According to my dictionary, "monopoly" is defined as "the
exclusive control of a product or service in a particular market."
Only the govt "controls" behavior (at the point of a gun). In a free
market, sellers can only "influence" behavior, never "control" it.
Consequently, in the dictionary sense of "monopoly," in a free
market uncontrolled by govt force, monopolies can not exist.
Best, Michael E.
I think the question was asking about the situation with no government. In which case, everyone would be a liberty to control everyone else at the point of a gun, correct?
Cheers,
Steve
OSX freeware and shareware: http://www.dekorte.com/downloads.html
Thanks for the discussion on this.
When I wrote the initial question, I was thinking about military/police force. I've heard some good answers that apply well to most other industries. ... I'm not saying that an anarchy with a monopoly of military/police force would be any worse than what we have now... it seems that it might be about the same.
If more people carried guns, there would be less crime. This is shown to be true in studies. But what about tanks? Stealth bombers? Nukes?
I suppose whenever there is an upset in balance of power, there is a balancing-out time period where the daring attempt to take material possessions, power, and authority. Eventually a stable-state is reached with various groups acting as checks and balances against each other -- this occurs naturally, not by any design. But my fear is... that the most stable and/or the most common stable-state is dictatorship. I just don't know.
-Mike
Steve Dekorte wrote:
Yes, I wonder about guns myself. I am pro-Guns, but I'm not sure about
nukes, machine guns, or one of those missile launchers that can take a
plane down. Some of this goes into national defense, I think. This is
another sticky issue.
- Celine
I'd be interested to see the details of those studies. Are there more assaults per person in the UK than in the US, for exampe?
Cheers,
Steve
OSX freeware and shareware: http://www.dekorte.com/downloads.html
I'd be interested to see the details of those
studies. Are there more
assaults per person in the UK than in the US, for
exampe?Cheers,
Steve
yup, gun crime there is definitely up.
This article doesn't appear to answer my question. Did I miss something?
Cheers,
Steve
OSX freeware and shareware: http://www.dekorte.com/downloads.html
Are there more assaults per person in the UK than in the US, for
example?
I did a google search and came up with this:
6.8 murders/100K people in US
1.5 murders/100K people in UK
sources:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9901/02/murder.rate/index.html
http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/US_murder.html
Cheers,
Steve
OSX freeware and shareware: http://www.dekorte.com/downloads.html
--- Steve Dekorte <steve@...> wrote:
>> Are there more assaults per person in the UK than
in the US, for
>> example?
>
> yup, gun crime there is definitely up.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stmThis article doesn't appear to answer my question.
Did I miss something?
you're right - I assumed that you were trying to
correlate the increase in crime vs. gov't monopoly
control of the use of force. The UK is a poster child
for this since they banned hand guns in 1997.
As far as UK vs. US assaults go..there are certain
complications to comparing crime rates between the
two. For instance, I understand that the UK only
reports crimes that are prosecuted, not all arrests as
in the US. There are also more than a few cultural
differences between the two countries as well.
Apologies for any confusion. I promise I won't use any
triple exclamation points! 
Best Rgds.. d.
By the way...Reason Magazine had a good article on
this stuff last year, if interested.
Steve Dekorte wrote:
If more people carried guns, there would be less crime. This is shown
to be true in studies.
I'd be interested to see the details of those studies. Are there more assaults per person in the UK than in the US, for exampe?
Actually, no. The number of assaults turns out to be the same. The mortality
rates are definately different, though.
I will get a reference for you (I was just reading the paper this week), but the
facts I remembered from the paper were:
1) Gun accessibility has no impact on the number of violent assaults.
2) When guns are more accessible, assaults are more likely to end in deaths.
3) When persons have guns in their home, and are attacked at their residence,
only 1% of people are able to get to their gun and use it to defend themselves.
4) When guns are permitted to be carried by the public, conceiled, the number of
assaults itself goes down.
I'm sure I'm misquoting these, so I'll go back and find the research. Most
pro-gun-control folks neglect to mention #4, whereas NRA folks tend to neglect
to mention #2 and #3. I tend to be full disclosure.
-Mike
As far as UK vs. US assaults go..there are certain
complications to comparing crime rates between the
two. For instance, I understand that the UK only
reports crimes that are prosecuted, not all arrests as
in the US.
Are you saying only the murders that were prosecuted where counted?
There are also more than a few cultural
differences between the two countries as well.
