Libertas est Veritas:I'm wondering if the state can be called a monopoly? And if so, is the existence of states proof that markets tend towards monopolies, at least in the area of law and it's enforcement? Especially as now that states are consolidating and forming cartels (EU, etc).
Most people here probably accept the Weberian or Hoppean definition of a state as a territorial monopoly on the use of force or legal use of force, with the power to unilaterally impose or externalize its costs onto everyone within the given territory. This seems like a fairly sufficient definition. One could be more specific by saying that the state has a territorial monopoly on law, defense and arbitration. It is represented by a person or a group of people who are the ultimate arbiter in all disputes, including disputes between themselves and those outside of the organization.
The fact that such an institution can arise is not necessarily proof that free markets tend towards monopolies because the origin of the state does not lie in free market means, it lies in a disruption of the peaceful and cooperative process of the market through mechanisms of plunder. A state is formed when this disruption of the free market is institutionalized intergenerationally. The origin of the state lies in crime, not free markets.
The territorial monopoly had to have initially been obtained somehow, and not through any kind of pure or unanimous consent. In many ways it can be traced back to land theft and groups of extorters. The extortion is institutionalized into taxation and the arbitrary property claims are institutionalized into the legal jurisdictions and borders. Once many generations have passed and a sort of collective amnesia kicks in, there is an ideological legitimization, usually in the form of religious apologetics for the state and in later times manifested in the illusion or myth of democracy, social contract theory and constitutionalism.
Government is definitely a monopoly. Government is not subject to market forces like other businesses. I have no choice but to "purchase" government via taxes. I can't fire the government and hire someone else to protect my property and enforce my contracts.
Governments were never imposed via the unanimous consent of the government. Typically, a bunch of people with guns enslaved everyone else. Even in the USA after the Revolutionary War, the people who controlled the colony governments decided to cement their control by establishing a Federal government.
Once people accept "Taxation is theft!" and "Governments are immoral!", they won't accept a new government. Starting with a *TRUE* free market, it'd be practically impossible to establish a government again. If someone got close to forming a new government, then everyone else would unite in opposition.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
Brainpolice:The origin of the state lies in crime, not free markets.
fsk:Once people accept "Taxation is theft!" and "Governments are immoral!", they won't accept a new government. Starting with a *TRUE* free market, it'd be practically impossible to establish a government again. If someone got close to forming a new government, then everyone else would unite in opposition.
Yes, the state is a monopoly of force, by definition. It is the only entity that can create and enforce different rules by its own rules. What I mean is that it is an entity which outlaws the creation of other rules and enforcement of those rules in its territory and gives monopoly power over that market (the market for protection and courts).
That is the basic role of government: courts, police, and national defense, all of which are monopolies.
Now, does this prove that governments and monopolies are inevitable? No. Governments, as monopolies, arose only because people would agree to some kind of singular force dictating their lives. From there, governments only grew in power, creating more monopolies of its own (i.e. today the post office is a government monopoly).
However, an anarchy can exist. All that it requires is a group of people who don't want a monopoly of rules and ability to enforce those rules. Instead, these people can hire different protection agencies and private courts. In fact, I believe that's the way to fight back government today. Forget about painful revolutions, riots, etc. All we need is enough people who will deny the monopoly power of government and will create businesses that will compete with government monopolies for business, and yes, protect us from the government for not following their rules.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
Somewhere in here is proof that human nature tends to statism. Bummer eh?
While BP and the Purplist Liberals are perfecting their rhetoric, some are out there perfecting statism, seeking the perfect alchemy of control and emotional manipulation (nationalism, greed, sex, masochism, guilt etc.)
I'm neck deep in statists and I need liberty reinforcements. Oh wait, libertarians typically are individualists. Guess I am on my own.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Typically, a bunch of people with guns enslaved everyone else. Even in the USA after the Revolutionary War, the people who controlled the colony governments decided to cement their control by establishing a Federal government.
The federal government you are talking about did not really exist until the war between the states. Before that states governed for the most part and the southern states desire to succeed, which was allowed by the constitution, is what created the monster we have today. So yes, guns can control most everything excecpt the minds of men, That has been the way of the world since man can remeber and to think that mankind could exist in peace without some form of centralized government is inviting your own destruction.
we must resist the borg
Libertas est Veritas:I agree that it doesn't come about through consent, but it still originates from a "free market", or at least from primitive free markets.
