Topic: Anarcho-capitalism, Monopolies, Private dictatorships - page 9. (Read 14871 times)

In a free market society you might not even see very big pools of capital (corporations) forming. People handle capital much more efficiently when it's their own, not shared with everyone or owned by some distant capitalist. It's just taxation and other state bureaucracy that makes distribution of ownership less practical in some cases.

Big corporations tend to have management problems similar to those seen in communist countries. Instead of a mega-corporation like Siemens, you'd have a lot more efficient network of private entrepreneurs who own their personal means of production, or perhaps pool resources when bigger machines and tools are required. People would more often sell the results of their work rather than working hours. Idle days spent at the office only because of hour-based work contract would be history.

Either a monopoly is serving customers really well and efficiently (which is really good), or they used force to get to that position (which is bad, and you deal with them the same as anyone who uses force).

Monopolies cannot last if they are not serving customers well or artificial barriers of entry are enacted.  Otherwise, competitors will come in.

Or are you concerned that without the government to break up IBM/Microsoft/Google/(insert next tech boogeyman), no one will ever be able to compete?

When monopoly raises the price, competitors will enter into their market. So even though monopoly is possible, it can't do any harm in an-cap society, unlike current monopolies, that are forced by government.

Please don't conflate "anarcho"-capitalism with anarchism.

If you'd like to learn about anarchism, even for the sake of improving your arguments, I'd recommend An Anarchist FAQ.

Monopolies are able to prevent competition as they accumulate market power, which they diversify into other forms of power. They are able to entrench themselves and maintain their position by economies of scale and economies of scope. A strong, well-run monopoly can maintain its favored position for decades. Power can be bought or gamed in any political system, or even in the absence of a political system (as is effectively the naive and misguided dream of anarchists of various stripes).

I contend that it is precisely because of the power monopolies can gather to themselves that they are able to influence, recruit or ally with the state itself.

It's interesting to remind ourselves why states exist in the first place, their origin was in the simple function of maintaining law and order. The monopoly of force for the settlement of disputes. This is the essential function of any state. Everything else they've become over time is the product of various historical influences and struggles that they've had to mediate or be subjected to. Landowners, traders, peasants, serfs, slavers, slaves, industrialists, laborers, the myriad complexities of urban centres, cultural minorities, technological innovations, various formations of military forces, religions etc.

Without the state multiple influences would still exist and there would still be a need for the control of force (Rands night-watchmen state). The state itself is in my opinion the Essential Monopoly without which order cannot be maintained. Without a state any Jack with a gun or a band of club-weilding friends would overwise attempt to impose their own law. There would be a period of 'war-lordism' where most people would be unable to invest significantly in any endeavor until eventually some overall power would emerge and voila, a state has formed again. States are the end of internal conflict, or the mediation of such conflict by definition.

But even with a simple state, life itself won't sit still and remain simple, the struggles and vying for position would still continue, the state will still become increasingly complex as it continues its obligation to mediate between competing interests.

In my opinion, anarchists don't even recognize the nature of the game so they have no chance of winning, they merely demand the umpire be abolished as if this would mean victory. In an anarcho-capitalist society monopolies would form, maximize profits, and defend their positions against the natural forces of entropy. So anarcho-capiland would still end up with a state, only a state entirely given over to the cause of various allied monopolies. The influence of workers, peasants, small scale traders and innovators etc would have been completely dis-empowered by the anarcho-capitalsist tennets, the mediation of their interests would be denied completely, no court of law for them to fight their case. They could be crushed by brute force.

In a society without a state the door is left open to uncontested control by allied monopolists. Eventually, there'd just be an authoritarian behemoth run by a complex of private power in which no one has any rights except the owners. Monarchies basically.

The state is an inevitable space, and furthermore it is a battle-ground that must be contested and fought for. To attempt to abolish the state is merely to concede all power to private monopolies.

That's my argument anyway.

Under anarcho-capitalism a natural balance is reached because monopolies, being large organisations, are slower to react to changes than smaller more-nimble organisations. The time always comes when the monopoly is caught out by fast-changing events to which it can't react quickly enough to maintain its monopoly position.

That stability is good for the dominance and profitability of the government-favored players in those sectors, but for society as a whole it would be better to have dynamism and the opportunity for change than to have "stability".

I disagree, combination is a superior strategy to competition. If making a profit is your game then it makes sense to join forces with the competition and 'pull-up-the-ladder' The government protects monopolies argument is somewhat chicken-&-egg. In heavy industry; transport, comms, governments will necessarily ally with these monopolies to ensure the stability of critical sectors.

In many cases I'm sure government may actually work towards forming monopolies either due to strategic concerns mentioned or because government is often heavily influenced by big money, the exact same kind of big money that would eat an anarcho-capitalism for breakfast and shit out absolute dynasties.

Freidman says he doesn't understand Debeers... there you go. A band of ruthless adventurers bought mercenary power and the assistance of the British Army to bear in Southern Africa and through no small amount of slave labour and the establishment of a state (Rhodesia, later overthrown by African freedom fighters) was able to entrench itself as the diamond monopoly, crushing all upstarts or industrial alternatives through a mixture of the control of cultural infactuation and state-allied might.

First thought: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU

How would Anarcho-capitalists handle the emergence of monopolies?