The Reluctant Anarchist

[maxpot46]

I've always loved Sobran's writing (if not always his positions). I find him quite pithy and capable of turning an excellent phrase. I find fascinating this exposition (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) of how he, a well-known conservative journalist, found himself becoming an anarchist in his later years.

[INTJRyan]

I agree with his analysis re: the commerce clause, the civil war, the new deal and the 10th Amendment. However, when I envision an anarchist society, I just cannot see how I, me personally, would be better off than with what we have currently, as flawed as it is.

But then again, I am a big government liberal on this board.

[uncon]

I've always loved Sobran's writing (if not always his positions). I find him quite pithy and capable of turning an excellent phrase. I find fascinating this exposition (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) of how he, a well-known conservative journalist, found himself becoming an anarchist in his later years.

I used to be an anarchist until I realized that everyone is not an XNTJ. If everyone were then anarchism could probably work. Now I am an anarchist in spirit but for practical reason I'm a moderate democrat - a liberal but I don't call myself that b/c I don't want to outlaw smoking. I'm in the lower left quadrant of the political matrix - libertarian left: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A lot of liberals are in the upper left which gives us a bad name.

Anyway, with all the other personality types co-existing very moderate liberalism is probably the best system. I mean, we have to live with Conservatives who want things to actually NOT progress and Reactionaries (extreme right wingers) who want to go backwards b/c even the present disturbs them. I used to think I could just convince people using logic or at least their general sense of freedom. You can't imagine (nor can I) what even a 100 IQ is like and when you get close to imagining then anarchism fades away like the nightmare it would be.

[RBM]

I've always loved Sobran's writing (if not always his positions). I find him quite pithy and capable of turning an excellent phrase. I find fascinating this exposition (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) of how he, a well-known conservative journalist, found himself becoming an anarchist in his later years.

Thanks for the link. It was a good refresher course of the classics, and the proper jargon used in the originally developed context.

As an aside, one who wishes to get a glimpse of approximate-anarchy in current times should seek out what it's like to live in Mexico or Argentina.

[dogwoodlover]

I also am an anarchist.

Great article, btw.

EDIT:Though, traditional anarchists (read: leftist) have long questioned the legitimacy of so-called "anarcho-capitalists."

[jesse]

This is the first time I've heard of Joseph Sobran. The linked article does have quite a sober view on traditions and the more or less blind obedience to them without truly weighting everything from a critical point of view.

For instance, I also tend to have much more in common in terms of economic policy with conservatives and republicans in general, despite having a bitter difference with the role and overemphasis on Judeo-Christian morality poking out everywhere. Religion itself does not bother me and I'm perfectly fine with anyone believing in whatever messiah of their choice along with their rites and rituals. The line gets drawn when everyone is out to convert more for their own religious movement.

A particular overlapping area is the state and its mechanics. I am not opposed to a state out of blind faith as dictated by anarchism or more specifically anti-statism. What really bothers me is when the State becomes its own creation which does not function as it has been planned to function, such as having limits set out through a constitution. Once these basic principles are being stretched and interpreted as one pleases, is there really anything else to say that those founding principles are worthless to a large extent? Heck, I wouldn't mind if this place was a monarchy as long as the monarch was a rational person and able ruler, not a desperate, power-starved ogre with a severe paranoid streak against any threats. Still, there are no guarantees about an order corrupting and degenerating into something it might have been formed against in the first place.

Some people realize that they've been spoonfed something which does not actually hold up and start exploring alternatives. Some stay behind because it is tradition and authority says it is the only correct way, thus you don't question anything, be it fear or blind respect toward authority and tradition.

[eternaltriangle]

"I used to be an anarchist until I realized that everyone is not an XNTJ. If everyone were then anarchism could probably work."

Explain this statement. I would, in a state of anarchy, seek to join the most organized group of individuals, and urge them to conquer the rest, before they conquered us. Without a power above all men, like the state, rational men will fear the actions of other rational men, and strike first to avoid being made mince-meat. Indeed, mankind has only survived as long as it has because the Hobbesian "state of nature" was a myth (we have always had structures that maintained order - families, clans, tribes, and the state).

