No, but they can make your life extremely difficult if you don't. Just like governments can. — Isaac

I'm not so sure about that.

They can refuse to serve you, which can be problematic. They cannot take your lunch money, or throw you in jail, or send you off to war to kill people for them.

I would argue the evils of government are a whole order of magnitude worse. That isn't to say monopolistic or extremely large cooperations aren't a problem. The question is whether more powerful governments are the solution to that problem. Governments seem more likely to jump in bed with powerful cooperations than they are to curb their power.

Pfizer couldn't force me to buy their vaccine. The government could.

Indeed, just like there's no restriction on you setting up your own government and vying for power. — Isaac

Of course there's a restriction for that. Governments have a monopoly on the use of force, and laws against its use.

If on the other hand you want to get together with your pals to cover each other's insurance, can Black Rock stop you?

OK, so if the Thai government used other means - theft, coercion, bullying, grooming, punitive treatment... You'd be OK. — Isaac

No of course not. But it will do all those things if its threats are ignored. Every government functions that way. It's only tools are violence and coercion.

And just because I can threaten you into complying with my wishes, and thereby don't have to be forced violently, that does not change the nature of my act.

When was the last time you know of that the Thai government used violence to enforce its laws? What about the UK government? — Isaac

I don't live in those countries. But wherever you live, the answer is probably all the time.

I live in what most consider a 'civilized' country, and even here the government uses overt violence against law-abiding citizens with frightening regularity.

They can refuse to serve you, which can be problematic. They cannot take your lunch money, or throw you in jail, or send you off to war to kill people for them. — Tzeentch

They can basically make you destitute.

That isn't to say monopolistic or extremely large corporations aren't a problem. The question is whether more powerful governments are the solution to that problem. Governments seem more likely to jump in bed with powerful corporations than they are to curb their power.

Pfizer couldn't force me to buy their vaccine. The government could. — Tzeentch

Yes, this is the question. One you're not even addressing, let alone providing any evidence for a conclusion regarding.

The reason Pfizer couldn't force me to buy their vaccine is because the government have made such actions illegal. Otherwise you can be damn sure they'd think of a hundred ways to force you to buy their products within days of any relaxation of those laws.

Of course there's a restriction for that. Governments have a monopoly on the use of force, and laws against its use. — Tzeentch

So try harder, get a bigger army. That's the advice given to would-be entrepreneurs going up against the likes of Black Rock. If they say, "it's impossible, Black Rock just have too big a percentage of all the available assets" - try harder, be the American Dream! Gather your own army!

...Or you could just set up a political party and try to attract votes, I suppose.

Either way, what's stopping you! Where that entrepreneurial spirit!

it will do all those things if its threats are ignored. — Tzeentch

Right. So how do you know that corporations wouldn't also do those things if their coercions are ignored? Seems now you're condemning institutions for future crimes they've not yet committed.

even here the government uses overt violence against law-abiding citizens with frightening regularity. — Tzeentch

Like...?

They can basically make you destitute. — Isaac

Theoretically, perhaps. I don't think we see that in practice. Are Amazon or Pfizer making people destitute?

The reason Pfizer couldn't force me to buy their vaccine is because the government have made such actions illegal. — Isaac

In a situation where a company is able to force me to buy their products through violence or threats thereof, they're no longer a company - they've become a de-facto government.

But I'm not advocating anarchy anyway, so I don't see why it matters.

So try harder, get a bigger army. That's the advice given to would-be entrepreneurs going up against the likes of Black Rock. If they say, "it's impossible, Black Rock just have too big a percentage of all the available assets" - try harder, be the American Dream! Gather your own army! — Isaac

Companies depend on the free will of people to buy their products. If people are fed up with Black Rock they can stop buying their products, and if they want to take care of their own insurance, nothing's stopping them. Black Rock can't do anything about that except try to sway the people back to their side.

With governments and armies it is clearly different. It doesn't depend on people's free will, and governments will protect their monopoly on violence with violence.

So how do you know that corporations wouldn't also do those things if their coercions are ignored? — Isaac

In most countries companies aren't allowed to coerce. What can a company threaten you with? That it will no longer serve you? I don't see how that is all that threatening, unless they have monopolized basic needs.

Seems now you're condemning institutions for future crimes they've not yet committed. — Isaac

That's a pretty common way to deal with threats of violence.

If I threaten you, I will be sent to court for it.

Like...? — Isaac

Beating down peaceful protesters, for example.

Theoretically, perhaps. I don't think we see that in practice. Are Amazon or Pfizer making people destitute? — Tzeentch

Yes. Their employment practices, pricing policies, procurement policies, supply chain decisions, environmental policies... all contribution to the destitution of those suffering from their decisions.

