even think of competing?
Size isn't the issue. I mean, it may well be that the biggest of the DROs, with the most clients and the deepest pockets, become the natural monopolists in their respective areas, but the fact that DROs can become large is not the reason that a natural monopoly in DR-services is likely. Firms can become very large in any industry, it doesn't follow that they become monopolies.
Natural monopolies are likely in DR-services because dispute resolution is totally unique among all other industries. To put it simply, DR-services are unique because for one consumer to "win" (have his demands satisfied), another consumer must "lose" (have his demands go unsatisfied). DR is a zero-sum game. There is no room for numerous competing "brands" of law within the same territory, as there is for different brands of cars, toasters, etc.
DR-services are unique because for one consumer to "win" (have his demands satisfied), another consumer must "lose" (have his demands go unsatisfied). DR is a zero-sum game.
how many months have you been here ignoring people's posts and you still make basic errors like that? Lol trollerskates, gtfoh
Lol trollerskates, gtfoh
Whelp, I'm going lollerblading after this.
what would the territory be in anarchy? even with personal private property, a person can contract for different Dro's for different services and different contracts. some DR can be done online, some can be for different subjects, it just matters what was in the contract people decided to sign.
for there to even be a dispute, one has to tresspass on another, either through breeching the contract or false testimony or tresspassing on someone who there was no previus contract with.
i also don't think disspute resolution neccicarly has to be zero sum, a organization can come up with a plan that is at least somewhat satishfactory to each party by bringing up solutions neither party has thought of before.
as for competing services in the same territory, i think we have that now with churches and states as example. we have the catholic church that wanted to deal with the childrape cases in the church without the use of the state. i think we do have cases of separation of law between different organizations here. separation of marraige and state would be two different dispute resolution agencys if the church handled it's own marraige and divorce laws, but i don't think the church would juristiction over peoples trades and interactions that did not involve the church, unless people dicided that all contracts and interaction would involve the one church, which would be people choosing one monopoly, but people not involved with the church living in the same geographical area would not subject themselves to the church only and could have contracts involving multiple dros. the church could have contracts with people that are not exclusive to the church as well as contracts with people that are.
Ah, the classic, "you must be a troll since you read my opinions and still disagree!" LOL
what would the territory be in anarchy?
Whatever geographical area constitutes the jurisdiction of a natural monopoly: no way to know a priori what that would be.
It's not a zero sum game in the sense that one person totally loses and the other person totally wins. There might well be a compromise of some sort. It is a zero sum game in the sense that 1 interpretation of the facts and 1 interpretation of the law by 1 DRO, will always prevail in every dispute - otherwise the dispute would never be settled. Which DRO occupies this dominant position depends on only one thing: its capacity for violence relative that of other DROs. So long as one DRO has a superior capacity for violence, it will remain dominant: i.e. have all its rulings enforced over the objections of other DROs.
as for competing services in the same territory
There are no magic lines drawn on the map. The reason that natural monopolies in DR would tend to be territorially defined is because of the nature of dispute. As I very briefly outlines above, the natural monopoly forms when one DRO becomes dominant relative some others. This can only happen if there are disputes between clients of the one DRO and clients of the others. Here's where territory comes in. Persons living nearer to one another tend to have more disputes between one another than persons living farther from each other. Hence a dominant DRO is dominant over the other DROs which have as their clientele persons living relatively close to their own clients. Again, there's no way to predict the size of territories, but that natural monopolies in DR should tend to be territorial depends only on the simple fact that people live on the surface of the earth and tend to dispute more with their closer neighbors than with people living further away.
perhaps the dros will be separated based on the dispute, a murder investigation need to be by the same dro as a business contract dispute or the salary of a player in a profesional sports team. i figure a leage would have its own arbitration like it currently does. each league would have a natural monopoly on rules in the sport, but it likly would not be the same arbitration service that decides on murder cases outside of the leage.
if it just depends on who is willing and able to use more force, it's hardly dispute resolution but warfare. this is also true if people would rather fight than honer a decision.
there would be a few types of disputes. some disputes would be between people that signed a contract to who would resolve the dispute, the other kind is between people with different dro's. dro's could figure out ways to not fight each other everything that happens.
perhaps the nature of man is pshychopaths with screw everyone and take over no matter what is in place.
