Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!godot!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <2003@inmet.UUCP> Date: Wed, 27-Feb-85 02:14:33 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.2003 Posted: Wed Feb 27 02:14:33 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Mar-85 02:56:16 EST Lines: 58 Nf-ID: #R:ucbvax:-499700:inmet:7800313:177600:2763 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Feb 25 23:04:00 1985 >***** inmet:net.politics / ucbvax!wallace / 6:57 pm Feb 22, 1985 >In article <1977@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >[Embedded quotation omitted] > . > . > . >> >>I've reprinted your entire article (minus signature) to demonstrate a >>point: you have yet to give an example of a stable monopoly not >>regulated or otherwise helped by government. I agree that your logic >>with your assumptions COULD lead to somewhat-more-stable monopolies, but >>my argument was empirical: there have been no historic examples of such >>monopolies. Either come up with some, or please, please, stop talking >>about the dangers of monopoly. > >Hmmm. I'm not the original poster here, but I don't like the flavor of this >argument. Try applying such logic to a discussion on the consequences of >WWIII: > > I agree that your logic with your assumptions COULD lead to a > somewhat-more-destructive superpower thermonuclear exchange, > but my argument was empirical: there have been no historic examples > of such exchanges. Either come up with some, or please, please, > stop talking about the dangers of such exchanges. > >Riiiight. > >Moral: Just because it's never happened doesn't mean it never will, especially >if basic conditions change (the original discussion was about the potential >evolution of monopoly power under a perfectly free economy, which has never >existed yet either, right?). > >Dave Wallace >(...!ucbvax!wallace, wallace@Berkeley) >---------- > There are plenty of theoretical objections to monopoly -- the main ones have to do with diseconomies of scale and substitution of other products for the monopolized one. If we'd had the potential for nuclear wars as long as we've had the potential for non-state-aided monopolies, and no nuclear wars happened, that would be a pretty good argument against their likelihood. The ORIGINAL, original posting (a long time ago) was an argument by Wayne Christopher, in which he argued that a libertarian society would be undesirable because it nothing would prevent monopolies. As it turns out this seems to be quite untrue, for various theoretical reasons, but quite dramatically, it is also true if you look at the question historically. A lot of people have the idea, though, that it would happen, and that it HAS happened, and so it's worth pointing out, whenever people raise this particular objection to libertarianism, that there's no basis over a very long time for thinking that such monopolies are stable. On the other hand, I think that your "nuclear war" example is a little unfair -- if it were to happen, it wouldn't be a matter of history because there'd be nobody to write down the event. Monopolies, we would live through, nuclear war, we wouldn't be able to look back on.