In a situation where a company is able to force me to buy their products through violence or threats thereof, they're no longer a company - they've become a de-facto government. — Tzeentch

Nice. so you just make your argument true by redefining 'government' to 'anything which forces' Your argument 'governments are worse than corporations' then becomes just a tautology.

I'm not advocating anarchy anyway, so I don't see why it matters. — Tzeentch

It matters because the opposite of anarchy is government intervention. the one thing you're arguing against.

Companies depend on the free will of people to buy their products. If people are fed up with Black Rock they can stop buying their products — Tzeentch

We've just been through this. This isn't going to work if you're just going to ignore what I write an repeat the same thing over again.

With governments and armies it is clearly different. It doesn't depend on people's free will, — Tzeentch

Of course it does. Government's are elected. Governments can be overthrown.

That's a pretty common way to deal with threats of violence.

If I threaten you, I will be sent to court for it. — Tzeentch

The normalcy is not the issue. It's that you're judging governments on what they would do, but corporations only on what they do do. You're not comparing like with like.

Yes. Their employment practices, pricing policies, procurement policies, supply chain decisions, environmental policies... all contribution to the destitution of those suffering from their decisions. — Isaac

What concrete example do you have of either of those companies making people destitute?

Nice. so you just make your argument true by redefining 'government' to 'anything which forces' — Isaac

Governments are essentially bodies that hold monopolies on violence. There was no need to redefine.

It matters because the opposite of anarchy is government intervention. the one thing you're arguing against. — Isaac

On the whole I am highly critical of government interventions, but I'm not categorically against it.

We've just been through this. This isn't going to work if you're just going to ignore what I write an repeat the same thing over again. — Isaac

What you wrote makes no sense, equating a body that protects its monopoly on violence with violence to a body that protects its market position through the free will of its customers.

Of course it does. Government's are elected. — Isaac

Democracy does not mean a government depends on the free will of its people. It means it seeks to gain some form of legitimacy by seeking approval for its coercive practices among a section of its citizens.

Governments can be overthrown. — Isaac

Companies do not need to be overthrown. If people are fed up, they stop buying products and the company will go out of business or offer its services some place else. No violence necessary, just people making decisions freely.

It's that you're judging governments on what they would do, but corporations only on what they do do. — Isaac

I'm judging governments for threatening me with violence to comply with its wishes - something it does every day, by its very nature. That is what law is.

I'm not judging companies for the same, because I've never been threatened by one.

What concrete example do you have of either of those companies making people destitute? — Tzeentch

I've given examples, I'm not sure what more I can provide. Amazon's pricing policy means that it's suppliers are kept destitute. It doesn't pay them enough to live off.

Governments are essentially bodies that hold monopolies on violence. — Tzeentch

I can be violent if I want. How do they 'hold a monopoly'?

On the whole I am highly critical of government interventions, but I'm not categorically against it. — Tzeentch

Yeah. Didn't think it would take long before this deteriorated into "the government ought to make the laws I benefit from, but not the ones where others benefit"

What you wrote makes no sense, equating a body that protects its monopoly on violence with violence to a body that protects its market position through the free will of its customers. — Tzeentch

Government doesn't protect its position with violence. It could. But it doesn't. Most people allow it willingly to do what it does, some even work for it. Occasionally it will take money, or force people to to do stuff, but that's right at the very extreme. It's hardly as if half the population are prisoners or political refugees.

Government does what it does the same way corporations do, control of capital.

Democracy does not mean a government depends on the free will of its people. It means it seeks to gain some form of legitimacy by seeking approval for its coercive practices among a section of its citizens. — Tzeentch

Same for a corporation then. It's not like Amazon gained it's right to pollute my environment by my consent. I've never shopped there. It gained that right by enough other people shopping there to become big enough to control that much of the ecosystem. I never gave my consent.

Same with Facebook, Google, Tesla... I didn't give my consent for them to have the influence over my environment, my community, my children... that they do. they gained that by getting the support of enough other people. Just like governments. As you prove with...

Companies do not need to be overthrown. If people are fed up, they stop buying products and the company will go out of business or offer its services some place else. — Tzeentch

...enough people. Just like governments.

Your purile notion of how businesses work is bordering on the absurd. They don't just freely offer products to people who freely buy them if they want. They monopolise, cheat, steal, coerce, occasionally outright kill or violently oppress to make sure that you can only buy their product, that you have anything but a free choice.

I'm judging governments for threatening me with violence to comply with its wishes - something it does every day, by its very nature. That is what law is.

I'm not judging companies for the same, because I've never been threatened by one. — Tzeentch

Again, no government threatens you with violence. They just could.

Governments have been trying to solve socio-economic issues for ages, and they always fail. While not necessarily fixing the problems, the free exchange of goods and ideas has done more to improve the lot of the common man than any attempt by governments. — Tzeentch

Pure fantasy without a shred of evidence.