Minarchist: how many months have you been here ignoring people's posts and you still make basic errors like that? Lol trollerskates, gtfoh Ah, the classic, "you must be a troll since you read my opinions and still disagree!" LOL
you made a factually incorrect statement, own up to it.
Sorry, what was this factually incorrect statement?
What you imply in this comment is that any deviation from the views prevailing in "people's posts" (presumably only the people with whom you agree?) is an error (as opposed to a real disagreement), and that no one would disagree with those views unless they hadn't bothered to read them, as if they were self-evident, as if it's impossible for someone to have both read and understood those posts AND still disagreed with them. In the post you call "factually incorrect" (which leads me to wonder if you know what a fact is), I was mocking this crazy dogmatic view that underlies your comment above.
And I need to stick to coherent discussion and avoid the snarky responses? LOL. I posted a serious comment about political theory, and you responded with....the trivial personal attack quoted above. Here, to sharpen your skills, read this.
If you have something to say relevant to whatever topic is being debated, I'm all ears. If not, not. I'm not going to engage you in any more back and forth personal drama, for which you seem to have such a craving.
What you imply in this comment is that any deviation from the views prevailing in "people's posts" (presumably only the people with whom you agree?) is an error (as opposed to a real disagreement), and that no one would disagree with those views unless they hadn't bothered to read them, as if they were self-evident, as if it's impossible for someone to have both read and understood those posts AND still disagreed with them.
In the post you call "factually incorrect" (which leads me to wonder if you know what a fact is), I was mocking this crazy dogmatic view that underlies your comment above.
If you have something to say relevant to whatever topic is being debated, I'm all ears.
If not, not. I'm not going to engage you in any more back and forth personal drama, for which you seem to have such a craving.
Please explain how the purchase of dispute resolution services is "zero-sum" because you cant, and it isnt, you are wrong.
As I already said:
you need to read more and post less, you have no excuse for thinking that dispute resolution services are exempt from human action
Show me where I stated or implied that dispute resolution services are "exempt from human action"? Also, explain what you mean by "exempt from human action."
It's not a zero sum game in the sense that one person totally loses and the other person totally wins. There might well be a compromise of some sort. It is a zero sum game in the sense that 1 interpretation of the facts and 1 interpretation of the law by 1 DRO, will always prevail in every dispute - otherwise the dispute would never be settled.
Which DRO occupies this dominant position depends on only one thing: its capacity for violence relative that of other DROs.
So long as one DRO has a superior capacity for violence, it will remain dominant: i.e. have all its rulings enforced over the objections of other DROs.
Again:
It is a zero sum game in the sense that 1 interpretation of the facts and 1 interpretation of the law by 1 DRO will always prevail in every dispute - otherwise the dispute would never be settled
For any given dispute to be settled, one interpretation of the facts and the law must win (i.e. be enforced) and any others must lose (i.e. not be enforced). Hence it a zero-sum situation.
zero-sum: of, relating to, or a being a situation (as a game or relationship) in which a gain for one side entails a corresponding loss for the other side
This is inherent to all dispute resolution.
Moving on....
You called the following two comments of mine non sequiturs.
Thats incorrect, dispute resolution can arrive at a single mutually satisfactory end.
The conclusion of a dispute might be mutually satisfactory, but a dispute cannot be settled unless a single interpretation of facts and law prevails. The defendant cannot be both guilty and innocent. He cannot have both done and not done what he was accused of doing. What he was accused or doing cannot both be a tort and not be a tort. That is the decisive element. The feelings of the parties concerned are irrelevant. What matters is that a single view of law and of fact prevails. Put another way, what matters is that a single DRO determines the facts and the law of the case.
...and, as I say in the post above, it isn't just happenstance that one DRO makes the decisive ruling in a given case. It's not as if one day it might be DRO X and another day DRO Y and then DRO Z. It will be the DRO that is perceived to have the greatest capacity for violence, and as long as that state of affairs continues, its dominance will continue.
The conclusion of a dispute might be mutually satisfactory
but a dispute cannot be settled unless a single interpretation of facts and law prevails.
The defendant cannot be both guilty and innocent.
He cannot have both done and not done what he was accused of doing. What he was accused or doing cannot both be a tort and not be a tort. That is the decisive element.
The feelings of the parties concerned are irrelevant.
What matters is that a single view of law and of fact prevails.
Put another way, what matters is that a single DRO determines the facts and the law of the case.