3 ms·

> The government isn't responsible for utilities tending towards monopoly - it's a natural outcome of any market with small unit costs and high barriers to ent

> The government isn't responsible for utilities tending towards monopoly - it's a natural outcome of any market with small unit costs and high barriers to entry. Murray Rothbard once said: "In general, I urge everybody to look at a government measure [...] not in terms of a tragic failure to achieve the common good, public interest, or general welfare, but [rather] as a conscious agency for doing all sorts of monopolizing, cartelizing, and other restrictive things. In other words, the government is not that dumb!" If you read about how the FCC came to be and how they were politically set on displacing competitors, you will change your mind. Free markets can't generate monopolies because they can't use the threat of force by hooking up with the government. If you disagree, all you need to do is come forward with a single example of a monopoly that exists without any government backing (regulations, cronyism, etc). And if I were you I'd drop this cliche of "oh this is Econ 101". It doesn't help the conversation and is just a veiled attack. In this case though, since the government influences what gets taught in universities, even Econ 400 isn't enough to understand free markets, and most Econ graduates come out of university with little to no understanding of the Austrian school.

ubernostrum 12y ago
How to keep an Austrian-school believer busy: * Tell them the government should abolish all regulation which interferes with "the free market". * Then remind them that this would be an action taken by a government, and thus by definition the incorrect thing to do.
- innguest 12y ago
  That little trick also works for things we believe in: How to keep a State-Church Separation believer busy: * Tell them the government should abolish all regulation which interferes with "freedom of religion" * Then remind them that this would be an action taken by a government, and thus by definition the incorrect thing to do. You believe in separation of church and state, right? I believe in separation of market and state. Before you post another childish remark, remember you can always make that comparison yourself to see if your remark has any weight.
  - ubernostrum 12y ago
    Not really; the difference is that most people want only some types of government actions to be off-limits, and will list the things they want to forbid. Other people start from a principle of "if a government did it, it was wrong". Which places all government actions off-limits.
    - innguest 12y ago
      > Other people start from a principle of "if a government did it, it was wrong". Which places all government actions off-limits. Of course. Think of it this way: - I don't have the right to take your money. - My friends and I voting unanimously to take your money still doesn't give us the right to take your money. - No matter how many friends I vote with, we as a group never have the right to take your money, or anyone else's. - Then how did government get the right to take my money and yours? You may say because it owns the land and if we don't like it we can leave. But think of it this way: - I don't have the right to keep others from using unused land that even I am not using. - And so on, same as above. - Then how did government get the right to keep others from using unused land that even itself isn't using? The problem here is that no one can grant another person or group with rights that they themselves don't possess. It follows that the governemnt has no way to acquire this right, and so it does those things illegitimately (not authorized by any person or group of persons, since no person or group of persons has those rights to give up to the government). That's why anything a government does with tax money is wrong, because that revenue is ill-gotten. That's why the excuse is usually "oh, there's a social contract"; this is a red herring. Even if the people had actually read and signed such a contract, they still don't possess those rights in order to be able to give them up to another party. We allow ourselves to be taxed and to pay the government for land not by consent [1] but by threat of force, since if we disagree, we are fined, and if we don't pay we eventually go to jail. [1] consent means voluntarily agreeing to do something. voluntarily means without coercion or threat of violence.
      - ubernostrum 12y ago
        The problem with your argument is, of course, that you presume there is private ownership of property, but neglect to specify how that ownership originated. Absent the threat of violent force against anyone who does not obey conventions with respect to ownership, there is no such thing as ownership. So in order to have even the concept of private property and "rights" thereto you must postulate some entity which recognizes those "rights" and will enact violence on your behalf against certain classes of others who would "violate" them.

ubernostrum 12y ago

How to keep an Austrian-school believer busy: * Tell them the government should abolish all regulation which interferes with "the free market". * Then remind them that this would be an action taken by a government, and thus by definition the incorrect thing to do.

innguest 12y ago
That little trick also works for things we believe in: How to keep a State-Church Separation believer busy: * Tell them the government should abolish all regulation which interferes with "freedom of religion" * Then remind them that this would be an action taken by a government, and thus by definition the incorrect thing to do. You believe in separation of church and state, right? I believe in separation of market and state. Before you post another childish remark, remember you can always make that comparison yourself to see if your remark has any weight.
- ubernostrum 12y ago
  Not really; the difference is that most people want only some types of government actions to be off-limits, and will list the things they want to forbid. Other people start from a principle of "if a government did it, it was wrong". Which places all government actions off-limits.
  - innguest 12y ago
    > Other people start from a principle of "if a government did it, it was wrong". Which places all government actions off-limits. Of course. Think of it this way: - I don't have the right to take your money. - My friends and I voting unanimously to take your money still doesn't give us the right to take your money. - No matter how many friends I vote with, we as a group never have the right to take your money, or anyone else's. - Then how did government get the right to take my money and yours? You may say because it owns the land and if we don't like it we can leave. But think of it this way: - I don't have the right to keep others from using unused land that even I am not using. - And so on, same as above. - Then how did government get the right to keep others from using unused land that even itself isn't using? The problem here is that no one can grant another person or group with rights that they themselves don't possess. It follows that the governemnt has no way to acquire this right, and so it does those things illegitimately (not authorized by any person or group of persons, since no person or group of persons has those rights to give up to the government). That's why anything a government does with tax money is wrong, because that revenue is ill-gotten. That's why the excuse is usually "oh, there's a social contract"; this is a red herring. Even if the people had actually read and signed such a contract, they still don't possess those rights in order to be able to give them up to another party. We allow ourselves to be taxed and to pay the government for land not by consent [1] but by threat of force, since if we disagree, we are fined, and if we don't pay we eventually go to jail. [1] consent means voluntarily agreeing to do something. voluntarily means without coercion or threat of violence.
    - ubernostrum 12y ago
      The problem with your argument is, of course, that you presume there is private ownership of property, but neglect to specify how that ownership originated. Absent the threat of violent force against anyone who does not obey conventions with respect to ownership, there is no such thing as ownership. So in order to have even the concept of private property and "rights" thereto you must postulate some entity which recognizes those "rights" and will enact violence on your behalf against certain classes of others who would "violate" them.