Just too hard to let go of this belief. Dogma dies hard I guess.

Amazon's pricing policy means that it's suppliers are kept destitute. It doesn't pay them enough to live off. — Isaac

Yet they work for Amazon, so apparently however unsatisfying the conditions its better than the alternative.

Amazon may take advantage of poverty, and that may or may not be immoral, but that is not the same as creating it. Likely those people would be worse off if Amazon disappeared. You simply believe Amazon should offer them a better deal.

I can be violent if I want. How do they 'hold a monopoly'? — Isaac

I can't take this argument seriously.

Yeah. Didn't think it would take long before this deteriorated into "the government ought to make the laws I benefit from, but not the ones where others benefit" — Isaac

If that's how you want to mischaracterize my position, we will soon be done here.

Government doesn't protect its position with violence. — Isaac

Of course it does. It does so in war, stopping violent protests, etc. And when it doesn't use physical violence it uses threats of violence. How many people do you think would continue to pay taxes if they weren't threatened with jail (which is a threat of violence) for not doing so?

Government does what it does the same way corporations do, control of capital. — Isaac

Governments function through violence, the free market does not. They're not even remotely the same.

...enough people. Just like governments. — Isaac

Nonsense. Two people could agree to cover each other's insurance and deprive Black Rock. Black Rock wouldn't care, and this two-person deal may not be as cost effective as what Black Rock offers, but the option is there. All Black Rock could do to stop you, is try to persuade your business partner.

Black Rock cannot force you to buy its products (like governments can) and they cannot stop you from competing on the market (like governments can).

Government and business function fundamentally differently.

What can happen is that government and business form an unholy alliance against the common man, which is exactly why specifically governments need to be kept small and relatively weak in their power over people and business.

They monopolise, cheat, steal, coerce, occasionally outright kill or violently oppress to make sure that you can only buy their product, that you have anything but a free choice. — Isaac

In an anarchy or corrupt system perhaps, which is not what I am advocating at all. In a world where businesses are also warlords I think it is safe to say we have departed from the context of this discussion.

Again, no government threatens you with violence. They just could. — Isaac

It threatens me with violence every day. Every law is enforced by threat of violence. If I don't pay my taxes I get thrown in jail - violence. If I don't stay indoors during the pandemic, I get thrown in jail - violence. Etc.

They're overt threats of violence too, it is all written down in laws so no one has to guess whether the government will get violent if one of its laws are broken - they basically guarantee it. Those are threats.

Yet they work for Amazon, so apparently however unsatisfying the conditions its better than the alternative. — Tzeentch

So? Amazon constrain what the alternatives are.

Or we could just suggest that if you don't like your government, you just seek an alternative country.

Likely those people would be worse off is Amazon disappeared. — Tzeentch

I can't take this argument seriously.

I can be violent if I want. How do they 'hold a monopoly'? — Isaac


I can't take this argument seriously. — Tzeentch

It's not an argument, it's a question. How do governments monopolise violence? I seem quite capable of being violent.

How many people do you think would continue to pay taxes if they weren't threatened with jail (which is a threat of violence) for not doing so? — Tzeentch

Loads. This may come as a shock to you, but we're not all sociopaths.

Governments function through violence, the free market does not. — Tzeentch

I can't take this argument seriously.

If that's how you want to mischaracterize my position, we will soon be done here. — Tzeentch

Oh, OK. Give me a few examples of laws which benefit others at your expense that you agree with.

In an anarchy or corrupt system perhaps, which is not what I am advocating at all. — Tzeentch

Yes, so I gather. Laws you like but not the ones you don't.

It threatens me with violence every day. — Tzeentch

Then you need to take your case to the ECHR. It's illegal for your government to arbitrarily threaten you with violence.

It's not an argument, it's a question. How do governments monopolise violence? I seem quite capable of being violent.

It’s gained the old fashioned way: by brute force and conquest. It’s maintained and made legitimate by law, for instance the “use of force” doctrines in policing. If you or I armed ourselves and forced our way into someone’s home, or pointed our weapons at someone, or cuffed someone and threw them in the back of our car, we’d be criminally charged. The state, however, is well within their legal right to do the exact same thing. This distinction is peculiar to states, but when it isn’t it is only because “the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it” (Max Weber).

If you or I armed ourselves and forced our way into someone’s home, or pointed our weapons at someone, or cuffed someone and threw them in the back of our car, we’d be criminally charged. — NOS4A2

That's a consequence of violence. The question was how states had the monopoly on violence.

At the moment all you've shown is that they're better at it.

So do Amazon have the monopoly on internet sales?

Yes, the monopoly on violence is seized and held through violence, essentially. I’m not sure might equals better, in this instance.

