No, no such thing as a ‘natural’ monopoly. Sounds like some people don’t know the ABC of economics.
The second sentence explains the first quite nicely.
Everybody is a monopoly in a free market. No two people can provide the exact same service. So monopoly in a free market is a meaningless concept.
There is monopoly price, but it’s a purely mental exercise in economic price theory.
Yes. Every person, every good and service, and every individual action is a monopoly (differentiated) in a free market. No two are the same.
Exactly. Angurse might like to wipe the egg off his face, though I somehow suspect he’ll never admit his face is covered with egg.
You’ve gone from no monopoly to some six billion monopolies and I have the egg on my face? Too funny…
You are equivocating monopoly in economics with monopoly in violence. And you don’t even understand that monopoly in economics is a meaningless concept as DD5 pointed out. You fail, miserably.
Defense falls well within the world of economics. A theoretical monopoly on it is hardly equivocation.
Of course, that explains:
“No, no such thing as a ‘natural’ monopoly. Sounds like some people don’t know the ABC of economics.”
Egg.
More precisely, individuals have a ‘monopoly’ on selling their services or property, but that doesn’t mean there’s any real monopoly in the vulgar sense.
If all Mr Smith can do is flip hamburgers he certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on that activity. He only has a ‘monopoly’ on his own ability to flip hamburgers and again, this ‘monopoly’ is more of a legal/moral monopoly (right of so called ‘self-ownership’) than an economic monopoly.
Monopoly means two different things.
a) a ‘legal privilege’ granted by the local mafia to sell a particular good or service or whatever. (Any libertarian worth his salt has a moral objection to that.)
b) the existence in a free market of a sole provider of a given good/service/whatever because this provider has outcompeted all the rest - which in practice is very hard to do if not impossible.
So when I say theoretically you jump to definition a why? As definition b - which you seem to be aware of - fits perfectly with what I said.
Because this piece of utter nonsense
“theoretically a monopoly on force could arise voluntarily on the market and be fully libertarian.”
doesn’t fit any of the two definitions.
Yes it does, remember b?
b) the existence in a free market of a sole provider of a given good/service/whatever because this provider has outcompeted all the rest - which in practice is very hard to do if not impossible.
Force obviously constitutes a good/service/whatever
Monopoly on force:
b) the existence in a free market of a sole provider of force because this provider has outcompeted all the rest - which is theoretically possible.
No, you are wrong.
Every human can use force legitimately in self-defense. It is impossible for a monopoly on legitimate force to exist. So b) is not applicable.
AND you keep on confusing moral issues such as the LEGITIMATE use of force with economics.
You are equivocating, quite pathetically at this point. Read through any basic libertarian literature, many have explained how PDA’s could be created and maintained. Everyone could theoretically subscribe to the same one. At which point…
Confusing? I’ve merely agreed with your point about out how libertarianism isn’t against monopolies per se. You seem determined not to follow through with it.
There is a difference between:
- a monopoly on using force legitimately (this doesn’t even make sense)
and
- a monopoly provider of security services
If such a monopoly provider follows libertarian law (rising to its status as natural elite), I don’t see the issue. The existence of such a provider would necessarily allow for competition. So, I agree that it is theoretically possible. The nature of the service and its level of importance make me not suspect to see one exist for a long time, even after a free society is firmly established.
That monopoly provider CAN’T exist unless EVERY SINGLE HUMAN is a voluntary client of the monopoly. And that’s practically impossible. In a free society you are FREE to defend yourself if you want to. You RETAIN your right/ability for self-defense, so there’s NO sole provider of defense.
natural elites : spare me the nonsense.
OMG. A PDA doesn’t have a monopoly on force. I won’t suggest that you read the pertinent literature because it’s quite obvious that you don’t get it.
That’s not what I said.
Again, I am talking about provision of a service versus the type of claims that states make over those who they rule. I don’t understand how you fail to see the difference I pointed out above. Also, I don’t see why the use of the word monopoly has to mean 100% market share, or we have to be talking about every single human being. I was in part agreeing with you, that people retain the right to provide their own defense even if (and as I said, I think it is unlikely), a natural monopoly for security came about.
I don’t see what your problem is with the undeniable existence of natural elites. This is off topic anyhow, and I will just stop responding to you before I press the “positivist” or “amoralist” button.
That’s the entire point! Practically impossible sure, yet still theoretically possible. You are agreeing with me.
(Your tangent about being physically able to defend yourself doesn’t detract from the above scenario anymore than it does with the state.)