Or do you mean European-style anarchy, which is really an abolition of private property. In that instance I would try to shirk my duties as much as possible, and mooch off of others.

[Holiman]

the Hobbesian "state of nature" was a myth (we have always had structures that maintained order - families, clans, tribes, and the state).



Man please tell me I am not actually reading your point correctly perhaps I misunderstood something


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Just some examples of what anarchy is, what its not is people talking around a table discussing better free markets and open ideologies. History is full to bursting of fantastical examples of what happens without law and order. I really want to know if you people discussing Anarchy have ever visited any nation living in Anarchy or would be willing to?

[firebee]

Man please tell me I am not actually reading your point correctly perhaps I misunderstood something


Probably, because I think it's still correct. Note that somebody is in charge, just in this case it seems to be tribes and gangs.

Which happens to be my objection to anarchy really, because it's not a matter of "whether someone is in charge" it's a matter of "who's in charge", and I'd rather not have the selection method be "the guy who's got the most hopped-up teenagers with guns".

[Lucid]

Probably, because I think it's still correct. Note that somebody is in charge, just in this case it seems to be tribes and gangs.

Which happens to be my objection to anarchy really, because it's not a matter of "whether someone is in charge" it's a matter of "who's in charge", and I'd rather not have the selection method be "the guy who's got the most hopped-up teenagers with guns".

Yeah, my sentiments exactly. Our current form of government is flawed (as are all of them) but at least the people have some small amount of control and say in what goes on. A truly anarchistic society.... I don't think it's the way those who are in favor of anarchy imagine it to be. I think perhaps anarchists don't have a solid grasp of human nature. It's not all brutal and ugly, but it is enough so that it would make life extremely difficult.

And I really see no difference between being ruled by a bunch of corporations and being ruled by a somewhat democratic government... oh, except that in a somewhat democratic process we have some say in who is ruling us and we have that say no matter their income.

[towith]

I would consider myself somewhat of an anarchist, more specifically an anarcho-capitalist. That said I am not against government, I simply think that government would be improved through increased voluntaryism and competition.

As for the human nature argument; surely there would be more risk in handing these humans the massive powers of government. Indeed, true democracies quickly descend into genocidal dictatorships, a good example being Democratic Kampuchea. Only in republics and monarchies where the hands of government are firmly tied, does prosperity and equality tend to reign.

[dogwoodlover]

Has anyone ever examined the Zapatistas in Chiapas (Mexico)?

There's no State in place. There are simple, straight forward, democratic processes in place that work at the community level, in which everyone over the age of 13 has a say. Wealth is utilized by the community, where they decide how to best use the land, resources, etc. (i.e. whether to buy a tractor, a fleet of pickup trucks, etc.). They've run things this way since 1994.

Also, it's worth noting that Catalonia, Spain was without government and entirely run by anarchist organizations from 1936-1939 (when they were crushed by Franco's armies after losing military support from the Soviets).

Anarchists are not opposed to leaders. There will always be leaders due to differences in personality, background, intelligence, etc. Anarchism does, however, oppose rulers. I believe it was Makhno that said "Anarchy is the mother of all order."

I think Chomsky succinctly put it (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) when he said "[This] is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met."

Humankind existed without a State until the last few thousand years of our existence, which "coincidentally" arose at the same time that economic classes began appearing (I personally take the Marxist view that the State is an organ of enforcing class rule).

[Holiman]

Has anyone ever examined the Zapatistas in Chiapas (Mexico)?

There's no State in place. There are simple, straight forward, democratic processes in place that work at the community level, in which everyone over the age of 13 has a say. Wealth is utilized by the community, where they decide how to best use the land, resources, etc. (i.e. whether to buy a tractor, a fleet of pickup trucks, etc.). They've run things this way since 1994.

Also, it's worth noting that Catalonia, Spain was without government and entirely run by anarchist organizations from 1936-1939 (when they were crushed by Franco's armies after losing military support from the Soviets).

Anarchists are not opposed to leaders. There will always be leaders due to differences in personality, background, intelligence, etc. Anarchism does, however, oppose rulers. I believe it was Makhno that said "Anarchy is the mother of all order."

