Extremism and the Internet

[SOCALHUSKER]

i don't get how you don't understand that it is.

 

Well I don't, so tell me how!!

it's like me saying everyone in colorado smells like weed. even though with overwhelming evidence that a lot of people in colorado smell like weed, they don't all smell like weed.

 

all government isn't bad. you equate taxes with stealing. not everybody does. you equate being a citizen of the government into being coerced into not being free. not everybody does. it's a false dilemma. your evil isn't everyone's evil. the world is made of grays, not black and whites.

 

you'd say we are all sheep. i'd like to submit to you that you are just as much a sheep by staying in the echo chamber of A/C and the free market and not thinking critically and examining the world as gray and not as black and white.

 

i'd like you to actually somehow concede to the fact that there are possibilites for government to do good and for private sector to do evil (coercion and what not).

 

you say that it's not possible. that's a false dilemma. the theory of infinity proves you wrong.

 

WHAT?????? Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

What is your defintion of taxes, if it's not theft? What is it about someone else running your life that makes you free? What does government do that's good? Please tell me.

 

There is no gray in either of these examples, it's either right or wrong. Your arguments of "false dilemna" or now the "theory of infinity" are merely excuses for failing to rationally and logically decipher problems.

my definition of taxes isn't black and white either. if i had to pay taxes to a king who silenced my thoughts and feelings, i would say that it was theft. but right now, i feel that the taxes i pay are my contribution to the society that allows me to think, feel, and speak however i wish.

 

i can't really fight in wars because i can't blindly follow someone into war without questioning it. but, those people fight for my freedom to question that. and i pay my taxes because they fight for those freedoms.

 

if one day, a president decides to piss all over the founding documents, i'll be joining the fight. but right now, i just don't see it yet.

 

What about the people who don't agree right now?

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Good post sir. I'm growing tired of not being able to discuss politics in this board without it being shifted back to a A/C vs. some form of government debate. Perhaps we need an anarcho capitalism sub-forum within this sub-forum to contain it all. Then I could avoid it a bit easier.

 

I notice the sarcasm emoticon, but for some reason I don't think you are being sarcastic.

 

Your response is that of a typical statist. I don't agree with something and I don't care to or can't prove it wrong, so perhaps WE should put it where I won't be bothered by it. This is a political section and politics is being discussed. If you don't like what's being discussed, prove it wrong or don't read the posts.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Taxes pay for things that hold a civilization together. Police, military, infrastructure and a host of other things that the people in that nation want.

How does the government 'run your life'? There are some laws, but by and large, the things that are against the law, are things I think are wrong to begin with. Most are rooted in dont murder, steal, or in general try to hurt or screw someone else over. The kind of pins you need to hold a civilization together.

The gov doesnt tell me what to eat, what to watch, who to date, who to marry, where to work, where to hang out, who my friends can be, force me to spend time around people I hate, when to go to bed, when to get up or what to wear. I dont see the gov intruding in my daily life at all.

 

Everything is gray there is so little 'black and white' in the world when you get down to it. And please, get off the soapbox about your 'logic and rational' being the only right one. With statements where you are throwing out all other arguments as being irrational or somehow not based on logic is really proving the point of the OP.

 

You mention the prison numbers, that is drug related mostly, and it is something that needs to change. But freedom goes farther than that. Are you aware the US is the ONLY country on earth without some form of board that can ban media? The US is the ONLY nation where free speech is guaranteed as law. There are countries out there that could arrest you for voicing the opinions you put out on this board. Anything short of making threats or child porn, and the worst thing you face is a rating like R, MA, XXX or what have you.

 

First of all, I have made no references to prison numbers or free speech, so maybe you need to redirect that part of your argument to another poster.

 

As far as taxation holding civilization together are you inferring that without taxes people’s needs and wants would not be fulfilled? Do you have any historical evidence to back that claim? Obviously you’re not aware of the proof that before the income tax the US saw it’s most rapid economic growth, that anywhere in society socialism has been implemented it has lead to an increase in poverty, or that anywhere capitalism, which is complete economic freedom, has been implemented society has flourished. Your entire argument for taxation is clouded with a fallacy, so it’s no wonder you can’t see the truth.

