Argument against monopoly

Economics Economics Questions
1

These are all the arguments I’ve compiled against monopolies.

A - Incentives

1 - There is a separation of service and payment. Because monopolies are funded through taxation, they cannot go bankrupt - they can always get more funding from the public coffers. Therefore, monopolies have little incentive to be efficient.

2 - Monopoly by definition means no competition. So, unsatisfied customers have nowhere else to take their business. Monopolies can treat their customers like scum and not lose any business. Again, they have little incentive for efficiency.

3 - The actual incentives of monopolies are completely backwards compared with market incentives. On the market, efficient use of resources is rewarded with profits and inefficiency is punished with losses. But monopolies who do good business have their budgets reduced; and those who are inefficient are rewarde with an increased budget.

Therefore, monopolies have strong incentives to be inefficient and strong disincentives to be efficient.

B - Calculation

1 - Because service is separated from payment, monopolies have no profit and loss mechanism. Thus, they have no way to rationally allocate resources.

2 - Markets, on the other hand, do operate on the profit and loss system, and can rationally allocate resources.

C - Morality

1 - Monopolies must be enforced through initiatory violence.

D - Inconsistency

1 - What justification is there for group X to have a monopoly? Why not group Y?

2 - What is the logical conclusion? Do we monopolize everything, or nothing? What justification is there for some monopoly and some competition?

Does anyone have anything to add to this?

2

The ultimate monopoly is government itself. You have no choice to pay for government via taxes. You can’t fire the government and choose a different one.

Once you have the ability to force your customers to buy your product, all sorts of other abuses become very easy.

3

Yeah, but government is just a concept for the various different monopolies - roads, health care, police, courts, money, etc.

4

It’s easy to judge someone without having walked in their shoes. We like to security and benefits that the government provides for us but we don’t want to pay for them. We like the fact that we are in a free nation but “there are always government conspiracies”.

The ultimate misconception in society, in regarding our government, is that we have no choice when it comes to taxes, voting, and even what type of government we want. The truth of the matter is we do! You can choose to leave! If you don’t like government, live somewhere else. If you think the grass is greener on the other side, well go check it out. No one ever said that you couldn’t weigh your options, people do it all the time.

I guess the point I’m trying to make is that the government is not a monopoly because there are alternatives.

5

im going to assault you in your home and if you dont like it you are free to abandon your home.

thanx have a good day.

6

“Love it or leave it” isnt a very good argument…

I’d also like to hear what ‘alternative’ the government will allow me when I decide to opt out of its ‘protection’ services.

7

Judge what without having walked in who’s shoes? Are you saying that since I’ve never been a murderer, I shouldn’t judge a murderer?

Straw man and hasty generalization. “We” are willing to pay for “security and benefits”, but why should we be coerced into doing so?

That is like saying that if you do not like having your house burglarized, then you have the option to abandon your house and move somewhere else, otherwise, you should accept the burglary.

I don’t see how that follows from your premises, especially considering that your premises are flawed and fallacious.

8

  1. That’s like saying that if theres a gun enforced monopoly on gas you could always go by yourself to an oil field, get a bucket of oil, go and buy or build rudamentary equipment to refine oil, do this and despose of any waste products, pay for any repaires to the equipment when it beaks, and man the entire system single handedly. Good job! You’ve got a gallon of gas and you can make more at massive prices per gallon! You’ve beaten the monopoly! But doing so was far more expensive an costly than giving in would have been and you can’t even sell any excess you might have.

  2. Sure go out and vote. But when you lose to an uneducated populose many of whom have NEVER heard or rationally considered arguments against force and who cling blindedly to the old lies TOUGH LUCK. The biggest lie in the world today is that democracy is a good thing. You, me and 2 other people are in a room. We take a vote and everyone but you votes to kill you. You just lost by 75 percent, a number far larger than practically all elecions ever. What exactly is the morality of mob rule??? Just because people vote to take my property doesn’t make it right. Why the hell should the only moral members of society be forced to pay 50 percent of there income or leave (or die) if it’s the other members who are waiving around guns???!!!

  3. As far as I know there’s no land on earth not dominated by a state, where do you propose we go?

  4. It is a monopoly. I can’t go and form a private police agency or indeed half of the thing govt. does.

  5. We aren’t saying the grass IS greener anywhere else, it’s all pretty bad everywhere.

  6. Most people do think they have a choice on these things and thats why they don’t activleytry to change it! If they didn’t contries would fall in a few days.

