I am not interested in debating the ideological purity police.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:That means you are defending mercantilism in a libertarian forum and you don't care ?
I am explaining economics in an economics forum and you are trolling.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: Juan:That means you are defending mercantilism in a libertarian forum and you don't care ? I am explaining economics in an economics forum and you are trolling.
What you appear to be doing is defending corporatism and monopolism in the name of the free market. Vulgar libertarianism at its finest. The problem with this is (1) that so-called "private" monopolies have nothing to do with the free market and are illegitimate entities in bed with the state and (2) as Juan points out, this merely reinforces the political left's false impression that libertarians are just apologists for economic elites - you start to become a living caricature of this. I fail to see what, say, Halliburton has to do with the free market or why it should be defended merely because it's considered to be "private". I'm not trying to go on a witch hunt or anything but this is a very real problem within libertarian discussion.
Brainpolice:What you appear to be doing is defending corporatism and monopolism in the name of the free market.
The question asked was not about the free market.
I never noticed Stranger advocating anything. He is merely analyzing monopoly from an economic POV.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: I never noticed Stranger advocating anything. He is merely analyzing monopoly from an economic POV. -Jon
I am afraid that you are about the be thrown out of the Official Libertarian(TM) Club, for real libertarians only.
Juan:Actually there is no such thing as a 'private' monopoly. The firms that are protected from competition by the state should be regarded as part of the state - because they are.
True enough, but as long as everyone undestands what's meant, there's no problem using the expression. A "private monopoly" is either an organized crime syndicate, or else a "public/private partnership." And the two are of course both examples of crime syndicates--but it's useful to distinguish the mafia from the government. In other words, whether the hit men wear suits or uniforms.
That means you are defending mercantilism in a libertarian forum and you don't care ?
I still can't tell if he's using the right definition of monopoly or not. Assuming he is, it's possible that he's merely asking the economic question whether a monopoly granted by government to a private firm is an improvement over the same function being served by a government agency directly. An argument can probably be made that it's less bad--in rather the way that it's less bad to be shot with a .22 than a .30-06.
--Len
I'm not aware of any Austrian economic POV that supports his claims which seem to imply that "private" monopolies are somehow reasonable or legitimate or utilitarian or anything.
Stranger:I am afraid that you are about the be thrown out of the Official Libertarian(TM) Club, for real libertarians only.
If you spent more energy communicating clearly, and less venting your disdain for others in your obnoxious francophonic way, you'd find yourself involved in a lot less conflict.
While some reasonable arguments could be put foreward that "private" monopolies might be "less bad" than state monopolies, I think that perhaps the distinction is barely existant when it comes down to it. "Private" monopolies will run into the calculation problem as well and have the potential or seeds within them to become states. Indeed, I'm convinced that the calculation problem has expansive implications as an organizational theory in general, far more than a mere criticism of state-socialism as it was in its original context. If the size and organizational structure of the "private" monopoly is nonetheless fairly similar to that of the state monopoly, then it might not be an improvement at all in real terms.
Brainpolice:While some reasonable arguments could be put foreward that "private" monopolies might be "less bad" than state monopolies, I think that perhaps the distinction is barely existant when it comes down to it. "Private" monopolies will run into the calculation problem as well...
Agreed. What jumps to mind, for example, is that there's a friction layer between the monopolist and enforcement: it might be slightly harder for a "private" hospital to enact orders to shoot a competitor than for a state-run hospital. And at least sometimes, they'll be at odds with their government partners, which reduces the efficiency of their oppression.
If we ask the same questions about "privatized" law enforcement, I think we obviously come to the opposite conclusion. Authorizing private individuals as agents of force gives government the power to order attrocities while disclaiming responsibility. So when Hillary declares martial law, I think I'd rather have it enforced by US troops than by Blackwater. But again, it's like choosing between shooting and hanging.
Stranger: I am trying to answer the economic question asked in an economic forum, that is whether a private monopoly is better than a public monopoly. I am not interested in debating the ideological purity police.
I am trying to answer the economic question asked in an economic forum, that is whether a private monopoly is better than a public monopoly. I am not interested in debating the ideological purity police.
Yes. Private anything is always better than "public" whatever. At least with private monopolies there is the (very good) CHANCE that a competitor could come up. If it is the government you have no choice, there can be no competition, they can be as inefficient as they want and they can be as abusive as they want with no recourse for the abused.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
kingmonkey:At least with private monopolies there is the (very good) CHANCE that a competitor could come up.
That contradicts the definition of monopoly, though: if the "private monopolist" can't forcibly exclude competition, he isn't a monopolist at all. He might happen to be the only provider of some good, but that's not a monopoly. Thus my question to Stranger, which definition he's using.
