The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#27
#27
volinbham said:
I could certainly have a de facto monopoly if no other land was suitable to a port on this hypothetical island.

I'm simply suggesting that having a monopoly isn't entirely dependent on the government as was suggested earlier.

It has more to do with having exclusive supply.
Click to expand...

I agree, but for practical purposes, this almost never happens without government. The only monopolies that are commonplace without government are new inventions that are first to market. The firm will enjoy monopoly power for about a month.
 
#29
#29
n_huffhines said:
I agree, but for practical purposes, this almost never happens without government. The only monopolies that are commonplace without government are new inventions that are first to market. The firm will enjoy monopoly power for about a month.
Click to expand...

Monopolies are almost always geographic. Land right of ways, natural resources, local expertise can all serve to create monopolies in specific geographic areas.

In a fully libertarian world I could see bridges, ferries, tunnels, roads, etc. being monopolies with staying power considerably longer than a month.
 
#30
#30
would monopolies be dealt with via incentives? so, if VBH owns th entire coast, we can say that he has a monopoly on the coastal land and any potential trade or recreational use that may be derived from that land.

if its valuable to VBH to allow trade or recreational use on the land, then he will set a price that he believes appropriately compensates him for its use. if the price is too high, no one will use his land.

conversely, if VBH decides not to allow anyone to use his land, then it is his prerogative to do so. human innovation will likely lead to alternative means to transport commercial goods and discover alternative recreational locales. VBH isnt forced to open his land and no one is forced to use vbh's ports, etc.

is that how the argument goes?
 
#33
#33
volinbham said:
Monopolies are almost always geographic. Land right of ways, natural resources, local expertise can all serve to create monopolies in specific geographic areas.

In a fully libertarian world I could see bridges, ferries, tunnels, roads, etc. being monopolies with staying power considerably longer than a month.
Click to expand...

How would you keep other roads, ferries, and bridges from competing with your roads, ferries, and bridges?
 
#34
#34
n_huffhines said:
How would you keep other roads, ferries, and bridges from competing with your roads, ferries, and bridges?
Click to expand...

Depends on my land ownership situation. I'm not saying I could prevent competition but if I own the right access points, competing solutions would be considerably less convenient/feasible.

Take an extreme example. If I owned the land on either side of the Panama canal I would certainly have monopoly unless someone decided to build a competing canal. Sure someone could build one but if their land wasn't as well suited then it would be prohibitively costly.

I don't need the government to create my monopoly. One exists so long as competition cannot or will not provide a substitute.
 
#35
#35
therealUT said:
Are you asserting that there are no 'natural slaves'?
Click to expand...

By your definition of "natural slave"? No doubt there are.

therealUT said:
Or, are you simply asserting that Aristotle's criteria for deciding the question of who are these slaves are faulty?
Click to expand...

I was implying that his definition was faulty for a "physical" slave while intriguing (and agreed) for "political" slaves.

therealUT said:
I think there are probably individuals who are born as natural slaves; I just think we do not have the resources to know, without a doubt, who they are. There are certainly individuals who would much rather be told exactly what to do throughout their entire lives than have to deal with making any critical decisions. I would say that these individuals are natural slaves.
Click to expand...

Your definition of "natural" slave would be just one segment of my overarching definition of a "political" slave. I think intelligence plays a big role as well.
 
#38
#38
volinbham said:
Depends on my land ownership situation. I'm not saying I could prevent competition but if I own the right access points, competing solutions would be considerably less convenient/feasible.

Take an extreme example. If I owned the land on either side of the Panama canal I would certainly have monopoly unless someone decided to build a competing canal. Sure someone could build one but if their land wasn't as well suited then it would be prohibitively costly.

I don't need the government to create my monopoly. One exists so long as competition cannot or will not provide a substitute.
Click to expand...

OK. I'm not sure really what the point is. I never really thought that it was practical to consider private property as a monopoly problem. You put a pool in your yard that nobody can use...you have a monopoly. You put a Panama Canal in your yard...you have a monopoly. Sure.

I was talking more about manufacturing, services, software, etc.

If somebody buys up the area of the Panama Canal, and builds the Panama Canal, then of course they have a monopoly. But we are better off for it. We have an option that didn't exist before. We can do whatever we did before the canal, or we can pay to borrow their property for a bit. I don't see this as relevant, because it's not a monopoly "problem".
 
Last edited:
#39
#39
n_huffhines said:
OK. I'm not sure really what the point is. I never really thought that it was practical to consider private property as a monopoly problem. You put a pool in your yard that nobody can use...you have a monopoly. You put a Panama Canal in your yard...you have a monopoly. Sure.

I was talking more about manufacturing, services, software, etc.