Free market simply means people exchanging stuff without being coerced or mislead.
I guess it's possible that government could have started by people giving them their stuff voluntarly, getting justice and defense in return (PDAs?). I don't think this view is historically accurate though. It seems evident that the primitive human groups were as socialists as families, because everyone was somewhat related to the next guy or would otherwise knew very well each other, so they would basically only trade with other tribes. As these tribes evolved into larger groups, the head of the tribe started to have a lesser and lesser role, simply building a defense, and etc.
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
I disagree with the claim that "Statism is a part of human nature". At one time, everyone believed the earth was flat. At one time, everyone believed the earth was the center of the universe. It's possible for massive shifts in attitudes to occur.
The only way the issue will be settled is the way all important polical debates are settled, violence or economics. I consider agorism to be a strategy of nonviolent economic resistance.
On one side will be the Statists. On the other side will be people who believe in truly free markets. Let's face off and see who does better.
It is a territorial monopolist in the provision of law and order - in that it compels its clients to consume its product and disallows any competition in its territory. If it allows competition (i.e. gives up its territorial monopoly) and acquires its funds voluntarily (not by dint of social contract fantasies), it is no longer a state.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
As has been pointed out, of course it's a monopoly. Now as to your other question: no. Goverments, by definition, are extra-market entities. By foisting their "services" upon the populace, they destroy the very concept of a market. It is the conflation of economic power (the power of free trade) with political power (the power of the gun/sword/etc) which would suggest that markets tend toward monopolies.
Libertas est Veritas: But this relies on an "enlightened" population.
While I accept it could work under some limited scenarios, I don't see it working on any national scale. In fact it skirts a bit too close to comfort to the socialist new man ideal,
with the nature of man being suddenly changed. Problem is that people are apathetic and quite willing to rationalize away freedom if the power grabs are accompanied by promises of maintaining their comfort levels.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Oh wait, libertarians typically are individualists.
Make it worth my while and you may yet receive "reinforcements". Same as with motivating cats...
Knight_of_BAAWA:Goverments, by definition, are extra-market entities. By foisting their "services" upon the populace, they destroy the very concept of a market.
Libertas est Veritas:My main concern is whether or not an anarchist society will inevitably lead to the formation of one or more states.
If you look at the one example in existance today you will find that the 'ineviatable' drive to form a State is an external influence lead by the US/UN. They seem to be perfectly happy without having a central government and taking care of disputes in the 'old way'.
But the very fact that a functioning stateless society is in existence is a threat to all the other governments because people might wake up and see that they really don't need a central authority to have a pretty good life. I'd say the people who are most afraid are the corrupt politicians in the neighboring countries that look at Somalia and fear that this is their fate. Word gets out that the Somalis have a better standard of living because they don't have to support a political class that sucks the life out of any entrepreneurial activities and the non-state may spread throughout Africa like a virus and none of the ruling elite want that including the Western leaders who initially established the states throughout the African continent willy-nilly because of their empire building efforts.
Fascination stuff, Somali anarchy... there's a few other real good studies on the subject floating around including one that describes their justice system in detail, I need to start indexing these things one of these days so I don't keep losing them like I always tend to do.
Anonymous Coward:Fascination stuff, Somali anarchy
Libertas est Veritas: I'm not an expert on Somalia, but my understanding is that it isn't really anarchist, but more of a collection of several small tribal states/territories. What will prevent these from forming into proper states themselves?
I guess it all depends on how you define anarchy.
Power tends towards monopoly, not markets. If you don't create power, you're safe.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Libertas est Veritas:But you can't call a state a monopoly and then conveniently categorize it as "extra-market", as if it doesn't matter in the discussion. My main concern is whether or not an anarchist society will inevitably lead to the formation of one or more states.
I don't see your problem with calling a state a monopoly and extra-market. The state is not based upon trade; it is based upon force. Further, I don't see any necessary link between the fact that states foist their "services" upon the citizens and that markets would naturally become monopolistic. If you could elaborate some on this, I'd be grateful.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap