lvc@cbscc.UUCP (Larry Cipriani) (12/13/84)
From Tim Sevener:
Oh, come now, how did "government" have anything to do with John D.
Rockefeller's control of 99% of the oil industry? He took it over
all by himself! This is precisely the problem Libertarians with
their belief in the magical "invisible hand" fail to address:
how did once free markets come to be dominated by a few firms?
Does this not seem to have been a natural outgrowth of the economic
system itself? What would prevent Standard Oil from acquiring a
monopoly with no government intervention? The fact is they did so.
Why has our present economy become more and more dominated by large
oligpolies?
From an *economist* friend of mine:
John D Rockefeller initially came to control so much of the oil industry
because he was the first to exploit the commercial potential of petroleum
(previously, whale oil had lit America's lamps). Initally, he controlled--not
99% of the oil industry--100% of the oil industry, just as AT&T once controlled
100% of the bipolar-transistor industry.
When one realizes that Rockefeller was first, one realizes that it is just
plain stupid to ask how Rockefeller came to control the oil industry. The real
question is: How did he RETAIN control? The best book on how industrialists
USED THE GOVERNMENT to preserve their market shares is *The Triumph of
Conservatism : A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916* by Gabriel
Kolko (Kolko is, incidently, a radical Leftist, not a Libertarian).
Larry Cipriani
cbscc!cbsch!lvclkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (12/20/84)
From Larry Cipriani:
" When one realizes that Rockefeller was first, one realizes that it is just
plain stupid to ask how Rockefeller came to control the oil industry. The real
question is: How did he RETAIN control? The best book on how industrialists
USED THE GOVERNMENT to preserve their market shares is *The Triumph of
Conservatism : A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916* by Gabriel
Kolko (Kolko is, incidently, a radical Leftist, not a Libertarian)."
The question is not "WHat method is used to wield power?" but
"Who wields power."
Whenever there is a lack of a strong govt. with strong popular control,
powerful third parties inevitably gain control of the govt.
It may be true that in a libertarian society Rockefeller couldn't have
done what he did. But the point is that given Rockefeller, libertarian society
is not capable of surviving. Power inevitably accumulates. The only counter
force to strong third parties controlling your life is for a strong govt. to
do so, where at least you have SOME say in how it does so, and how it doesn't.
--
larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk
ARPA: lkk@mit-mcfaustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/21/84)
> From Larry Cipriani: > > "When one realizes that Rockefeller was first, one realizes that it is just > plain stupid to ask how Rockefeller came to control the oil industry. The real > question is: How did he RETAIN control? The best book on how industrialists > USED THE GOVERNMENT to preserve their market shares is *The Triumph of > Conservatism : A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916* by Gabriel > Kolko (Kolko is, incidently, a radical Leftist, not a Libertarian)." > > The question is not "WHat method is used to wield power?" but > "Who wields power." > > Whenever there is a lack of a strong govt. with strong popular control, > powerful third parties inevitably gain control of the govt. > > It may be true that in a libertarian society Rockefeller couldn't have > done what he did. But the point is that given Rockefeller, libertarian society > is not capable of surviving. Power inevitably accumulates. The only counter > force to strong third parties controlling your life is for a strong govt. to > do so, where at least you have SOME say in how it does so, and how it doesn't. The sort of government you are describing (one that regulates business without strength or popular control) is neither the libertarian's or the anarchist's idea of government. The REAL libertarian government would be strong with popular control, but would not have the mechanisms in place that Rockefeller would need to gain control over the market place (i.e, no regulation of business). The anarchists would have no government at all for Rockefeller to gain control of. Of course, in an anarchistic society Rockefeller would not have to use a government to gain power, he would just need a bigger army than anybody else. Assuming that he couldn't do this in a libertarian society (one that never makes use of force first, but responds quickly to other's use of force), it is unclear whether he could gain the sort of control over the industry that he had by non-forceful business strategies. (Having been convinced that I don't know enough economics to argue this, I won't.) Wayne