Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Re:Big Corporations 'filling the Message-ID: <1420@dciem.UUCP> Date: Sun, 24-Feb-85 21:03:46 EST Article-I.D.: dciem.1420 Posted: Sun Feb 24 21:03:46 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 24-Feb-85 22:15:40 EST References: Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Followup-To: net.politics.theory Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Lines: 28 Summary: >I've reprinted your entire article (minus signature) to demonstrate a >point: you have yet to give an example of a stable monopoly not >regulated or otherwise helped by government. I agree that your logic >with your assumptions COULD lead to somewhat-more-stable monopolies, but >my argument was empirical: there have been no historic examples of such >monopolies. Either come up with some, or please, please, stop talking >about the dangers of monopoly. (1) I didn't talk about the "dangers" of monopoly, but about their theoretical stability, which is the issue DKMcK was pushing. I believe you agree with me that his logic was insufficient to demonstrate the inherent instability of a monopoly in Libertaria. (2) Inasmuch as no society has existed without some level of Gevernment regulation (to the degree that the communication technology of the time permitted), there could *in principle* be no examples of a monopoly sustained in its absence. Your rhetorical demand is rather like McK's promise to give back any land he owned to any Indian who could *prove* an individual title to that land. Apart from the documentary problem, the Indian position on land ownership would not permit such a situation to arise. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt