"We have done this because we love liberty and hate authority." – Voltairine de Cleyre
Posts tagged monopoly
Diogenes’ Barrel.
Aug 20th
The always insightful and wonderful Broadsnark has asked an important question:
So I guess what I’m wondering is: Do you market anarchist types envision a world full of artisans trading labor with one another or actual employment relationships? Do the majority of anarchists, who don’t subscribe to capitalist or market ideologies, envision a world based entirely on a gift economy? (A New Yorker goes to Hong Kong and has immediate access to what she needs to meet her needs?) Do you object to any sort of trading of labor for stuff?
My response:
Dear Mel,
This is a great question and a keen observation. Why would an Anarchist, one who finds hierarchy undesirable, volunteer or consent to an Employee/Employer relationship, a hierarchy? I would be suspicious of all contexts or circumstances that would bring such a relationship about; I smell authority and monopoly.
As a Wobbly I am committed to the eventual Direct Action dissolution of the wage-system and the promotion of Industrial Organized Labor into the mutually supportive industries of One Big Union, de-central and monumental.
As a market anarchist I foresee an economic landscape of communes, collectives, co-operatives, IWW closed-shops, Time Stores, Garage Networks, Self-employed micros, Family Mom & Pops, Gift Econs, Charity Non-Profits, Monastic Orders from Benedictines to Zen Buddhists, Strangers passing through towns nobly demanding to “earn their keep,” but let’s not forget Hermits, Homesteads and squatters. Everything in between, all of the above to include the stuff not even thought of yet. The “market” in market anarchy, for me, is a vocational, lifestyle, life-path bazaar; the more options the better I feel that authority is curbed and monopoly buried. I see/want a world where people can browse, taste test, try on, kick the tires and hassle free return any life they fancy; or knuckle down on one thing and feel the novel sensation of fusion with or mastery of one skill or craft, pushing it into new boundaries, ripping it up and starting again whether it be post-punk music, cabinet making or Starcraft II.
The only thing I ask is that the anarcho-culture understands, recognizes and supports the institutions of “opt-out,” “push-back” and the “benign busybody.” That the culture allows anyone to “opt-out” of anything whenever they don’t feel comfortable, or for any other reason really, without fear of reprisal. That the culture accepts “pushing back” as a natural, acceptable and corrective reaction, if someone is feeling controlled, dominated or marginalized. And that the cultural sees the pondering busybody who asks, “Is that really liberty? Is that really Equality? Is that really Solidarity?,” as benign and healthy for cultural anarcho-maintenance; meeting their questions with curiosity, reflection and concern for anarcho-sustainability.
I may be asking for too much from, but this is my commitment to you and everyone. I will be open and scrupulous, if you let me be fussy and indecisive.
Anarchy: dumping the bosses off our backs and unleashing our inner weirdo since Diogenes’ Barrel.
Keep us Honest,
–James
My Homework, Week 2.
Mar 22nd
I present my second week critique of pages 16-42 of the Tannehill’s The Market for Liberty. I feel I most apologies for this piece because it was read and written in one night that ended a full day of flying. The previous week and weekend were spent in the San Fransisco Bay Area attending their Anarchist Book Fair. Needless to say I had a blast, learned a lot and made a couple friends. The Bay Area Wobblies are friendly, open and amazing.
The question being critiqued for this week: “To what extent and in what ways, if any, does government exhibit the problems typical of other monopolies?” (I apologies for neglecting to giving the question being addressed in the first week: “What is aggression? How can we distinguish between aggression and other kinds of undesirable influence?”)
“In their book The Market for Liberty the Tannehills, Morris and Linda, present a theoretical case for distinguishing between two types of monopoly: one benign and one malign.
The benign or market monopoly maintains its vaulted status tentatively and precariously, always contingent on customer satisfaction or competitor disinterest. If the market monopoly were to offend its customer base or draw unwanted entrepreneurial attention, it’s over.
The malign or coercive monopoly is the complete opposite. It “maintains itself by the initiation of force or the threat of force to prohibit competition, and sometimes to compel customer loyalty.” (Pg. 27)
Roderick T. Long, in his Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections, identifies three basic problems that the statist or pro-coercive-monopolist must overcome for their case to have merit: the moral, incentive and epistemic problems.
The moral problem asks the question, “why you; what makes you so special?” Granting someone monopoly use of coercive powers seems rather drastic and dangerous.
“To put it simply, government is the rule of some men over others by initiated force, which is slavery, which is wrong.” (Pg. 35)
The incentive problem asks the question, “in the absence of market forces directing agents towards the production of lowers costs, higher qualities or both, what incentives at work on the coercive monopolist guiding them to similar ends?” If there is no worry of losing market share or market relevancy, then why not set my commodity price, by lowering quality or raising costs, to that point just below where you would prefer to go without?
The epistemic problem asks the question, “even if you found a saint (that had no objection to ruling over other humans?), gave them coercive monopoly powers and they did everything they could to stay along the straight and narrow road of truth and justice, how do they know that they offering the best quality goods and the cheapest price?” Without competition or options, choices or alternatives to compare notes with or contrast services against, how do I know that I am providing a desirable and efficient service? Compared to what?
The Tannehills begin their analysis of the State by defining it as a coercive monopoly in classic Weberian fashion:
“Government is a coercive monopoly which has assumed power over and certain responsibilities for every human being within the geographical area which it claims as its own.” (Pg. 32.)
They rightly do not put anything past or any sphere of social interaction beyond the reach of the State; not narrowing it down to night watchmen duties of retaliatory force via police, armies and judges.
The State for the most part interferes with the market through indirect means or the threat of force. The imposition of taxes, regulations, licensing, and credit manipulation skews, suppresses and restricts market actors and participation. The most unfortunate result of this kind of market destruction is the creation of a permanent underclass of poverty level labors. The diminished access to capital and means of capitalization provide ostensible verification for statist apologists to demand more police with greater powers to keep disenfranchised populations under control.
The consequences of one problem becomes the reason for another.”