If somebody buys up the area of the Panama Canal, and builds the Panama Canal, then of course they have a monopoly. But we are better off for it. We have an option that didn't exist before. We can do whatever we did before the canal, or we can pay to borrow their property for a bit. I don't see this as relevant, because it's not a monopoly "problem".
Click to expand...

its only a monopoly because no one else has done it yet. If others buy property property around and build their own canal, then the monolopy is gone. There could be an ogilopoly opprotunity there unless someone develops an alternative to the canal and at that point it is pure supply and demand
 
#40
#40
volinbham said:
You sure about that? Let's say I own the only navigable shoreline on an island. If I build a port and any one that wants to use the port must go through mine given the geographic constraints don't I have a monopoly on this particular trade?
Click to expand...

Poor phrasing on my part.

Better:

A monopoly can only continue to exist when there are people who want to change that state if the government is involved.

A person could do massive engineering and build a harbor on the other side of the island where it is not a natural fit, for example. That may be prohibitively expensive and no one may choose to do so, but it is possible. If people truly are dedicated to making it a two port island, they could. The only way that the single port can remain a monopoly in the face of opposition is if the govt makes it illegal or impossible for someone else to redo another part of the coast.

The first person to enter any field has a 'monopoly' from a certain point of view. That is not what is meant when 'monopoly' is used in a pejorative manner.
 
#41
#41
For both RT and Huff - what is the monopoly that government is creating that is different from a natural monopoly? I fail to see the "monopoly problem" when it comes to government. Even in areas like utilities and communications we have options. I can go off the grid if I want.
 
#42
#42
volinbham said:
For both RT and Huff - what is the monopoly that government is creating that is different from a natural monopoly? I fail to see the "monopoly problem" when it comes to government. Even in areas like utilities and communications we have options. I can go off the grid if I want.
Click to expand...

The USPS is a great example of government monopoly, and why it's much different from natural monopolies. They forbid any competitor from competing in courier mail service.

Public schools....you don't have to send your kids there, but you do have to send your money.

Government road/highways systems ensure limited/non-existent private road systems.

Etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#43
#43
n_huffhines said:
The USPS is a great example of government monopoly, and why it's much different from natural monopolies. They forbid any competitor from competing in courier mail service.

Public schools....you don't have to send your kids there, but you do have to send your money.

Government road/highways systems ensure limited private road systems.

Etc.
Click to expand...

But there are plenty of substitutes for USPS. So many in fact that USPS has been in a steady decline. I can send letters, packages, etc. through other means than the USPS.

Public schools do not require you send money. They are considered a public good so everyone in the community supports them whether or not they use them. That is not a monopoly since I am not buying something - it is a tax like other taxes that support public goods.

I guess roads are inevitable when you are spanning multiple pieces of private property. Within a development though you may be able to build your own road system.
 
#44
#44
volinbham said:
(1) But there are plenty of substitutes for USPS. So many in fact that USPS has been in a steady decline. I can send letters, packages, etc. through other means than the USPS.

(2) Public schools do not require you send money. They are considered a public good so everyone in the community supports them whether or not they use them. That is not a monopoly since I am not buying something - (3) it is a tax like other taxes that support public goods.

I guess roads are inevitable when you are spanning multiple pieces of private property. Within a development though you may be able to build your own road system.
Click to expand...

1) You can send courier mail through FedEx? Technically you can, but nobody does it (unless it's over night) because the law forbids FedEx from charging less than $1.50 (or so) for delivery, in order to eliminate competition.

2) Those two sentences are mutually exclusive, IMO.

3) You think a provider of public goods cannot be monopolistic? Why?
 
#45
#45
n_huffhines said:
1) You can send courier mail through FedEx? Technically you can, but nobody does it (unless it's over night) because the law forbids FedEx from charging less than $1.50 (or so) for delivery, in order to eliminate competition.

Nothing says two providers must charge the same price. The point is that I have several options for sending physical items not to mention many electronic substitutes.

2) Those two sentences are mutually exclusive, IMO.

Not really. A monopoly implies if I want a particular product or service I am limited to one supplier. Taxes are not the same as purchasing an item. So even if I have no children, I pay taxes in a community as a condition of living there. Part of those taxes go to providing a school system of which I can use or not use. The HC mandate is a good example of the distinction. If the law was written as a tax for which service was provided then the Constitutionality would not be challenged. As it stands, it requires the specific purchase of a product and that makes it distinct from a tax for a service.

3) You think a provider of public goods cannot be monopolistic? Why?
Click to expand...

I never said that. National Healthcare would be monopolistic - assuming my only source of HC would be a government run system (HC employees; not just single payer insurance). If the only options for school were public school (mandated attendance) then it would be monopolistic. (2 examples)
 
#46
#46
volinbham said:
I never said that. National Healthcare would be monopolistic - assuming my only source of HC would be a government run system (HC employees; not just single payer insurance). If the only options for school were public school (mandated attendance) then it would be monopolistic. (2 examples)
Click to expand...

Yeah, not trying to say you were making that point. It just seemed that way, so it's why I asked to clarify.

I'm kind of confused here. We seem to have very different opinions of what makes a monopoly. Traditionally, market share determines whether or not you are a monopoly.

That's a broad definition. I'm more concerned with monopolistic behavior: predatory pricing, barriers to entry, exclusive rights, etc.

The USPS, public schools, etc. all engage in monopolistic behavior.
 
