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.