I think Chomsky succinctly put it (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) when he said "[This] is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met."

Humankind existed without a State until the last few thousand years of our existence, which "coincidentally" arose at the same time that economic classes began appearing (I personally take the Marxist view that the State is an organ of enforcing class rule).
a paragraph taken from To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
From that time and until the middle of 2005, the EZLN leadership has no longer involved itself in giving orders in civil matters, but it has accompanied and helped the authorities who are democratically elected by the peoples. It has also kept watch that the peoples and national and international civil society are kept well informed concerning the aid that is received and how it is used. And now we are passing the work of safeguarding good government to the zapatista support bases, with temporary positions which are rotated, so that everyone learns and carries out this work. Because we believe that a people which does not watch over its leaders is condemned to be enslaved, and we fought to be free, not to change masters every six years.

This is not anarchy its revolution forming into democracy. Will it rise or fall who knows but yes its nice and shows nothing of what people are talking about here in my eyes.

Taken from another site To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The parliamentary tradition of Catalonia, interrupted in 1714, was therefore reinitiated. The first elections for the Parliament of Catalonia took place on November 20, 1932, and the constitutive sitting was held on December 6 of the same year. The first President of the Parliament was LluÍs Companys.

Franco's dictatorship destroyed the hopes of the Catalan people for self-government for a long time



Not to be too rude but you should give solid facts before presenting your arguments.

[dogwoodlover]

It's a forum board, not a political journal.

Sorry.

[ClydeB]

I am the first to stand up when the talk of an anarchist utopia or a group of rugged individualists comes up. But I just read this over the weekend.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And I have to say, this is not the kind of no government anarchy I would want to deal with.

[dogwoodlover]

An anarchist society would theoretically be the product of a revolution / democratic movement; Argentina is the product of failed IMF policies (neoliberalism gone wild). Capitalism is to blame here, not anarchy, though to be sure, "anarchy" has been the result (note that I'm using two definitions here, one of "anarchy" that corresponds to a society envisioned by left-libertarian philosophies, and another that corresponds to a state of "chaos").

Anarchism advocates a highly organized society (the horizontal kind, rather than hierarchical)--as far I know, there are not a whole lot of libertarian, participatory, democratic structures in place in Argentina (though there are some). Argentina doesn't look much better than America would tomorrow if the economy completely collapsed overnight. Many libertarian efforts in Argentina have been sabotaged by capital, such as workers taking over shutdown factories in order to maintain production, only to be arrested and jailed by the police / military.

[Autoptic]

There's no State in place. There are simple, straight forward, democratic processes in place that work at the community level, in which everyone over the age of 13 has a say. Wealth is utilized by the community, where they decide how to best use the land, resources, etc. (i.e. whether to buy a tractor, a fleet of pickup trucks, etc.).

Democracy is a state. Disagree with the assumed legitimacy of popular vote and see what happens. Groupthink is not a good leader. Of course, there will actually be leaders of the community, and these will be the de facto owners of the property anyway.

"Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends. And whoever has control of the means must also determine which ends are to be served, which values are to be rated higher and which lower, in short, what men should believe and strive for." Friedrich August von Hayek

I think Chomsky succinctly put it (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) when he said "[This] is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met."

Choosing for me in all my matters certain fails. My values are my own as are everyone else's. Anyone else claiming to know better than me about what I should value fails. They're just substituting their own values. If they don't get that fact, they've just proven their incompetence.

"Communism is the death of the soul. It is the organization of total conformity - in short, of tyranny - and it is committed to making tyranny universal." Adlai E. Stevenson

Humankind existed without a State until the last few thousand years of our existence, which "coincidentally" arose at the same time that economic classes began appearing (I personally take the Marxist view that the State is an organ of enforcing class rule).

Tribes had hierarchical social status and thus classes. Personal exchange was and is quite freeing compared to that. The problem was that classes with coercive rights preceded the market. You're conflating all forms of capitalism too.

[dogwoodlover]

Democracy is a state. Disagree with the assumed legitimacy of popular vote and see what happens. Groupthink is not a good leader. Of course, there will actually be leaders of the community, and these will be the de facto owners of the property anyway.