 

Also, you claim that taxes pay for things that people want, but what about the people who don’t want those goods and services? Since government forcefully takes from everybody, including those who don’t want the services, in order to pay for it, isn’t that theft? Is forcefully taking from one person that which is rightfully theirs, not considered theft? If it isn’t, does that mean that anybody who wishes to have a good or service can take from someone else to pay for it? If that is not true then your argument has a serious contradiction to contend with. For how can the government be allowed to steal when nobody else can? Don’t say consent, because that’s already been proven incorrect in numerous other posts. The fact is the government is an armed thief running around stealing from people in order to implement and fund it’s policies and you’re endorsing it.

 

Do I really need to list the ways that government runs my life? Sure they allow you freedom in your daily routine, but what if they decided to regulate that too? Do they not have the ability? What about the freedom’s that really matter, personal liberty and economic freedom, the ability to make decisions that affect your best interests? You say that laws are basic, but if laws are as simple as don’t steal, murder, or infringe upon someone else’s rights then why do we have thousands upon thousands (maybe millions) of laws and regulations and an endless steam of judges and lawyers to interpret and defend them? Why does Congress continually vote on and pass laws that nobody can or will ever read, i.e. the Patriot ACT, Bailout legislation?

 

The fact is laws are not to protect the interest of citizens but to protect the interests of government and government controlled industry. To argue differently is flat out wrong. Let’s see; they tax at every turn (income, sales, tariffs, fines), regulate every industry, have complete control over the economy, complete control over money and monetary functions, complete control over education, complete control over health care, complete control over the military, complete control over lawmaking, complete control of the election process, complete control of transportation, complete control of trade, complete control over communication, and therefore complete control of “your” life. How is that freedom?

 

There’s no soapbox here, it’s just preferred that arguments be backed by something more then opinion. If you can’t prove your opinion then it is nothing more than that. If my arguments are illogical or irrational, please tell me how? Preferably, with something other than an opinion. I think I’ve done a pretty good job at answering any of your questions or refuting a claim with proof or at least providing a logical explanation for my reasoning. All I ask is that you do the same. If I feel like that is not the case I will point it out, and that isn’t meant to be demeaning. So please don’t take it as such.

[carlfense]

 

Good post sir. I'm growing tired of not being able to discuss politics in this board without it being shifted back to a A/C vs. some form of government debate. Perhaps we need an anarcho capitalism sub-forum within this sub-forum to contain it all. Then I could avoid it a bit easier.

 

I notice the sarcasm emoticon, but for some reason I don't think you are being sarcastic.

 

Your response is that of a typical statist. I don't agree with something and I don't care to or can't prove it wrong, so perhaps WE should put it where I won't be bothered by it. This is a political section and politics is being discussed. If you don't like what's being discussed, prove it wrong or don't read the posts.

 

I don't think there is anyone who can "prove" to your satisfaction that A/C is utterly unworkable. We've proved it to my satisfaction, and Strigori's and huskerjack's (I think), but you still continue trying to persuade us. Long story short, I'm not buying what you are selling.

 

(Plus I think your "I don't agree with something and I don't care or can't prove it wrong" statement is entirely off base. I devoted nearly 20 minutes a day for close to a month to that debate, and neither of us budged. Nothing you've argued has seemed logical to me, and the sources you cite have hardly been reputable. Therefore, after that I decided that it was not worth my time.)

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Good post sir. I'm growing tired of not being able to discuss politics in this board without it being shifted back to a A/C vs. some form of government debate. Perhaps we need an anarcho capitalism sub-forum within this sub-forum to contain it all. Then I could avoid it a bit easier.

 

I notice the sarcasm emoticon, but for some reason I don't think you are being sarcastic.

 

Your response is that of a typical statist. I don't agree with something and I don't care to or can't prove it wrong, so perhaps WE should put it where I won't be bothered by it. This is a political section and politics is being discussed. If you don't like what's being discussed, prove it wrong or don't read the posts.

 

I don't think there is anyone who can "prove" to your satisfaction that A/C is utterly unworkable. We've proved it to my satisfaction, and Strigori's and huskerjack's (I think), but you still continue trying to persuade us. Long story short, I'm not buying what you are selling.

 

(Plus I think your "I don't agree with something and I don't care or can't prove it wrong" statement is entirely off base. I devoted nearly 20 minutes a day for close to a month to that debate, and neither of us budged. Nothing you've argued has seemed logical to me, and the sources you cite have hardly been reputable. Therefore, after that I decided that it was not worth my time.)

 

OK, so be it. Then don't debate!! Until someone can prove to me that it is unworkable I will continue to debate.

[huskerjack23]

 

Good post sir. I'm growing tired of not being able to discuss politics in this board without it being shifted back to a A/C vs. some form of government debate. Perhaps we need an anarcho capitalism sub-forum within this sub-forum to contain it all. Then I could avoid it a bit easier.

 

I notice the sarcasm emoticon, but for some reason I don't think you are being sarcastic.

 

Your response is that of a typical statist. I don't agree with something and I don't care to or can't prove it wrong, so perhaps WE should put it where I won't be bothered by it. This is a political section and politics is being discussed. If you don't like what's being discussed, prove it wrong or don't read the posts.

 

I don't think there is anyone who can "prove" to your satisfaction that A/C is utterly unworkable. We've proved it to my satisfaction, and Strigori's and huskerjack's (I think), but you still continue trying to persuade us. Long story short, I'm not buying what you are selling.

 

(Plus I think your "I don't agree with something and I don't care or can't prove it wrong" statement is entirely off base. I devoted nearly 20 minutes a day for close to a month to that debate, and neither of us budged. Nothing you've argued has seemed logical to me, and the sources you cite have hardly been reputable. Therefore, after that I decided that it was not worth my time.)

i haven't disproved it. you can't really disprove it. it's an ideology that can work in ideal situations. it's observable that it works, but so is socialism if you're looking through the eyes of someone who wants to see that work.

 

what i'm really trying to do is get SOCAL to concede the fact that what he's saying is a false dilemma and irrational in it's fallaciousness.

 

i get that the a lot of the government is horrible and they pay for shat that we don't need. but that comes from americans thinking irrationally as well, which leads to coercion and theft.

 

socal is right when he says that we need to think rationally to better society, but the false dilemma of "all government is bad" isn't helping anyone.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

i haven't disproved it. you can't really disprove it. it's an ideology that can work in ideal situations. it's observable that it works, but so is socialism if you're looking through the eyes of someone who wants to see that work.

 

what i'm really trying to do is get SOCAL to concede the fact that what he's saying is a false dilemma and irrational in it's fallaciousness.

 

i get that the a lot of the government is horrible and they pay for shat that we don't need. but that comes from americans thinking irrationally as well, which leads to coercion and theft.

 

socal is right when he says that we need to think rationally to better society, but the false dilemma of "all government is bad" isn't helping anyone.

Sorry, but as it has already been proven socialism will always fail, no matter the circumstances.

 

What is the false dilemna? You keep saying that, but haven't proven what makes the argument for anarchy a false dilemna. Maybe if you could answer any of the following questions it might make your argument more clear.

 

What government is not bad? What government doesn't tax and require individuals to give up something for it to come into existence and maintain it's programs? What government doesn't use coercion and force? What government can ever abstain from extending and abusing its powers?

 

If our's is the best there is, which numerous posters have alluded to, than surely there can't be one that does any of the things mentioned above. Since this is the case, the only viable solution is to disband government and allow individuals to live life free, only looking out for their own best interests. This is the only way to ensure freedom and prosperity, both economically and personally.

[huskerjack23]

http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism2.html

 

that's an article describing what i was trying to say about the instability of A/C.

 

it also describes the failure of socialism in the long run.

 

so yeah, i'm definitely starting to get with you here, but A/C doesn't really work.

[strigori]

 

Good post sir. I'm growing tired of not being able to discuss politics in this board without it being shifted back to a A/C vs. some form of government debate. Perhaps we need an anarcho capitalism sub-forum within this sub-forum to contain it all. Then I could avoid it a bit easier.

 

I notice the sarcasm emoticon, but for some reason I don't think you are being sarcastic.

 

Your response is that of a typical statist. I don't agree with something and I don't care to or can't prove it wrong, so perhaps WE should put it where I won't be bothered by it. This is a political section and politics is being discussed. If you don't like what's being discussed, prove it wrong or don't read the posts.