  7. About a fifth the budget if not less is spent on national defence. We might like security but we don’t like wars, genocide, utter economic stifling, corruption, extreme poverty, ECT. Thist list could literally go for pages!

  8. We live in a somewhat free society. I like cake but I like a full cake more than I do a fourth of a cake!!!

Way to blindley follow a 7,000 year old system that’s primitive, barbaric, killed more people than anything else in history, and inherintly evil

9

You know, all those shopkeepers who report Mafia dons to the police are just whiners. They could always move away to a different Mafia’s city.

10

Just like the robbery victim has the “choice,” at gunpoint, to hand over their money.

Just like the rape victim has the “choice” to lay back and enjoy it.

Just like the Jews had the “choice” to flee Nazi Germany. By your logic, everyone who died in Auschwitz must have voluntarily committed suicide, since by not fleeing they “chose” to be there!

Your error is thinking the relationship between government and citizen is voluntary, when in fact it is coercive. A choice under the threat of coercion is no choice at all.

No, no. It’s my property; I claim jurisdiction over it. If the government tries to invade my jurisdiction, it is violating my rights. Think about it this way: I have seceded and renounced the government’s authority over my property. Hence, if I don’t like the government, I can tell it to leave.

I define monopoly as the absence of free entry, not as “a single seller.”

11

I think Sage’s post implies this.

12

I’m not saying that there is nothing wrong with the government, there are certain aspects of the government that needs improvement . In fact, there are aspects within all three branches of government that needs improvement. Nothing and no one is perfect and to expect the government to be is absurd. Our government is made up of HUMAN BEINGS and human beings are not perfect, we make mistakes, and we take bribes. It is in our nature to act in our own self-interest before that of others. So when we elect these leaders and ask them to speak for us, we are asking them to act outside of their natural instinct, which is self-interest. And to respond directly…yes I would move if my home was continuosly burglarized or if gangsters conducted business in the neighborhood. To imply that I wouldn’t is absurd, obviously this is not the neighborhood that I thought it was when I moved here. A location is not worth my happiness, welfare, or security. A location does not make me who I am, therefore it is disposable to an extent. Home is where the heart is and if your heart is not with our government then you do have options. You could either choose to explore other governments or if your heart is still here then you can try to change it. Sitting around screaming “government is immoral and unnecessary” is not going to change anything.

Second…to respond directly. You say that we shouldn’t be forced to pay for our safety and security (taxes). Well I pose a question, Do you think our nation would be as advanced as it is without mandatory taxation?? Do you really think people will pay taxes without having being forced to?? ( and I’m not talking about the thousands of us who happen to have sense and know what taxes can provide, I’m talking about the hundreds of millions of us who live here in this country and reap the benefits of the government) Here’s a better question…If you could get cable television for free would you voluntarily pay for it? Many government created programs help keep our economy efficient by improving the workforce and creating jobs. How about those government grants that so many of our college students enjoy today…These things are financed through taxation and since we already know that majority of people will not pay if they don’t have to, how will these things get funded? How will the military be financed to make sure that ourselves and our loved ones are safe from acts of terrorism?

13

The problem your missing here is that despite the fact that you recognize government needs improvement there is no systematic way of doing so. There is no economic calculation so regardless government will always fail and putting this false sense of power into the people through voting is just a scam. Voting is not profit and loss, there is no economic calculation. Government fails for the same reason communism and socialism fails. It’s amazing how american’s praise government and scorn socialism/communism when these terms are more or less synonymous.

14

So why have political leaders at all? Why should we be forced into an involuntarily relationship other human that dictate our lives if they are as fallible as we are? If an individual is incapable of taking care of himself, why have should another individual have the power to control the other individual?

So you agree that if you stayed in your home, then you consent to having your home burglarized?

No. It would be more advanced because we wouldn’t have had the government wasting billions of dollar building bombs then blowing them up. Btw, the industrial revolution happened without an income tax.

Of course not. That is like asking if a woman would have sex with a rapist if she wasn’t being forced to.