A libertarian, democratic form of decision making does not qualify as a state any more than the people who live in a village do. Personally, I'd rather be involved in decision-making processes that concern myself and others than having a businessmen or a politician decide for me. Perhaps you like leaving decisions up to others.

"Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends. And whoever has control of the means must also determine which ends are to be served, which values are to be rated higher and which lower, in short, what men should believe and strive for." Friedrich August von Hayek

Drawing from Hayek, who would you conclude should be in control of the economy? An oligarchy I presume?

Choosing for me in all my matters certain fails. My values are my own as are everyone else's. Anyone else claiming to know better than me about what I should value fails. They're just substituting their own values. If they don't get that fact, they've just proven their incompetence.

That's the point behind a participatory democratic system. YOU represent your interests, because no one else is going to. Make sense?

"Communism is the death of the soul. It is the organization of total conformity - in short, of tyranny - and it is committed to making tyranny universal." Adlai E. Stevenson

If you replace "Communism" with "The United States" you get a description of today's social, political and economic situation.

The problem was that classes with coercive rights preceded the market. You're conflating all forms of capitalism too.

I don't recall contesting that class existed before capitalist relations did. Where did you get that idea? I'm using "capitalism" to refer to "the overarching structure of the Western economic systems that have operated from the time of the industrial revolution until now."

[Autoptic]

A libertarian, democratic form of decision making does not qualify as a state any more than the people who live in a village do. Personally, I'd rather be involved in decision-making processes that concern myself and others than having a businessmen or a politician decide for me. Perhaps you like leaving decisions up to others.

If the people in the village constitute it's government, it is a state. You're proposing to leave all meaningful decisions up to all others.:suspicious:

"Since there is no such entity as “the public,” since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that “the public interest” supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others." Ayn Rand

Drawing from Hayek, who would you conclude should be in control of the economy? An oligarchy I presume?

The free market is self-regulating. Admittedly getting the infrastructure and information in place is the problem, but that's also the case in any new system.

That's the point behind a participatory democratic system. YOU represent your interests, because no one else is going to. Make sense?

What about the interest to not be dictated to by the majority of idiots or more accurately by anyone I'm not agreeably involved with and only to the extent of my agreement.

"What difference is it to me if a decision is forced upon me by a dictator or by half of my neighbors? Either way my right to free, peaceful action has been nullified." Stephen H. Foerster

If you replace "Communism" with "The United States" you get a description of today's social, political and economic situation.

Both are true.

I don't recall contesting that class existed before capitalist relations did. Where did you get that idea? I'm using "capitalism" to refer to "the overarching structure of the Western economic systems that have operated from the time of the industrial revolution until now."

You're pretending capitalism created the classes when they preceded the market. They also have yet to allow a free market and in most cases actual capitalism. Some conspire with the governments which involves "public" property functioning as private property in a rigged manner, even appropriating the latter as the former just to give it to themselves. That incidentally is how "public" property actually works anyway.

[reb]

if one adheres to what appears to be a common definition, there is no anarchy in the world at present, not even on antartica. there is a government in sudan, mexico, bosnia, russia...perhaps these are a government of thugs, killers or of drug lords, but some group has major control of events, nonetheless:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

anarchy.net has enough discussion to piss off anyone with any stance other than radical politics. i thoroughly enjoyed their rant.

frankly, some members of human kind are anarchistic by nature; governments have not, to this point, been able to totally rule. some dictatorial societies have come close, but there have always been 'outlaws'. the herd does not encompass everyone, thankfully. anarchists have been despised by every government i have read about in history. i cannot imagine why (wink). government sucks. it has always sucked. it will always suck as long as there are those who 'think they know best for the rest of us', and are egotistical enough to grab power. there are no benevolent dictators. kings and queens are simply substitutes for a deity. there is no perfect form of government, only 'less intrusive'. what are we to do? run! hide! debate endlessly while the house burns? be secure in our individual natures.... be in the world, but not of it....and sharpen your sword.

[uncon]

"I used to be an anarchist until I realized that everyone is not an XNTJ. If everyone were then anarchism could probably work."

