The state has a monopoly on monopolization?

[Steven Bickford]

Nielsio recent post about state monopolization of currency reminded of a post that I've been meaning to make for a while about the AC party line on monopolies.

According to the the AC FAQ: "Monopolies cannot occur without the state."

Now that statement makes for a nice talking point, but unfortunately it has no grounding in reality or logic. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing unique about governments that only allows them to create monopolies. Yes governments can use force to support monopolies, but what is stopping potential monopolists in AC land from using force to enforce their monopoly? Of course there will be potential competitors and some consumers who will resist the monopolist, but that going to be very difficult if the potential monopolist controls a very market share of an important resource. At least if there is a government, there is already a powerful entity in place that can stop such a potential monopolist. But in AC land, if one company gradually gains enough market share, there is less stopping that company from using force to capture and maintain control over the market of a particular good or service.

Now let's not let the ACers try to skew the point that I am making here. I am not saying that governments cannot also create monopolies. I'm merely saying that the idea that monopolies cannot occur without the state is idiotic.

The more universal point that has application in other areas is that states do not have a monopoly on force and coercion. Even if there are no governments in place in AC land, there is no guarantee that powerful interests will not bully and coerce people in unjust ways much like some states do.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes governments can use force to support monopolies, but what is stopping potential monopolists in AC land from using force to enforce their monopoly?

[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
But in AC land, if one company gradually gains enough market share, there is less stopping that company from using force to capture and maintain control over the market of a particular good or service.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course there is. And history shows that companies just can't seem to sustain large market shares for long. Standard Oil had a peak of 90% market share long before it was broken up and that had been in decline until the trial.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if there are no governments in place in AC land, there is no guarantee that powerful interests will not bully and coerce people in unjust ways much like some states do.

[/ QUOTE ]
A tired strawman. No ACist here has said that AC will be a utopia where everyone loves their neighbor and no one ever abuses power. The argument is that it is more difficult.

[bkholdem]

It certainly won't be 'the law' to succumb to threats of violence from a potential monopoly in AC land, will it?

And if a potential monopoly went from getting customers through supplying superior products at lower costs to trying to get more market share through threats of violence that opens up a pretty big can of worms doesn't it? Won't any action such as this repel the companies current customer base?

The government has the air of legitimacy with their threats of violence to get people to comply, hell millions fall over themselves defending the propaganda that allows them to continue with the monopoly. It's 'ones duty', etc, etc.
It is 'the law' to abide by the rules.

In an AC society it would be straight up threats of violence with no 'law' to give them the air of legitimacy. I don't know about you, but I"m gonna stop shopping at Walmart when they start rounding up customers at gunpoint and taking them to the store and telling them to spend their money there. What are they going to do, hire 30million people whose job it is to carry a shotgun and gather customers in surrounding towns? Sounds like a pretty expensive propostion to me my friend.

[Steven Bickford]

[ QUOTE ]
It certainly won't be 'the law' to succumb to threats of violence from a potential monopoly in AC land, will it?

And if a potential monopoly went from getting customers through supplying superior products at lower costs to trying to get more market share through threats of violence that opens up a pretty big can of worms doesn't it? Won't any action such as this repel the companies current customer base?

The government has the air of legitimacy with their threats of violence to get people to comply, hell millions fall over themselves defending the propaganda that allows them to continue with the monopoly. It's 'ones duty', etc, etc.
It is 'the law' to abide by the rules.

In an AC society it would be straight up threats of violence with no 'law' to give them the air of legitimacy. I don't know about you, but I"m gonna stop shopping at Walmart when they start rounding up customers at gunpoint and taking them to the store and telling them to spend their money there. What are they going to do, hire 30million people whose job it is to carry a shotgun and gather customers in surrounding towns? Sounds like a pretty expensive propostion to me my friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

The concern is not that monopolists will use force on customers. The concern is that they will use force against competitors. They don't even need to use force necessarily. "Hey, instead of trying to compete with us, how about joining us (wink wink)?"

[ShakeZula06]

A chance for a monopoly is determined by the concentration of wealth. And the state is the biggest concentration of wealth by far.

[Steven Bickford]

[ QUOTE ]
A chance for a monopoly is determined by the concentration of wealth. And the state is the biggest concentration of wealth by far.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there is a chance of wealth concentration in AC land, and thus monopolization, correct?

[ShakeZula06]

There's not much chance of large wealth concentration without government intervention, specifically government's relationships with corporations, the fact that government is made up of elite wealth, pork spending, no bid contracts, etc.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
But in AC land, if one company gradually gains enough market share, there is less stopping that company from using force to capture and maintain control over the market of a particular good or service

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't thinking like a businessman at all (thankfully). A person who has 80% market share has an ass load to lose, specifically that 80% market share. Risking you customers displeasure, adding incentives to create more competition against your company, and risking the failure of that violence would cost you the but tons of money you are making by holding 80% of the market. Changing a business model holds large risks.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm merely saying that the idea that monopolies cannot occur without the state is idiotic.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this- monopolies and long term monopolistic pricing cannot occur without using coercive violence.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if there are no governments in place in AC land, there is no guarantee that powerful interests will not bully and coerce people in unjust ways much like some states do.

[/ QUOTE ]

All states do this, but a state often hides behind a veil of legitimacy. State violence, corruption and waste often grows because people accept it. If you have gone through the transition to a free market society then it is highly unlikely for people to accept any overt force, and even covert force will be scrutinized and pretty broadly reported. No one i have ever talked to wants to take an uneducated and unprepared populace into the market overnight. The spreading of ideas and cooperation will (hopefully) be a more gradual process.

[lehighguy]

Anything is possible. But if monopoly is 1% the chance it is under AC versus government, why advocate government.

[clowntable]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course there is. And history shows that companies just can't seem to sustain large market shares for long

[/ QUOTE ]
Irrelevant for the argument unless it's history in AC nations. Or do you want to defend that AC monoplolies are not likely with the fact that monopolies can't sustain large market shares in non AC environments.