We’re not getting anything from the government for free. Bandits can create jobs too. The Mafia creates jobs by hiring accountants and lawyers. How would thieves enjoy their lifestyle if they didn’t steal? How the would the beneficiaries or stolen goods not benefit without the stolen goods? I don’t have the money to pay for a Ferrari 430 Spider, does that mean that the government has the right to steal one for me? How would thieves finance anything without stealing? How those blowing up cities, and children and women in Iraq and Afghanistan help protect us from terrorists?

15

Nothing and no one is perfect and to expect cancer to be is absurd. Cancer is made up of HUMAN BEINGS and human beings are not perfect, we make mistakes, and we take bribes. Therefore we should keep cancer? Good one!

Great so as long as I am dictating my decisions I don’t need someone else to do it for me. This statement alone proves why we don’t need government.

No. When we ask leaders to lead for us we are expecting them to lie, extort, cheat, and rob us. We are then suprised when we learn that our politician’s are all cheats, liars, and extortionists.

Let me put it to you this way. A cabinet shop will attract carpenters. A architectural firm attracts architects. IT firm attracts systems engineers. Software development firms attract programmers. Government attracts thieves. Each industry attracts a skillset that is needed. Plumbers work on plumbing, architects work in architecture, government agents specialize in theft.

Pleas read The Road To Surfdom Chapter 10. “Why the worst get on top”

Your right. It would be far more advanced as entrepreneurship and innovation would have no boundaries. Our taxes pay for nothing that makes us more advanced.

No they would not. Are you saying coersion is justified? IE theft is justified?

Well if we didn’t pay taxes we likely wouldn’t have those benefits problem you talked about as many of those retarded programs wouldn’t exist.

This is a complete mis-representaiton of the argument. No one is putting a gun to my head forcing me to buy X branded TV. Government is a compulsary institute and must use violence to remain in existence. Sony TV’s do not that so your analogy is false.

Also you cannot get a television for free. You can’t get something for nothing. Someone somewhere paid for that television. Nothing is free and likewise government does not provide free programs. It redistributes wealth by stealing from one group of people and giving to another based on an arbitrary political agenda.

This is possibly the silliest thing you’ve stated. Not a single program that exists in government makes anything mroe effecient. The only thing they do effeciently is steal.

To say that government makes economies wokr effecient is a borderline retarded statement. Name one program which improves our economy? Also please keep in mind that you may very well be economically ignorant. You may want to actually do your homework.

Economies are the makeup of individuals. Government is not needed, only the individual. If I use government to hire a contractor to build a road to my house how is that more efficient than if I go to the contractor directly and have him build it for me. The first method requires me to loose a huge amount of money to a bureaucratic system. Only a small percentage of my payment will go to the firm who actually builds the road. There is nothing efficient about Government.

Allow me to quote Rothbards here as it seems appropriate.

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

-Murray N. Rothbard

*

Lol. You obviously don’t know what website you stumbled upon.

A) Why do we need a military.

B) How can we defend against terrorism WHEN WE ARE OCCUPYING A FOREIGN COUNTRY. An offensive defense is no defense at all. We have no national defense, all we have is national imperialism where we impose our beliefs on others.

C) We lost what, 3000 people in the WTC. How many have we lost over seas since then? Several times the original amount. Doesn’t sound like our war is really paying off for us.

Johnson, do yourself a favor. Don’t be a zealot. The only thing worse then a true idiot, is someone who is intelligent but is defending an argument from ignorance. Not having the information you need to make a real argument makes you look real bad. I believe that in the process of actually learning what your advocating you will see how much in error you are. GL man!

Hey Johnson. Read my Signature!

BOOYA!

P.S. Sorry for the crappy grammer, typos, and misspellings. I’m lazy.

16

“Creating jobs” is an ultimately meaningless buzzword used by politicians and demagogues to support their bribery program of choice. I have just as much a legitimate claim to “creating jobs” as any politician if I paid every single person in the United States a dollar to dig and fill a square metre of ditch a day. In the case these jobs actually perform any useful function, they either perform a function useful to some at the expense of others (no such thing as a free lunch, after all) or they perform a function that could be handled far more efficiently by the private sector, which is subject to consumer demand signals, as opposed to the whims of a small, often unelected ruling bureaucratic elite and politically connected groups, be they unions, lobby groups, political action campaigns or corporations.