#47
#47
The definition also depends on how broadly or narrowly you define the options. If it's mail delivered to a mailbox at my house then there is only one choice. If it's options for sending a letter or package then it is an oligopoly. Same with schools.

Likewise, market share can be measured in many ways. Very narrowly - market for iPods (monopoly) vs mp3 player market (oligopoly) vs market for music players in general (competitive market).

There is almost always a geographic component as well.

Monopolistic behavior is different too than a monopoly. Microsoft has engaged in monopolistic behavior (Internet Explorer was a prime example) even though they did not have a monopoly (Netscape, Mosaic, etc.)

I agree that the government engages in monopolistic behavior. I was just reacting to RT's contention that without government actions, monopolies would not exist.
 
#48
#48
volinbham said:
The definition also depends on how broadly or narrowly you define the options. If it's mail delivered to a mailbox at my house then there is only one choice. If it's options for sending a letter or package then it is an oligopoly. Same with schools.

Likewise, market share can be measured in many ways. Very narrowly - market for iPods (monopoly) vs mp3 player market (oligopoly) vs market for music players in general (competitive market).

There is almost always a geographic component as well.

Monopolistic behavior is different too than a monopoly. Microsoft has engaged in monopolistic behavior (Internet Explorer was a prime example) even though they did not have a monopoly (Netscape, Mosaic, etc.)

I agree that the government engages in monopolistic behavior. I was just reacting to RT's contention that without government actions, monopolies would not exist.
Click to expand...

They would exist, but few and far in between, and they would behave completely differently than government monopolies.

Microsoft engaged in monopolistic behavior, but it did not hurt the consumer. It's called bundling. It's the same thing as buying a Big Mac with a discounted drink and fries.

I'm still confused about your point about public schools not being monopolistic because it's a public good, paid for through taxes:

a) It's not a public good. Public goods are defined as being non-exclusive and non-rival, but schools are exclusive.

b) If I had business that got 100% of its revenue from subsidies and I gave away my product for free, you wouldn't consider it a monopoly? That's the finest form of predatory pricing. The competition can't charge $0, and your profits won't even suffer from your predatory pricing.
 
#49
#49
n_huffhines said:
They would exist, but few and far in between, and they would behave completely differently than government monopolies.

Microsoft engaged in monopolistic behavior, but it did not hurt the consumer. It's called bundling. It's the same thing as buying a Big Mac with a discounted drink and fries.

I'm still confused about your point about public schools not being monopolistic because it's a public good, paid for through taxes:

a) It's not a public good. Public goods are defined as being non-exclusive and non-rival, but schools are exclusive.

b) If I had business that got 100% of its revenue from subsidies and I gave away my product for free, you wouldn't consider it a monopoly? That's the finest form of predatory pricing. The competition can't charge $0, and your profits won't even suffer from your predatory pricing.
Click to expand...

Who says Microsoft's actions did not hurt the customer? Courts determined otherwise.

Public schools are not a monopoly because:

1. I am not compelled to use the service
2. I can find any number of alternatives including doing it myself.

Just because part of my taxes fund public schools does not mean they are a monopoly. It is a condition of living in an area but I do not have to use them for educating my children. There are competing choices - hence not a monopoly. Likewise, even if I do not wish to engage in the education market my taxes stay the same. In short, whether or not I engage in the market I pay the same rate therefore it is not a monopoly. If the ONLY source of eduction was public schools then it would be a monopoly.

Definition of 'Monopoly'
A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products.

According to a strict academic definition, a monopoly is a market containing a single firm. In such instances where a single firm holds monopoly power, the company will typically be forced to divest its assets. Antimonopoly regulation protects free markets from being dominated by a single entity.

Read more: Monopoly Definition | Investopedia
Click to expand...

There is competition for primary education so it is not a monopoly.
 
#50
#50
volinbham said:
Who says Microsoft's actions did not hurt the customer? Courts determined otherwise.

Public schools are not a monopoly because:

1. I am not compelled to use the service
2. I can find any number of alternatives including doing it myself.

Just because part of my taxes fund public schools does not mean they are a monopoly. It is a condition of living in an area but I do not have to use them for educating my children. There are competing choices - hence not a monopoly. Likewise, even if I do not wish to engage in the education market my taxes stay the same. In short, whether or not I engage in the market I pay the same rate therefore it is not a monopoly. If the ONLY source of eduction was public schools then it would be a monopoly.

There is competition for primary education so it is not a monopoly.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean anything. If you can explain how a free browser hurts the consumer, I'll listen. I don't think the courts ruled that the consumer was hurt, I think they ruled that Microsoft was in violation of ambiguous anti-trust laws on a technicality.

So you wouldn't consider my business that relies on 100% subsidies a monopoly? I'm really interested in your answer.

There is some competition for primary education, you are right. But if this means that public schools don't enjoy monopoly power, you are essentially saying there is no such thing as a monopoly. There is at least a tiny amount of competition in every industry. Public schools get about 90% of K-12 students. That's not monopoly power? At what point would you consider a provider a monopoly? 95%?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top