 

I don't think there is anyone who can "prove" to your satisfaction that A/C is utterly unworkable. We've proved it to my satisfaction, and Strigori's and huskerjack's (I think), but you still continue trying to persuade us. Long story short, I'm not buying what you are selling.

 

(Plus I think your "I don't agree with something and I don't care or can't prove it wrong" statement is entirely off base. I devoted nearly 20 minutes a day for close to a month to that debate, and neither of us budged. Nothing you've argued has seemed logical to me, and the sources you cite have hardly been reputable. Therefore, after that I decided that it was not worth my time.)

 

OK, so be it. Then don't debate!! Until someone can prove to me that it is unworkable I will continue to debate.

One of the biggest holes in the whole theory you have dodged a few times. Security.

 

Start with the smaller time. Crime. Police work is dangerous work as it is. Who would be paying the 'private security forces' that would theoretically replace the police? If the victims must pay the 'police' to have them investigate or intervene, yo end up with giant problems. The poor become nothing but victims, not being able to afford the protection.

Now, lets take into account what happens when an organized and ruthless criminal organization pops up. If they make some threats to these rent a cops, and back them up(maybe killing their kids) the extremely limited police forces stop bothering to police where they are told not to. They would also be must easier to buy off, with how loose the rules run in A/C, the crime org would just need to pay off the company, and get to run free. And who would be around to keep these security forces from deciding to take over?

 

And the biggie. Military. Unless you can force every nation to become the same, someone will have a fully funded, organized military, and decide to conquer your country. Who is going to stand in the way? Contracted fighters? VS a real military?

 

There are so many other holes in A/C, especially when it comes to various forms of crime and corruption too.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

One of the biggest holes in the whole theory you have dodged a few times. Security.

 

Start with the smaller time. Crime. Police work is dangerous work as it is. Who would be paying the 'private security forces' that would theoretically replace the police? If the victims must pay the 'police' to have them investigate or intervene, yo end up with giant problems. The poor become nothing but victims, not being able to afford the protection.

Now, lets take into account what happens when an organized and ruthless criminal organization pops up. If they make some threats to these rent a cops, and back them up(maybe killing their kids) the extremely limited police forces stop bothering to police where they are told not to. They would also be must easier to buy off, with how loose the rules run in A/C, the crime org would just need to pay off the company, and get to run free. And who would be around to keep these security forces from deciding to take over?

 

And the biggie. Military. Unless you can force every nation to become the same, someone will have a fully funded, organized military, and decide to conquer your country. Who is going to stand in the way? Contracted fighters? VS a real military?

 

There are so many other holes in A/C, especially when it comes to various forms of crime and corruption too.

I've touched on each of your questions numerous times. Read the post in the Anarcho-Capitalism thread.

 

Read The Market For Liberty, it explains and answers all your questions in much better detail than I ever could. I've tried to explain the free market approach, competing agencies and consent as best as I could, but obviously it hasn't been good enough.

 

A couple other books that touch on your questions include For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard, or the Myth of National Defense by Hans Hermann-Hoppe.

[SOCALHUSKER]

http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism2.html

 

that's an article describing what i was trying to say about the instability of A/C.

 

it also describes the failure of socialism in the long run.

 

so yeah, i'm definitely starting to get with you here, but A/C doesn't really work.

 

I read the essay you posted, plus he has two other essays relating to Anarcho-Capitalism. He brings up some interesting points. I'll read them all before I jump all in with any criticism or response.

[SOCALHUSKER]

http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism2.html

 

that's an article describing what i was trying to say about the instability of A/C.

 

it also describes the failure of socialism in the long run.

 

so yeah, i'm definitely starting to get with you here, but A/C doesn't really work.

 

My response to the above article.

 

As I read through the essay Huskerjack23 posted, I really thought the author, Paul Birch, made some valid points concerning a free market justice system. He stated competition of the free market would force justice to expand, therefore negating all crime. This would lead to less demand, wiping out nearly the entire justice system, leaving a sole marketer who would have a monopoly and therefore dissolving the anarcho-capitalist society into city-states ruled by regional judicial monopolies. He discusses the restitution ratio, which he says is driven by competition and leads to the negation of crime and then a monopoly, and it is from this evidence; he says anarcho-capitalism is impossible. However, as you read the essay, and his subsequent works, you soon find out that all his evidence is based on the conclusion he made in his first essay “A Fatal Instability in Anarcho-Capitalism?”