Explain this statement.

Anarchism already exists among hunter/gatherers but generally everyone is the same personality type (except a few exceptional people like a shaman or the one leader). I don't really know if anarchism would ever work but it's a nice ideal.

I think INTJs want maximum freedom personally and they extrapolate that onto their views about government. Liberals want the imagined future, conservatives want the imagined static present and extreme conservatives (reactionaries) want the imagined past - but life has its own pace of change and the good news is that life is on the side of the liberal except the pace is very slow. Will we go back to having slaves? It's easy to see that we always go forward in spite of efforts to stop this.

Representative democracy is pretty good. I mean a few hundred years ago we believed that people with mental illnesses had the devil in them or were witches - we've come a long way really. There was an area in Africa I read about recently that was going through that exact stage. Growing pains...

You know that anarchism is an idealistic pipe dream when you can't even smoke an herb that you can grow in your back yard.

[towith]

Anarchism works in hunter/gatherer societies for the same reason first-world representative democracies are seen to work/be fair. Communication is incredibly simple in both communities. Everyone knows each other in a small community, which negates the need for a state intermediary. Where as in modern societies it is TECHNOLOGY, not democracy, that unites us in easy communication.

[jesse]

Has anyone ever examined the Zapatistas in Chiapas (Mexico)?

There's no State in place. There are simple, straight forward, democratic processes in place that work at the community level, in which everyone over the age of 13 has a say. Wealth is utilized by the community, where they decide how to best use the land, resources, etc. (i.e. whether to buy a tractor, a fleet of pickup trucks, etc.). They've run things this way since 1994.

Also, it's worth noting that Catalonia, Spain was without government and entirely run by anarchist organizations from 1936-1939 (when they were crushed by Franco's armies after losing military support from the Soviets).

Anarchists are not opposed to leaders. There will always be leaders due to differences in personality, background, intelligence, etc. Anarchism does, however, oppose rulers. I believe it was Makhno that said "Anarchy is the mother of all order."
[...]

There most certainly is a "State" in place in Mexico and in the state of Chiapas however disfunctional, corrupt and failed they still exist in the nominal sense. The Zapatista movement is filling a void as the federal, state and municipal governments have failed in this region of Mexico. Besides, wouldn't this be a natural response when the so-called machinery of the state which is supposed to be there, is either unwilling, unable or been pushed aside due to fundamental ideological and political differences to organize themselves up?

NAFTA played its part in this resulting "mess" and blackhole the federal government of Mexico does not want to touch with a 10 foot pole. When it was signed, it meant that certain constitutional provisions required changes, such as guaranteed access to land by farmers and other measures to better conform with a capitalist market economy system.

Catalonia is also a good example. Today it functions with a high degree of automy within the Spanish monarchy which is somewhat interesting as the state is not officially a federal state, although practice would suggest it is one since there are other regions with plenty of local autonomy.

[dogwoodlover]

If the people in the village constitute it's government, it is a state. You're proposing to leave all meaningful decisions up to all others.:suspicious:

If you are proposing that any sort of decision-making beyond purely personal matters is a "state," then all anarchists support a "state" by necessity. However, this says nothing useful.

"Since there is no such entity as “the public,” since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that “the public interest” supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others." Ayn Rand

The concept of "public interest" relies on the (correct) assumptions that many individuals have shared interests. This is the basis for a "society."

The free market is self-regulating. Admittedly getting the infrastructure and information in place is the problem, but that's also the case in any new system.

The free market is about as "self-regulating" as the Communist Party was in the USSR. The more I edge out my competition, the more wealth I amass. The more wealth I amass, the more I can edge out all competition. When I can edge out all competition, I have a monopoly, and necessarily, a tyranny.



What about the interest to not be dictated to by the majority of idiots or more accurately by anyone I'm not agreeably involved with and only to the extent of my agreement.

This is an unfortunate part of "The Other." We don't exist in a vacuum, and certainly our interests do not. We live our lives in relation to other people; hence the existence of "societies." To quote Sartre, "Hell is other people."