17

You shouldn’t have to pay people to dig holes and fill them back up. People should just do it out of patriotism. [;)]

18

On grounds of prudence, of course. But the point I’m making is that it is unjust to be burglarized, that it is wrong for the government to violate my rights.

No. I think it would be vastly more advanced. As Sam Konkin put it: “If the State had been abolished a century ago, we’d all have robots and summer homes in the Asteroid belt.”

Clearly you have no idea what libertarianism actually has to say. Perhaps you should do some reading, e.g. For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard, Economics for Real People (pdf) by Gene Callahan.

19

This economics nazi over here, can’t let this one pass. The question you’re trying to raise here is that only government has an incentive to produce public goods and it’s a very good point, especially for someone I assume is a layman in what comes to economics. (Public goods are those goods that are of such a collectivized nature that it is hard for people to fund them in a voluntary basis. See the Coase Theorem for more information.) One possible response to this is that government itself relies on the production of public goods. Good policy is a public good while bad policy is a private good. That is, under democracy, there is an incentive for a concentrated interest group to spend resources informing themselves and lobbying for their petty issues, while the public large has no such incentive. (Raising $1 for each Kg of sugar may benefit the producers at several millions dollars, yet each consumers will only be hurt for a few dollars.) This is why people spend years studying hard in college (since it increases their income many times fold), while they have unedecated and many times irrational believes about economics and politics (the government might take half the national income, but each individual has little chance to drive government, since each vote has zero probability of affecting the outcome of the election). You can also look at this from the lens of the prisioner’s dillema.

Anyway, the criticism I was getting to is your choice of public good examples, especially the education one. What spillover effects do you have in mind? It seems like to me that each student benefits directly from their degree. Consumers will be paying them for their services. If consumers don’t value your services, then you absolutely shouldn’t be wasting precious resources taking it – those professors could be teaching something else, or doing some other work that people actually value. (Notice I’m ignoring cases when the student is taking the degree simply for the fun of learning – that is, the degree is itself a consumer good.) Especially with such a discrepance of low skill and high skill wages, we absolutely want a sound allocation of high-skilled labor. Now, of course consumers will only pay for the services in the future, which will take us to resource allocation in time. Who should have the power to dicate how much people should squeeze their belts so that resources can be allocated for the purpose of teaching? In a free market, if people decide to consume a lot of their income, future prices for high-skill jobs will raise as resources are not being spent to educate people in those professions, therefor raising interest on student loans. So consumers decide how much they want to consume of high-skill services in the present and in the future by the ammount they save (notice the feedback loop, the simultaneity of the situation).

All in all, your college subsidy example shows exactly why government sucks. (By the way, something interesting about the apparently simple supply-demand model is to realize that a subsidy or a tax is not shared uniquely by the consumer or the producer no matter how the government intends it and implements it. Depending on the elasticity of supply and demand of superior education, it may well be the case that the subsidy pretty much only bids the tuition up.)

Edit: I personally absolutely agree that a municipal government that maintains roads, illumination, etc is of great value and I bet that in a libertarian society, you’d see schemes emerging that you could very well call of governments. You already see that in condominiums, the associations who pay for elevators and other services in a big building, or in a closed gate housing. In fact, I believe in the USA that is much more widely spread, and you have contracts very similar to zoning laws that limit the pallette of colors you may use for your walls, or what constructions you can do. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were such organizations covering entire cities, making them de facto governments. However being a bottom-up organization I think they may have the potential of converging to the optimal size and be better suit to re-adjust their space of operation to circunstances rather than be locked by history. They are also unhampered from national government regulation which greatly reduces the public goods problem as well.

20

No the entire thing is corrupt. And what the hell do you mean we would be LESS advanced if we didn’t have to pay taxes??? Are you implying that if people had 50 percent of thier income back each year then suddenly there would be a catastrophy of epic proportions and we would all go back to the dark ages? Your entire argument is downright childish, primitive, and utterly lacks any evidence free though.

You do understand this community is about Austrian economics and classical liberalism right? Why not pick up a book or at least listen to some of the audio on either the media page or some youtube libertarian stuff?

I love how in your reply posts you didn’t acually adress any of the issues raised. Answer this: Should people be forced to pay for things they don’t want at gunpoint? Or things they do want at a rate they don’t agree with on a monopolistic set rate basis? Yes or No? If yes you are a statist, if no then you are a libertarian and you can’t justify state opression