 

His opening line in “Anarcho-Capitalism Dissolves Into City-States” actually states, “In an earlier essay (the one in paragraph above)…I demonstrated the existence of a major difficulty for the implementation of anarcho-capitalism: the restitution ramp or restitution ratio instability. Also, in his essay “Is Anarcho-Capitalism Possible,” he says, “Even if a just anarcho-capitalist society were created, there is no guarantee that it would be stable. In particular, the restitution ramp described in my essay might destroy it.” So, as you read you are quickly made aware that all his evidence is based upon his insistence of the so-called “flaws” of the “restitution ramp.” By basing his thoughts on this particular point, this means that if one proves his assumption of the existence or flaws of the restitution ratio to be false, his other arguments, which are based upon its evidence, must also be false.

 

In reading “A Fatal Instability In Anarcho-Capitalism,” Mr. Birch makes a great stab at defining justice and I think he pretty much nails it. He goes on to say that justice means full restitution, and nothing more. Here, he states is the problem with an anarcho-capitalist society. He states that the instability of the restitution ratio, meaning the accelerating/decelerating restitution rates created by competition, would lead to extremely high restitution rates and therefore no crime. This leads to a drop in business and eventually the extinction of the market. When this happens; a massive crime wave happens, gangs take over, liberty is destroyed and no anarcho-capitalist society is left intact.

 

He then mentions the possibility of one court making it through the collapse. This, he says would lead to a monopoly, for which he then explains all the ills of monopolies, and how the court eventually becomes the state. This he says negates the idea of an anarcho-capitalist society, thus proving his theory to be correct.

 

While he does make a compelling argument, there are a few flaws in the logic and assumptions Mr. Birch makes to arrive at this conclusion. He notes a few of his own flaws in his conclusion, such as omitting honest actors from his scope and the complexity of the market, but where he fails dearly is in his misunderstanding of the free market and his false assumptions on human self-interest

 

As one sifts through the descriptions and explanations of Birch’s argument for the restitution ratio, one quickly realizes that his argument doesn’t take into consideration the reality of the free market. For starters, Birch seems to believe that the only people interested in justice, or at least those with any say in the matter, are the victims. He totally disregards the fact that those accused or convicted have a voice in the free market or that maybe those doling out justice might also be interested in performing fairly. In Birch’s fantasy world, only the victim is worried about justice, but actually in a society, in which every individual is held accountable for his or her actions, it would also be in the defendant’s and the court’s best interest to see that justice is fair.

 

The foundation of the free market is based upon the principles of profit and loss, with no interference in regards to competition. This requires each business to provide the best service to its customers at the best possible price or risk the customer choosing to use their competitor. In this case, the customers are both the victim and the defendant. If either did not think they were getting a fair shake at justice, they could always choose to patronize the competition. It is because of this simple mechanism, that those claiming to administer justice would keep restitution rates as fair as possible or else they would go out of business.

 

Since profits are derived from fair business and profits are what keep businesses alive, it would be in any justice company’s best interest to perform justice fairly. This means that restitution rates would not be as erratic or unfair as Birch claims. If so, companies would not make profits and would therefore go out of business. Not only this, but it would also leave those who dole out unfair restitution open to being held accountable for their mistakes.

 

If a defendant is punished with restitution that is more than fair justice, isn’t that considered theft? Surely those who seek justice would say yes. Couldn’t the defendant then charge the court with theft and have them tried by another court? How long could a court stay in business if they were always being taken to court? How long would customers continue to use their services if they couldn’t prove to be fair or competent in the justice business? Competition ensures that this would happen. Competition would ensure justice was fair. If as Birch says, a court advertised a 150% restitution rate, that would be a sign signaling competition to enter the market, competition that is interested in fair justice and one that wouldn’t get charged with theft.