"What difference is it to me if a decision is forced upon me by a dictator or by half of my neighbors? Either way my right to free, peaceful action has been nullified." Stephen H. Foerster

You neighbor, in all likelihood, will share a hell of a lot more in common with you than a dictator. Do you think a dictator will care about whether you can eat or drink? How about whether your neighborhood is safe?

Furthermore, I think most people are not by nature "moral inquisitors." If you examine history, you'll find that in the majority of cases in which "mob mentalities" were used to oppress and restrict the freedom of others, power and authority was at the helm, stoking the fire they artificially created.

People sure as hell aren't inclined to being in agreement with one another, and arguments and disagreements are natural among different groups of people. However, decentralization limits the size of these groups, and thus makes conciliation easier, and the point of democratic structures is to ensure that everyone has their say and that no one person or small group of people are able to dominate the rest.

You're pretending capitalism created the classes when they preceded the market. They also have yet to allow a free market and in most cases actual capitalism. Some conspire with the governments which involves "public" property functioning as private property in a rigged manner, even appropriating the latter as the former just to give it to themselves. That incidentally is how "public" property actually works anyway.

I am not pretending capitalism created "the classes." Class societies existed long before capitalism did, and capitalism is just another economic system of history, ridden with class antagonisms. Free markets don't exist because they are not in the interests of those who dominate the markets. They don't like competition, because it threatens their wealth, so they utilize government power and authority to place "necessary restrictions" to ensure that their wealth is secure. Sometimes, the collective "underdog" in markets can bring legislature such as the "anti-trust laws" that exist in the United States to mitigate such effects. However, ultimately, the economy is more decisive in the functioning of a society than government is, and hence those who are most powerful within the economy can easily manipulate politicians into doing their bidding. The history of the advanced industrial nations is rife with evidence abound of this.

Anarchism works in hunter/gatherer societies for the same reason first-world representative democracies are seen to work/be fair. Communication is incredibly simple in both communities. Everyone knows each other in a small community, which negates the need for a state intermediary. Where as in modern societies it is TECHNOLOGY, not democracy, that unites us in easy communication.

Decentralization is key for any sort of "libertarian" society. Centralization necessitates totalitarianism, at least to some extent. Decentralization of power, wealth, and authority leads to greater freedom for individuals.

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories." -- Thomas Jefferson

[towith]

Decentralization is key for any sort of "libertarian" society. Centralization necessitates totalitarianism, at least to some extent. Decentralization of power, wealth, and authority leads to greater freedom for individuals.

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories." -- Thomas Jefferson

Way ahead of you. I was giving an example of how decentralization can happen i.e. through communication independence. Another would be through mass civil-disobedience, but that is unlikely.

[maxpot46]

The free market is about as "self-regulating" as the Communist Party was in the USSR. The more I edge out my competition, the more wealth I amass. The more wealth I amass, the more I can edge out all competition. When I can edge out all competition, I have a monopoly, and necessarily, a tyranny.A free market assumes no coercion. How can you "edge out all competition" and "have a monopoly" without coercion?

[Holiman]

A statement not backed by evidence or by viewing free markets presently in effect today

[maxpot46]

A statement not backed by evidence or by viewing free markets presently in effect todaySuch as?

[eternaltriangle]

A free market assumes no coercion. How can you "edge out all competition" and "have a monopoly" without coercion?

There are a lot of scenarios.

1. The incumbent firm can be so large that it can credibly threaten to undercut the prices of any new entrants. It is very difficult for new firms to survive that kind of onslaught. The beauty of a credible threat is that it deters other firms from entering the market in the first place.

2. It is possible to corner the market on a particular good. Alternately a good might be held by only a few individuals. In this case, it is possible to form a cartel and drive up prices (ever heard of OPEC).

3. There may be "natural" barriers to entry in a market that deter market entrants. For instance, in order to become a major pharmaceutical company, I would have to invent some sort of new drug, without violating copyright laws. That is pretty expensive. It is possible to imagine a case where the barriers to entry were so high that no firm would enter.

4. The industry in question may exhibit increasing returns to scale and scope in production. In this case, not only is perfect competition sub-optimal (producing in two separate plants moves the output of firms to a higher point on their cost curve), but market entry will be severely hampered by the productivity advantage of the incumbent - which can undercut the prices of others without even lowering its prices.

