5 ms·

> Maybe the problem here isn't the state at all. I would say it can be, but more importantly, it doesn't have to be: > Well okay, there's plenty to blame the

> Maybe the problem here isn't the state at all. I would say it can be, but more importantly, it doesn't have to be: > Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government. -- Noam Chomsky And even if consumers are to be able to "vote with their wallets", if workers are supposed to to have a choice of employer and certain protections, there needs to be some regulation that goes for everybody, and is enforced for everybody. It's not going to happen out of generosity, or consumers researching everything on their own. How would you even make sure the food you eat is not toxic? Not that regulations make it 100% safe, but they can be a lot more efficient and very helpful, just like they can be horrible and backwards. I really think a major obstacle is that people see government as something that acts on them, instead of something through which they ideally would act together as equals and improve their lot in a way that transcends the scope and lifespan of the individual. Yes, there is a lot of corruption, but the thing is, that's something one can get to work at -- when it comes to (some) corporations, it's too often consumers talking about them amongst each other, "hoping" things will change as they often get worse. > People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. -- Adam Smith When drug dealers or street gangs carve up territory, you might call that a form of local monopoly, and it comes from people themselves, no state intervention required. Usurping parts of the government for that purpose is something bigger gangs or corporations may do (also see "War is a Racket"), but it's not technically required I would say.

drdeca 8y ago
A gang (afaict) is a little bit like a government in that it enforces things through its own capability for violence (or through its own violence), though I'm not sure quite how important that similarity is. If something is almost a government, but not quite, and creates a monopoly, that would I suppose technically be a counterexample to the claim that monopolies are all caused by governments. However, while it would demonstrate the claim to be false, it wouldn't demonstrate that it is far from being true. However, I wouldn't claim that all monopolies are all from government or nearly from government. I probably wouldn't even claim that almost all monopolies are.
- int_19h 8y ago
  A government is a gang that managed to establish a monopoly on violence in some territory (which it then calls its jurisdiction). Of course, it then evolves from there, and we have democracies etc, but fundamentally that is the root of any government. Mao gave a very concise yet accurate description of this state of affairs: "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".
  - drdeca 8y ago
    I was aiming at an intentionally more modest/mild version of that sort of idea. (I am currently too much of a statist to really reject the idea of a state being "legitimate" , in a way that probably distinguishes it from gangs in general.)
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    You just equate establishing a monopoly on violence with using violence, and you say "monopoly on violence" as if that was even more violent than everybody being violent against anybody whenever they feel like it. Like there's always someone subjugating else, never groups giving themselves rules they follow for the protection of both the group and the individuals. You know, the root of our ability to write things on the internet, instead of just screaming gutturally in the mud with rats in our hair, and other things. And Mao didn't know shit. Violence is for those who do not have power. > All political institutions are manifestations and materializations of power; they petrify and decay as soon as the living power of the people ceases to uphold them. -- Hannah Arendt
    - int_19h 8y ago
      Try disobeying any law, and then resisting any agent of state that comes to apprehend you, and you'll see just how right Mao was. Yes, in practice, it's threat of violence rather than actual violence doing the trick most of the time. But the reason why that threat is respected is precisely because the violence behind it is very real, and we all know it. And this all has nothing to do with majority rule etc. A gang that has most neighborhood residents as its members is still a gang. And when gangs do get formed "for protection of both the group and the individuals", they still need to use violence (or threat of violence) towards that goal, oppressing those that would oppress them otherwise. So you might end up with a "good guy with a gun", but it's still a guy with a gun. Remove them, and government becomes an advisory council, making recommendations rather than laws.

drdeca 8y ago

A gang (afaict) is a little bit like a government in that it enforces things through its own capability for violence (or through its own violence), though I'm not sure quite how important that similarity is. If something is almost a government, but not quite, and creates a monopoly, that would I suppose technically be a counterexample to the claim that monopolies are all caused by governments. However, while it would demonstrate the claim to be false, it wouldn't demonstrate that it is far from being true. However, I wouldn't claim that all monopolies are all from government or nearly from government. I probably wouldn't even claim that almost all monopolies are.

int_19h 8y ago
A government is a gang that managed to establish a monopoly on violence in some territory (which it then calls its jurisdiction). Of course, it then evolves from there, and we have democracies etc, but fundamentally that is the root of any government. Mao gave a very concise yet accurate description of this state of affairs: "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".
- drdeca 8y ago
  I was aiming at an intentionally more modest/mild version of that sort of idea. (I am currently too much of a statist to really reject the idea of a state being "legitimate" , in a way that probably distinguishes it from gangs in general.)
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  You just equate establishing a monopoly on violence with using violence, and you say "monopoly on violence" as if that was even more violent than everybody being violent against anybody whenever they feel like it. Like there's always someone subjugating else, never groups giving themselves rules they follow for the protection of both the group and the individuals. You know, the root of our ability to write things on the internet, instead of just screaming gutturally in the mud with rats in our hair, and other things. And Mao didn't know shit. Violence is for those who do not have power. > All political institutions are manifestations and materializations of power; they petrify and decay as soon as the living power of the people ceases to uphold them. -- Hannah Arendt
  - int_19h 8y ago
    Try disobeying any law, and then resisting any agent of state that comes to apprehend you, and you'll see just how right Mao was. Yes, in practice, it's threat of violence rather than actual violence doing the trick most of the time. But the reason why that threat is respected is precisely because the violence behind it is very real, and we all know it. And this all has nothing to do with majority rule etc. A gang that has most neighborhood residents as its members is still a gang. And when gangs do get formed "for protection of both the group and the individuals", they still need to use violence (or threat of violence) towards that goal, oppressing those that would oppress them otherwise. So you might end up with a "good guy with a gun", but it's still a guy with a gun. Remove them, and government becomes an advisory council, making recommendations rather than laws.