 

Any successful business requires customer satisfaction in order to profit. Having a bad name does nothing to bring about profits and actually drives customers to side with competitors. Making profits requires each business or individual to be responsible for his or her actions, always trying to do what is right and to make amends when mistakes are made. As like any individual, if a business did or was accused of something wrong, they would work to clear their name. In order to clear his or her name, the accused would agree to see an arbitrator, court or justice supplier. Since it would neither be in the accused or the victim’s best interest to be dealt with unfairly, both would agree on the most fair justice company. If neither were truly seeking justice, by either refusing to be responsible for their actions or by not agreeing to see an arbitrator, ostracizing would be the result.

 

Ostracizing can be a very powerful deterrent for criminal and negligent activity. Who would want to do business or associate with any person or business who was a criminal, accused of being one or couldn’t be trusted to make things right? In an anarchist society where one’s entire life is dependent upon self-responsibility and accountability, no one would dare take such a risk. The people who chose to live destructively, with no regard for others or responsibility, would soon find it a very hard to make a living if they continued. This would encourage those accused of a crime to act quickly to make things right and diligently seek to clear their name, that or risk the consequences. This in turn creates a market, one that would require fair justice in order to profit.

 

So, while Birch does create quite an argument for what he considers an “anarcho-capitalist” society, he forgets that in reality, any society must still adhere to the laws of the market. By misunderstanding the free market and lacking thought on rational self-interest, Birch’s argument is not only proven to be false but it destroys the validity of his other essays which are based upon his argument. The market is very complex as Birch points out, but the principles of profit and loss are not. If a business does not provide a service that others find to be a fair value, the business will go under. Justice is no different. If those in the justice business didn’t care about fair justice they would be out of business quickly and would also suffer from the consequences of doling out injustices.

[SOCALHUSKER]

bump

[huskerjack23]

Any successful business requires customer satisfaction in order to profit. Having a bad name does nothing to bring about profits and actually drives customers to side with competitors. Making profits requires each business or individual to be responsible for his or her actions, always trying to do what is right and to make amends when mistakes are made. As like any individual, if a business did or was accused of something wrong, they would work to clear their name. In order to clear his or her name, the accused would agree to see an arbitrator, court or justice supplier. Since it would neither be in the accused or the victim’s best interest to be dealt with unfairly, both would agree on the most fair justice company. If neither were truly seeking justice, by either refusing to be responsible for their actions or by not agreeing to see an arbitrator, ostracizing would be the result.

 

it only requires enough satisfaction to profit, not have complete satisfaction. do you think everyone "loves" mcdonalds and wal-mart? i don't think so.

 

i believe that a market like the a justice system market would lend itself more to the best prices and the best justice possible. would it be perfect justice? no. but if someone can hit on the right formula for operations, they could potentially take over a significant portion of market share. and don't say that they can't, because that would be a false presupposition. if they can also eliminate the other competitors while taking over share, one thing leads to another, it's a de-facto city-state.

 

yes it leads to competitors entering the market if customers are dis-satisfied, but i believe those could only survive in their own regions making THEM de-facto city states as well.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Any successful business requires customer satisfaction in order to profit. Having a bad name does nothing to bring about profits and actually drives customers to side with competitors. Making profits requires each business or individual to be responsible for his or her actions, always trying to do what is right and to make amends when mistakes are made. As like any individual, if a business did or was accused of something wrong, they would work to clear their name. In order to clear his or her name, the accused would agree to see an arbitrator, court or justice supplier. Since it would neither be in the accused or the victim’s best interest to be dealt with unfairly, both would agree on the most fair justice company. If neither were truly seeking justice, by either refusing to be responsible for their actions or by not agreeing to see an arbitrator, ostracizing would be the result.

 

it only requires enough satisfaction to profit, not have complete satisfaction. do you think everyone "loves" mcdonalds and wal-mart? i don't think so.

 

i believe that a market like the a justice system market would lend itself more to the best prices and the best justice possible. would it be perfect justice? no. but if someone can hit on the right formula for operations, they could potentially take over a significant portion of market share. and don't say that they can't, because that would be a false presupposition. if they can also eliminate the other competitors while taking over share, one thing leads to another, it's a de-facto city-state.

 

yes it leads to competitors entering the market if customers are dis-satisfied, but i believe those could only survive in their own regions making THEM de-facto city states as well.

 

What you're describing is a market monopoly and not a coercive monopoly(government), there's a difference. Read this pg. 31.