It seems to me that that's a fair consideration. Would you also apply this rule to US states as well? As someone who's lived on various parts of both coasts of the US, I found that there are more than a few cultural differences between states as well. I would expect to be more at home in London than Montgomery, Alabama, for example.
By the way...Reason Magazine had a good article on
this stuff last year, if interested.
http://reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
Thanks for the pointer. I'll check it out.
Cheers,
Steve
OSX freeware and shareware: http://www.dekorte.com/downloads.html
> As far as UK vs. US assaults go..there are certain
> complications to comparing crime rates between the
> two. For instance, I understand that the UK only
> reports crimes that are prosecuted, not all
arrests as
> in the US.Are you saying only the murders that were prosecuted
where counted?
yes
> There are also more than a few cultural
> differences between the two countries as well.It seems to me that that's a fair consideration.
Would you also apply
this rule to US states as well? As someone who's
lived on various parts
of both coasts of the US, I found that there are
more than a few
cultural differences between states as well. I would
expect to be more
at home in London than Montgomery, Alabama, for
example.
hmmm..might be a stretch on that one. In my experience
the UK mentality is quite a bit different than I have
seen between the 3 coasts here. Brits are more risk
adverse in general..the whole royalist angle, etc.
Some info on this and the stats problem here -
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/21/205139.shtml
Steve,
You wrote:
I think the question was asking about the situation
with no government.
In which case, everyone would be a liberty to control
everyone else at the point of a gun, correct?
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but your question sounds as if
you have read little detailing the theory or practice of
a stateless society.
To get a better understanding of anarcho-libertarianism
in current practice, I suggest you read the article I
distributed at the Aug. monthly meeting: "From Nation-State
to Stateless Nation" (Liberty, April 2003, 27-31).
In addition, a google search on individualist anarchism
will provide you with much excellent info on the topic.
I would be happy to answer your questions in detail at
a future Chat--perhaps Aug 27th?
Best, Michael
Actually, Aug 27th doesn't work for me, but I'll probably be at the meeting tomorrow.
Cheers,
Steve
OSX freeware and shareware: http://www.dekorte.com/downloads.html
It seems to describe a situation where a given area is run by a clan with courts. I don't see how this is fundamentally different than a government.
Specifically, the clan has a monopoly of the exercise of force as anyone else doing so would be subject to a court case against it to be heard by the clan and whose judgment would be enforced by the clan. The very same situation anyone in a "state" would be in.
Cheers,
Steve
OSX freeware and shareware: http://www.dekorte.com/downloads.html
Somalia has no central govt and no taxation.
Specifically, the clan has a monopoly of the exercise of force
I don't believe this is the case. Please provide the article excerpt
where this is stated.
Best, Michael
Somalia has no central govt
Neither does the world as a whole, but individual governments still exist within it, just as individual clans exist within Somalia.
Specifically, the clan has a monopoly of the exercise of force
I don't believe this is the case. Please provide the article excerpt
where this is stated.
The article is noticeably shy of any details, but it was my impression that each was generally local to an area. I'd like to know the details of the arrangement - such as resolution of jurisdiction issues. If there's another paper that includes those details, please send it my way.
Cheers,
Steve
OSX freeware and shareware: http://www.dekorte.com/downloads.html
Dear Steve,
You wrote:
> Somalia has no central govt
Neither does the world as a whole, but individual governments still
exist within it, just as individual clans exist within Somalia.
This is true and relevent. With respect to the world, we don't have a
central govt (yet), consequently we live in anarchy in this sense.
>> Specifically, the clan has a monopoly of the exercise of force
>
> I don't believe this is the case. Please provide the article
excerpt
> where this is stated.
The article is noticeably shy of any details, but it was my
impression
that each was generally local to an area. I'd like to know the
details
of the arrangement - such as resolution of jurisdiction issues. If
there's another paper that includes those details, please send it my
way.
Van Notten explains that private law and private police function quite
well in Somalia. Property rights are also respected.
Michael E.
I wasn't denying that. My point was that I didn't see the difference between this and many small countries. Though the article lacks details, it appears that the clans control various geographical regions and appear to have the same monopoly on force that any government does.
The scale is smaller, and I think it's reasonable to say it is effectively a dictatorial minarchy, but I don't see how it could be called anarchy.
Cheers,
Steve
OSX freeware and shareware: http://www.dekorte.com/downloads.html