3 ms·

Why is a monopoly in itself a bad thing? A monopoly on violence is an extremely good thing: its absence is called a "civil war".

kazagistar 6y ago
There is no monopoly on violence because the state is non monolithic, and because much of the violence is outsourced to subcontractors with limited oversight. More importantly, monopoly on violence by the state is only good if the control of the state is distributed democratically to all affected by it, ie, if the control over violence is redistributed to all people equally. If violence is held in a monopoly by a small group of individuals for their personal benefit... then civil war is a better option. And corporations are structurrd exactly like that sort of despotism.
- mjburgess 6y ago
  Likewise for any monopoly. A monopoly is not all-consuming monolith (ie., a totalitarian state). Either way, my point was precisely that there are conditions on monopolies that make them beneficial. And hence the "in itself" condition fails.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24779491 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24779491
dredmorbius 6y ago
Monopoly may be inevitable in many cases. The question then is where control and/or benefit lie / accrue. And yes, some monopolies may be useful, or have useful attributes. Key point I'm making are that: 1. Censorship / propaganda / surveillance / manipulation (CPSM if you will), are integral capabilities and attributes of informational monopoly. 2. All monopoly is inherently a control and power structure. Government represents both attributes, and may be broadly beneficial, representing the people and promoting commonweal, or tyrannical, representing and benefitting an oligarchic minority. So do business structures, cults, religions, military groups, mafia / organised crime syndicates, broadcast networks, online social media networks, newspaper publishers, film studios, transport networks, retail marketing networks, ...

kazagistar 6y ago

There is no monopoly on violence because the state is non monolithic, and because much of the violence is outsourced to subcontractors with limited oversight. More importantly, monopoly on violence by the state is only good if the control of the state is distributed democratically to all affected by it, ie, if the control over violence is redistributed to all people equally. If violence is held in a monopoly by a small group of individuals for their personal benefit... then civil war is a better option. And corporations are structurrd exactly like that sort of despotism.

mjburgess 6y ago
Likewise for any monopoly. A monopoly is not all-consuming monolith (ie., a totalitarian state). Either way, my point was precisely that there are conditions on monopolies that make them beneficial. And hence the "in itself" condition fails.
dredmorbius 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24779491 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24779491

dredmorbius 6y ago

Monopoly may be inevitable in many cases. The question then is where control and/or benefit lie / accrue. And yes, some monopolies may be useful, or have useful attributes. Key point I'm making are that: 1. Censorship / propaganda / surveillance / manipulation (CPSM if you will), are integral capabilities and attributes of informational monopoly. 2. All monopoly is inherently a control and power structure. Government represents both attributes, and may be broadly beneficial, representing the people and promoting commonweal, or tyrannical, representing and benefitting an oligarchic minority. So do business structures, cults, religions, military groups, mafia / organised crime syndicates, broadcast networks, online social media networks, newspaper publishers, film studios, transport networks, retail marketing networks, ...