Magnus Kempe: a challenge
Richard Tobin
> An opinion has no value.
> Check your premises.
> That is your impression. I don't go by feelings, I judge in accordance
> with reality, and I expect everybody to do the same.
> give me proofs, not assertions.
Well, as a former student of mathematics, I'm all for proof. There are
few things I like better than a few axioms, a handful of rules of
inference, and the application of the latter to the former.
I'm intrigued to discover that some people believe that this can be
done with political beliefs, and I must say I'm looking forward to
a demonstration of it. If it can be done, it will be a great step
forward; when someone makes a political claim, we'll be able to look
their axioms (premises), and check that each step of the proof follows
from them by the application of their rules of inference.
Having done this, we'll have three possibilities:
(1) We accept the proof and its conclusion
(2) We reject some of the axioms or rules of inference
(3) We find an error in the proof.
So, I challenge Magnus to produce me such a proof. He said:
> There is no such thing as a monopoly under a laissez-faire
> Capitalist system
I would like him to prove this. No doubt he is quite familiar with the
proof, and he has presumably checked it carefully, since it produces such
a controversial result.
Just to clarify this for the sake of those readers not so well acquainted
with proof as Magnus Kempe, what I'm looking for is:
Some axioms
Some rules of inference
A sequence of steps, each of which is either
- an axiom, or
- the result of applying a rule of inference to one of the
previous steps of the proof.
Yours in excited anticipation,
-- Richard
--
Richard Tobin, JANET: R.T...@uk.ac.ed
AI Applications Institute, ARPA: R.Tobin%uk.a...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin
Magnus Kempe
: [I wrote]
: > There is no such thing as a monopoly under a laissez-faire
: I would like him to prove this. No doubt he is quite familiar with the
: proof, and he has presumably checked it carefully, since it produces such
: a controversial result.
I have already given some indications in earlier messages, but here goes..
First, let me define some terms.
Monopoly: exclusive control of the production or of the distribution
of a given commodity.
Laissez-Faire Capitalism: political system where the government has no
power to interfere with the economy (this is not an essential, but it is
an important characteristic of the system.) Private ownership is a
corollary, and the initiation of force is banned from all relationships
between men -- keep this in mind.
Exclusive control has to be enforced, in order to prevent anyone from
breaking the monopoly: if a monopoly can be broken, it was not a
monopoly in the first place, because it did not have *exclusive*control*.
So, the holder of a monopoly has to prevent anyone else from producing
or distributing the same commodity -- or an equivalent commodity.
Exclusive control of the distribution is only possible if one has
exclusive control over the production, or if the government enforces
some chosen channel of distribution.
Now, how do you prevent someone from engaging in the production of
some commodity? Either you forbid -- by governmental interference --
such an action, or you have exclusive control over everything that is
necessary for such production -- including the invention of the means
to produce equivalent commodities, and the use of those inventions.
Finally, how is it possible to have an exclusive control over all
necessary ressources, and over all relevant inventions and their use?
By having a monopoly on those. Ressources are commodities, so that
leaves us with the need for a monopoly on inventions and their use.
There does not exist such a thing as a monopoly on inventions: ideas
can not be controlled by decrees. Government interference is necessary
in order to prevent new ideas to be applied in a given field of
production -- i.e. in order to prevent the use of inventions.
Thus, at one point, there has to exist governmental interference --
i.e. coercive enforcement of a monopoly by the government. And
this is exactly what Laissez-Faire Capitalism does not allow.
-----
I trust that some marxists will promptly scream that it is possible
for someone to be the only producer of some commodity, even though
it is not enforced by the government: this is not a monopoly, and
this does not allow such a producer to "exploit" everybody else,
because anyone is free to engage in the same productive work --
and this possibility constrains the price of that commodity
(I hope I don't have to demonstrate that. Some independent
thinking should be enough -- if in reason you trust.)
I also trust some concrete-bound mentalities to "suggest" that
producers may hire maffia-gunners. Killing someone who hasn't
initiated the use of force is a crime, under Laissez-Faire
Capitalism -- which prohibits the initiation of force. Such an
argument is not relevant -- because crime is possible in any
system (but some systems legalize some forms of the initiation of
force -- when performed by the government.)
Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar
to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
-- Hugh Akston, in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
Richard Tobin
[An attempt to prove that monopoly is impossible under capitalism]
>Monopoly: exclusive control of the production or of the distribution
>of a given commodity.
Most of what Magnus says seems to assume that something is a monopoly
only if the monopolist *prevents* anyone else from competing, rather
than just if no-one else *is* competing. But he mentions that later,
and so will I.
>Laissez-Faire Capitalism: political system where the government has no
>power to interfere with the economy (this is not an essential, but it is
>an important characteristic of the system.) Private ownership is a
>corollary, and the initiation of force is banned from all relationships
>between men -- keep this in mind.
Note that Magnus isn't really giving a formal proof here, just a
(perhaps) plausible train of assertions. As far as I can see it
might be possible to have no government and no private ownership.
>Exclusive control has to be enforced, in order to prevent anyone from
>breaking the monopoly: if a monopoly can be broken, it was not a
>monopoly in the first place, because it did not have *exclusive*control*.
Well, my definition of monopoly is a little different from yours.
From the point of view of a customer, it makes no difference whether
the supplier has a monopoly because he enforces it, or just because
no-one else is competing for some other reason. Magnus says later:
>I trust that some marxists will promptly scream that it is possible
>for someone to be the only producer of some commodity, even though
>it is not enforced by the government: this is not a monopoly, and
>this does not allow such a producer to "exploit" everybody else,
>because anyone is free to engage in the same productive work --
>and this possibility constrains the price of that commodity
Well, I'm not a Marxist, but there seem to be two obvious objections
here. I'm by no means "free to engage in the same productive work"
as our hypothetical monopolist - it may require billions of dollars
to do this. Secondly, the monopolist may own all of some vital raw
material, so (as Jeff Dalton suggested) enforcement of property rights
may allow monopolies.
>or you have exclusive control over everything that is
>necessary for such production
An obvious error of reasoning here - the monopolist needs control over
only *one* thing that is necessary.
> -- including the invention of the means
>to produce equivalent commodities, and the use of those inventions.
Suppose I own all the gold in the world. Magnus seems to imply that
I don't have a monopoly because someone may be able to invent a gold
substitute. Well, maybe they can (though Magnus hasn't *proved* that
for every commodity it's possible to invent an equivalent), but this
may well take many years, millions of dollars... Doesn't the monopolist
have a monopoly until this happens?
>Thus, at one point, there has to exist governmental interference --
Well, I've pointed out a few flaws in Magnus's informal "proof", so I
don't accept the conclusion. In summary, I take the thrust of
Magnus's article to be:
(1) It will always be profitable to compete with a monopoly
(2) So unless government intervenes someone will compete
I reject both of these - the costs and risks of starting up a competitor
may be too high to attract investment (can Magnus *prove* that this is
never the case?) and there may be barriers to competition due to the
monopolist enforcing his property rights over some essential resource.
Keith Dancey
>: > There is no such thing as a monopoly under a laissez-faire
>: > Capitalist system
>: I would like him to prove this. No doubt he is quite familiar with the
>: proof, and he has presumably checked it carefully, since it produces such
>: a controversial result.
>
>
>Monopoly: exclusive control of the production or of the distribution
>of a given commodity.
>
Such as... ?
>Laissez-Faire Capitalism: political system where the government has no
>power to interfere with the economy (this is not an essential, but it is
>an important characteristic of the system.)
It would not be a 'government' then, would it? No power to pass laws that
effect production or consumption either directly or indirectly. Not even
able to employ people since it has no ability to raise or spend money. Your
definition is worthless.
>Private ownership is a
>corollary, and the initiation of force is banned from all relationships
>between men -- keep this in mind.
How is 'the initiation of force banned'? What "force" keeps it banned?
You're just pretending you have logic.
>Exclusive control has to be enforced, in order to prevent anyone from
>breaking the monopoly: if a monopoly can be broken, it was not a
>monopoly in the first place, because it did not have *exclusive*control*.
>So, the holder of a monopoly has to prevent anyone else from producing
>or distributing the same commodity -- or an equivalent commodity.
Why should a 'holder of monopoly' have to *prevent* anyone from doing
anything, since you said "if a monopoly *can* be broken, it was not
a monopoly in the first place"?
Your definitions and premises are not real, simply the product of a
warped mind and a waste of space... And without foundations in reality,
your conclusions are shite.