At least with private monopolies there is the (very good) CHANCE that a competitor could come up.
To me it depends on what you mean by capitalism.
Many here make the distinction between "laissez-faire capitalism" and "X-adjective capitalism," but I think it's a waste of time.
This may seem like semantics, but say what you want, words are important and it's important to distinguish a philosophy as much as possible - as it is to distinguish any other kind of product. In all reality, I believe that "laissez-faire capitalism" is a complete oxymoron. Throughout history, no front economy has been "laissez-faire" - at least not in modern times. However, it would seem ridiculous to suggest that capitalism has never existed. To some extent, governments have manipulated and monopolized industries in all economies of all eras. Is capitalism just a minimal of this? Well fine, but is this what libertarians advocate? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Libertarians advocate laissez-faire. You can't get this in capitalism as it requires a minimum of state involvement.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Len pretty much answered this the same way I would.
Brainpolice: Jon Irenicus: I never noticed Stranger advocating anything. He is merely analyzing monopoly from an economic POV. -Jon I'm not aware of any Austrian economic POV that supports his claims which seem to imply that "private" monopolies are somehow reasonable or legitimate or utilitarian or anything.
You know Walter Block once debated whether private slavery was better than public slavery.
Niccolò: Many here make the distinction between "laissez-faire capitalism" and "X-adjective capitalism," but I think it's a waste of time. This may seem like semantics, but say what you want, words are important and it's important to distinguish a philosophy as much as possible - as it is to distinguish any other kind of product. In all reality, I believe that "laissez-faire capitalism" is a complete oxymoron. Throughout history, no front economy has been "laissez-faire" - at least not in modern times. However, it would seem ridiculous to suggest that capitalism has never existed. To some extent, governments have manipulated and monopolized industries in all economies of all eras. Is capitalism just a minimal of this? Well fine, but is this what libertarians advocate? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Libertarians advocate laissez-faire. You can't get this in capitalism as it requires a minimum of state involvement.
Capitalism has become identified with free enterprise because, by its much more productive nature, it comes to be the dominant form of organization in the economy so long as private ownership of capital is permitted. However, it is not necessary for there to be free enterprise in order for capitalist enterprise to exist. There need only be private ownership of capital and salaried (risk-free) labor.
Stranger: You know Walter Block once debated whether private slavery was better than public slavery.
it is not necessary for there to be free enterprise in order for capitalist enterprise to exist. There need only be private ownership of capital and salaried (risk-free) labor.
Juan:Private ownership of capital means that the owners can do with their property whatever they want. IF they can't compete with existing firms THEN they can't use their capital as they see fit SO there's no private ownership of capital.
There can be two classes of private owners, the classes who hold the privileges and the classes who don't. The privileged classes are then capitalists.
And btw salaried labor is not 'risk-free'.
Yes it is. That is what makes capitalism so productive. All the risk is assumed by the capitalist.
Juan: From the point of view of advancing liberty, to recycle a 'public' monopoly into a 'private' one is a disaster, because it reinforces the vulgar vision of 'free-enterprise' as theft. And besides, a 'private' monopoly is still a monopoly - it is corrupt and inefficient.
A private monopoly can be considered inefficient, but not corrupt, as the owner will seek to cut waste and reduce costs in order to protect his wealth.
From the point of view of advancing liberty, to recycle a 'public' monopoly into a 'private' one is a disaster, because it reinforces the vulgar vision of 'free-enterprise' as theft. And besides, a 'private' monopoly is still a monopoly - it is corrupt and inefficient.
Indeed, but what has liberty to do with economic analysis?
Stranger: Juan: From the point of view of advancing liberty, to recycle a 'public' monopoly into a 'private' one is a disaster, because it reinforces the vulgar vision of 'free-enterprise' as theft. And besides, a 'private' monopoly is still a monopoly - it is corrupt and inefficient. A private monopoly can be considered inefficient, but not corrupt, as the owner will seek to cut waste and reduce costs in order to protect his wealth.
Not to mention that with a public monopoly no one can compete against it. At least with a private monopoly (if there really is such a thing) competition can arise even if the monopolist makes it difficult. They can't use government force to maintain their monopoly. The monopoly has to stand on its own two feet or someone enterprising capitalist will attempt to take market share.
kingmonkey: Not to mention that with a public monopoly no one can compete against it. At least with a private monopoly (if there really is such a thing) competition can arise even if the monopolist makes it difficult. They can't use government force to maintain their monopoly. The monopoly has to stand on its own two feet or someone enterprising capitalist will attempt to take market share.
I am arguing the case where the private owner does own a legislated monopoly.
Jon: Indeed, but what has liberty to do with economic analysis?
