Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/23/84; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!faustus
From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: more on oligopolies - another answer to Tim Sevener
Message-ID: <29@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Dec-84 14:14:31 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.29
Posted: Fri Dec 21 14:14:31 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Dec-84 08:35:24 EST
References: <4344@cbscc.UUCP> <3346@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 38

> From Larry Cipriani:
> 
> "When one realizes that Rockefeller was first, one realizes that it is just
> plain stupid to ask how Rockefeller came to control the oil industry. The real
> question is: How did he RETAIN control?  The best book on how industrialists
> USED THE GOVERNMENT to preserve their market shares is *The Triumph of
> Conservatism : A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916* by Gabriel
> Kolko (Kolko is, incidently, a radical Leftist, not a Libertarian)."
> 
> The question is not "WHat method is used to wield power?" but
> "Who wields power."
> 
> Whenever there is a lack of a strong govt. with strong popular control,
> powerful third parties inevitably gain control of the govt.
>
> It may be true that in a libertarian society Rockefeller couldn't have
> done what he did. But the point is that given Rockefeller, libertarian society
> is not capable of surviving.  Power inevitably accumulates.  The only counter
> force to strong third parties controlling your life is for a strong govt. to
> do so, where at least you have SOME say in how it does so, and how it doesn't.

The sort of government you are describing (one that regulates business
without strength or popular control) is neither the libertarian's or
the anarchist's idea of government.  The REAL libertarian government
would be strong with popular control, but would not have the mechanisms
in place that Rockefeller would need to gain control over the market
place (i.e, no regulation of business). The anarchists would have no
government at all for Rockefeller to gain control of.  Of course, in an
anarchistic society Rockefeller would not have to use a government to
gain power, he would just need a bigger army than anybody else.
Assuming that he couldn't do this in a libertarian society (one that
never makes use of force first, but responds quickly to other's use of
force), it is unclear whether he could gain the sort of control over
the industry that he had by non-forceful business strategies. (Having
been convinced that I don't know enough economics to argue this, I
won't.)

	Wayne