mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/25/85)
>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