 

Theoretically, there are two kinds of monopoly—market monopolyand coercive monopoly. A coercive monopoly maintains itself by the initiation of force or the threat of force to prohibit competition, and sometimes to compel customer loyalty. A market monopoly has no effective competition in its particular field, but it can't prevent competition by using physical force. A market monopoly can't gain its ends by initiating force against anyone—its customers, competitors, or employees—because it has no legal power to compel people to deal with it and to protect itself from the consequences of its coercive actions. The initiation of force would frighten away business associates and alarm customers into seeking substitute products, doing without altogether, or, in the case of entrepreneurs, setting up a competing business to attract other dissatisfied customers. So the initiation of force by a market monopoly, far from helping it to attain its ends, would give it a quick push onto the short, downhill road to oblivion.

 

Because it does not initiate force, a market monopoly can only attain its monopoly status by excellence in satisfying consumer wants and by the economy of its product and/or service (which necessitates efficient business management). Furthermore, once it has attained this monopoly position, it can only hold it by continuing to give excellent service at economical prices (and the freer the economy, the more this rule holds true). If the managers of the monopoly become careless and raise their prices above market level, some other entrepreneur will see that he can undersell them and still make tremendous profits and will immediately move to enter their field. Then their potential competition will have become actual competition.

Large and well established companies are particularly likely to offer such competition, since they have large sums to invest and prefer to diversify their efforts into new fields in order to have a wide financial base. In a free society, where large companies were not plundered of what bureaucrats like to think of as their "excess

profits" via heavy taxation, any monopoly which raised its prices above market level or became careless about the quality of its service would be virtually creating its own competition—competition too strong for it to drive out. As is always the rule in an unhampered market, the illness would create its own cure—the market is selfregulating.

 

Not only are market monopolies no threat to anyone, the whole concept of monopoly, as commonly held, is in error. A monopoly is supposed to be a business which has "exclusive control of a commodity or service in a given market, or control that makes possible the fixing of prices and the virtual elimination of free competition."— Webster A market monopoly cannot prevent competition from entering its field because it cannot use coercion against would-be competitors, and thus it can never have that "exclusive control . . . that

makes possible the fixing of prices." Nor can such a monopoly be said to be free of competition, even while it has exclusive control of its market—its product must still compete for the consumer's money with every other good and service. For example, suppose a manufacturer of travel trailers has a complete monopoly over the travel trailer industry. He still must compete for the "recreation dollar" with the motel industry, and, in a broader sense, with the manufacturers of pleasure boats, swimming pools, table tennis sets,

etc. Nor does his competition end there. Because the consumer may choose to spend his money for something other than recreation, our travel trailer monopolist must compete indirectly with refrigerator

companies, clothing manufacturers, colleges, etc., ad infinitum. There is no industry so basic that a monopolist in that industry could manage "the virtual elimination of free competition." Even the steel industry

must compete in the building materials field with lighter metals, wood, plastic, concrete, brick, and now even newly developed glass products.

 

In considering the concept of monopoly, it is also useful to remember that it is not the absolute size of the firm which counts, but the size of the firm relative to its market. In the 1800s, the little country grocery store had a far firmer control of its market than does the largest chain of big-city supermarkets today. Advances in ease and economy of transportation continually decrease the relative size of even the most giant firm, thus making even temporary market monopoly status vastly more difficult to attain. So the free

market moves toward the elimination, rather than the encouragement, of monopolies.

 

Since a market monopoly can never eliminate tree competition or fix prices in defiance of the law of supply and demand, it actually bears no resemblance at all to the common notion of "the ruthless and

uncontrolled monopoly" so many people have been taught to fear. If the term "market monopoly" can have any meaning at all, it can only be understood as a company which has gained a position as the only supplier of its particular good or service because customer wants are well satisfied and its prices are so low that it is not profitable for competitors to move into that particular field. Its monopoly position will most likely not be permanent, because eventually someone else will probably "build a better mousetrap" and go into competition with it. But during the period of its market power, it is never free of competition or of the law of supply and demand in regard to prices.

 

It is easy to see that a market monopoly, because it cannot initiate force, poses no threat to either individual persons who deal with it or to the economy as a whole; but what about a coercive monopoly? To read the rest click on the link above and scroll to page 34.