5. Some goods provide the greatest utility to consumers when there is a single industry standard, rather than multiple competing models. VCR's (Beta vs. VHS) and today's HDDVD vs. Blue Ray battle are an example of this. Having multiple formats is sub-optimal - it is confusing for customers, it means you can't always bring a movie over to a friend's house, it means it is harder to find repairmen familiar with your model, and so on. In these kinds of industries market entry is nigh on impossible, and competition usually ends as one possible industry standard destroys all the others.

I have provided a lot of instances where economic theory would dictate the presence of either a monopoly, or at least considerable concentration, which implies market power and a risk of collusion.

[towith]

How would 2 & 3 occur without coercion?

What specifically about 1, 4 & 5 demonstrates that they are edging out competition, as opposed to simply being competitive?

[eternaltriangle]

How would 2 & 3 occur without coercion?

What specifically about 1, 4 & 5 demonstrates that they are edging out competition, as opposed to simply being competitive?

How to corner the market without coercion:
People have cornered the market on things before - because other individuals voluntarily sold them particular goods, or because they happened to control the only source of supply of that good. Lets say I initiated a hostile takeover of every oil company in the world. I would have a monopoly on the world's oil supply (it might not last in the long run, because high prices would spur new oil exploration, but it would still give me a solid ten year run. Moreover, what if there was new oil to discover - how could anybody enter the market if I controlled all of the world's production?).

How natural barriers to entry can deter market entry:
In order to be competitive in some industries, a firm may need to lay down a large amount of fixed costs. This is not an absolute barrier to market entry, but it may effectively operate as one. Why spend a lot of money to enter a market, where you wouldn't even be able to get monopoly rents, since there would already be a competitor with a strong incumbent position? Even if you do wish to enter such a market, what if capital is scarce for some period of time?

Another possibility is a case where a technical advance is necessary for market entry. Lets say I want to enter the cola industry, which has only one player, Coke. I need a recipe for cola, and Coke happens to maintain its formula as a trade secret. Probably, if the rewards are big enough somebody will eventually invent a recipe, but that could take a long time, and still gives Coke a lot of room to maneuver.

As for the other cases, I admit I was a latecomer to the debate (I assumed it was about whether monopolies can exist without coercion), and I am not sure what exactly you mean by the distinction between edging out and being competitive. I actually don't think monopolies are a bad thing, or that they are uncompetitive. In fact, in the long-run they may outperform a market with perfect competition because they have higher profits, which can be reinvested into R&D and plant expansion. I do think that they exist sometimes without government coercion (that is a definitional disagreement I have with maxpot), and can persist, sometimes for a long period of time.

[Autoptic]

3. There may be "natural" barriers to entry in a market that deter market entrants. For instance, in order to become a major pharmaceutical company, I would have to invent some sort of new drug, without violating copyright laws.

Copyright law is a racket though. Property is specific and objective. Patterns aren't objects. If you had an object and I could instantly duplicate it, would you say I stole your object? There's nothing more in claiming ownership of language, symbols, or even ideas themselves. The only related issue would, of course, be fraud, but that's contract law, regarding meaning not the words themselves, without which there'd be no agreement even about agreement.:thinking:

“Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened" Buddha

Yes, a candle would be property thus that quote wouldn't literally apply.:p

[maxpot46]

I have provided a lot of instances where economic theory would dictate the presence of either a monopoly, or at least considerable concentration, which implies market power and a risk of collusion.I think most of your examples are of the "market power" sort, which are not monopolies. I also think you put too much faith in entry barriers and not enough in the creative genius of entrepreneurs to lower production costs, or their desire to compete (if not coerced otherwise). Additionally, your use of the phrase "sub-optimal" implies an ability to know the "optimal" outcome, which is an ability that economists assume they have but in fact do not (largely because they are applying equilibrium models to a dynamic world that never reaches equilibrium). Finally, I said this before but it bears repeating that "perfect competition" is rife with unrealistic assumptions, so you can't just compare real life competition to "perfect competition" and find it wanting.