Maybe you can explain something that's always bothered me. I've =
always assumed anarchy meant "a state of no restrictions where everyone =
can do what they want." However, history has seemed to show that what =
people want to do is organize themselves into societies to avoid =
anarchy. Particularly since anarchy (at least in the popular sense) =
tends to degenerate into tribalism or warlords...
This is the same problem. Companies naturally form monopolies if they =
can. What sort of structure would anarchists use to prevent the =
forming of structures they dislike? And how do they make that =
self-consistent?
-- Ernie P.
You wrote:
> Inspired by our recent debate, I went back and reread "Anarchy, =
State,
> and Utopia" by Robert Nozick. Good book, you politico / philosophers
> ought to check it out. It reminded me of something interesting: the
> basis of anarchic thought is actually anti-monopoly. In the most =
basic
> case, the monopoly anarchists object to is the monopoly on use of =
force
> that is a de facto requirement and attribute of the "state." In
> general, though, the objection stands: anarchists are anti-monopoly,
> anti-"restriction of individual right to choose." Given that
> libertarianism is a particularly well-defined and attenuated form of
> anarchy, I find it really interesting that common perception should =
be
> that libertarian free-marketers should on principle object to =
anti-trust
> action. It's clear that most do, but isn't it interesting that the
> monopolies are "bad" in one context and "okay" in another?
>=20
>=20
> jb
>=20
>=20
>=20