The point is that economic knowledge is more than the One Commandment of libertarianism. You have to understand the consequences of all economic arrangements. Repeating a mantra is not going to get you any credit.
Stranger: A private monopoly can be considered inefficient, but not corrupt, as the owner will seek to cut waste and reduce costs in order to protect his wealth.
I did not. Efficiency is the point of view of the consumers. Corruption is the point of view of the owner.
Stranger: The point is that economic knowledge is more than the One Commandment of libertarianism.
Right, which is why economics can be applied to an analysis of interventionism, socialism writ large &c.? Coercive institutions also come under praxeological analysis, as do comparisons between unfree ones, these being relative. Libertarian economic arguments are a subset of economic arguments, and not vice versa. Norms such as liberty have little to do with pure economics.
Juan: Stranger: The point is that economic knowledge is more than the One Commandment of libertarianism. You have not provided a single piece of economic knowledge except the totally wrong(and mercantilistic) idea that 'private' monopolies are 'better' than public ones.
This is the argument supported by Hans Hermann Hoppe in Democracy: The God that Failed. Before you denounce him as totally wrong and mercantilistic, you have to offer some supporting arguments of your own. Repeating the mantra simply shows that you don't belong here.
Stranger: Juan: Private ownership of capital means that the owners can do with their property whatever they want. IF they can't compete with existing firms THEN they can't use their capital as they see fit SO there's no private ownership of capital. There can be two classes of private owners, the classes who hold the privileges and the classes who don't.
Juan: Private ownership of capital means that the owners can do with their property whatever they want. IF they can't compete with existing firms THEN they can't use their capital as they see fit SO there's no private ownership of capital.
Juan:Your answers don't make sense. If Peter can't use his propery as he pleases, Peter doesn't really own his property - so stop pretending that the system you describe is based on private property - it is not. You are advocating slavery.
Peter can use his property as he pleases - he is the monopolist.
Stranger: Peter can use his property as he pleases - he is the monopolist.
Stranger: Juan: And btw salaried labor is not 'risk-free'. Yes it is. That is what makes capitalism so productive. All the risk is assumed by the capitalist.
Juan: And btw salaried labor is not 'risk-free'.
Jon Irenicus: Coercive institutions also come under praxeological analysis, as do comparisons between unfree ones, these being relative.
Stranger: Niccolò: Many here make the distinction between "laissez-faire capitalism" and "X-adjective capitalism," but I think it's a waste of time. This may seem like semantics, but say what you want, words are important and it's important to distinguish a philosophy as much as possible - as it is to distinguish any other kind of product. In all reality, I believe that "laissez-faire capitalism" is a complete oxymoron. Throughout history, no front economy has been "laissez-faire" - at least not in modern times. However, it would seem ridiculous to suggest that capitalism has never existed. To some extent, governments have manipulated and monopolized industries in all economies of all eras. Is capitalism just a minimal of this? Well fine, but is this what libertarians advocate? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Libertarians advocate laissez-faire. You can't get this in capitalism as it requires a minimum of state involvement. Capitalism has become identified with free enterprise because, by its much more productive nature, it comes to be the dominant form of organization in the economy so long as private ownership of capital is permitted. However, it is not necessary for there to be free enterprise in order for capitalist enterprise to exist. There need only be private ownership of capital and salaried (risk-free) labor.
So in other words, you're essentially openly admitting that there is such thing as "state-capitalism" and you appear to view it as a "lesser evil".
Stranger: Juan:Private ownership of capital means that the owners can do with their property whatever they want. IF they can't compete with existing firms THEN they can't use their capital as they see fit SO there's no private ownership of capital. There can be two classes of private owners, the classes who hold the privileges and the classes who don't. The privileged classes are then capitalists. And btw salaried labor is not 'risk-free'. Yes it is. That is what makes capitalism so productive. All the risk is assumed by the capitalist.
Except libertarianism and laissez-faire is opposed to privilege and in favor of rights. Legal privileges to "capitalists" are anathema to a free market.
In the "private" monopolies created and sustained by the state that we're talking about, the risk is externalized.
Jon Irenicus: Right, which is why economics can be applied to an analysis of interventionism, socialism writ large &c.? Coercive institutions also come under praxeological analysis, as do comparisons between unfree ones, these being relative. Libertarian economic arguments are a subset of economic arguments, and not vice versa. Norms such as liberty have little to do with pure economics. -Jon
And this is a problem, a problem pointed out by Rothbard in his criticisms of utilitarian economists, which can be found repeated throughout his work but most concentrated in The Ethics of Liberty. The utilitarian economist functions as a defender of the status quo, a vulgar libertarian at best, since they defend whatever property titles currently exist that are dubbed "private".