No, Amazon does not have the monopoly on internet sales.

This may come as a shock to you, but we're not all sociopaths. — Isaac

Which is what all the small government bullshit boils down to: a view that human beings are essentially sociopathic. Free-market fantasies included.

Yes, the monopoly on violence is seized and held through violence — NOS4A2

But I can be violent. Am I the exception? Do you find it impossible to be violent? The government do not seem to me to have the monopoly at all.

If I were violent, there would be consequences, it would be difficult...


But if 'difficult' is the criteria for holding a monopoly, then certainly large corporations hold several monopolies.

Which is what all the small government bullshit boils down to: a view that human beings are essentially sociopathic. — Xtrix

Seem so. It's the twists and turns taken to avoid just admitting that which fascinate me.

But I can be violent. Am I the exception? Do you find it impossible to be violent? The government do not seem to me to have the monopoly at all.

If I were violent, there would be consequences, it would be difficult...


But if 'difficult' is the criteria for holding a monopoly, then certainly large corporations hold several monopolies.

Which sort of violence can you do?

Which sort of violence can you do? — NOS4A2

Murder, torture, beatings...the usual. Do you live in Utopia by any chance?

Which is what all the small government bullshit boils down to: a view that human beings are essentially sociopathic. — Xtrix

You've got it exactly backwards.

Individuals are perfectly capable of making their own decisions, and a government is not needed to tell them what to do, what to spend their money on, etc. It needs to create a framework where individuals can cooperate voluntarily, without coercion. And fundamentally, it needs to be understood that government is itself a tool for coercion, which is exactly why its application must be done sparingly and carefully. That's essentially the basis of all of liberalism - true liberalism, not the poorly-hidden authoritarianism that modern liberalism parades as.

It's the lovers of big government that believe governments should tell people what to do, how to act, what to say, what to think and what to spend their money on, and don't you forget it.

Cut away all the fluffy language, and the lovers of big government are doing nothing less than asking said government to impose their ideals on other people. Because apparently those people need to be told what to do, think, etc. so perhaps a look in the mirror would be appropriate.

Murder, torture, beatings...the usual. Do you live in Utopia by any chance?

Those are crimes, though. You’d be tried and imprisoned should you commit that violence. You’d be tried and imprisoned by those who have the monopoly on violence.

Those are crimes, though. You’d be tried and imprisoned should you commit that violence. — NOS4A2

Yep, there are consequences. And I might fail.

As it is with setting up an internet market. So tell me again how it's different.

I can be violent, the government might stop me, or there might be consequences I don't like. The government apparently thereby have the monopoly on violence.

I can set up an internet sales company. Amazon might stop me, or there might be consequences I don't like. Amazon apparently don't thereby have the monopoly on internet sales companies.

Can you arrest a police officer or any government agent and jail him for committing violence? You cannot.

The people or institution that claim the monopoly on violence has what Weber called the “monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” The term “legitimate” underlies the principle. The principle does not imply that the state is the only entity committing violence, but it is the only entity authorized to commit violence.

Can you arrest a police officer or any government agent and jail him for committing violence? — NOS4A2

Again, I can try.

What I'm asking is why failure against government is called monopoly, but failure against a corporation is just 'free market competition'.

The term “legitimate” underlies the principle. The principle does not imply that the state is the only entity committing violence, but it is the only entity authorized to commit violence. — NOS4A2

See above. I'm not looking for an etymology lesson. I'm asking you what the difference is.

Probably because a monopoly in trade has nothing to do with a monopoly on violence.

I can set up an internet sales company. Amazon might stop me, or there might be consequences I don't like. — Isaac

Amazon cannot stop you from setting up an internet sales company, and any consequences that may arise from your attempt is a result of either your product not being good, too costly to produce, or people not wanting to buy it.

If people want to buy your product, and your business can at least break even, there is nothing Amazon can do to stop your business from competing with theirs.

Sure, Amazon may leverage the fact people find their offer more attractive than yours, but that has nothing to do with your attempt at setting up your own company.

It seems like what you're doing is blaming Amazon for your failed enterprise, when it is you yourself who is to blame for not being able to provide a better or cheaper product that people want to buy from you.

This has already been demonstrated with the Black Rock example of insurance - which predictably was ignored.


Now, let's compare this with a government and its monopoly on violence:

Does a government let you compete freely on the market? No. Under no circumstance. It won't even allow you to offer your product, let alone compete.

It doesn't matter if you're able to provide a better product than the government, as soon as you try to put it on the market, you are stopped either by law or by force.

You then try to make an argument that if only you're able to get above a certain threshold of customers, you would be able to violently overthrow the government, implying this is the same as how companies compete on the market. This is of course not the case, and no such threshold is necessary for a normal business to compete on the market.

You'll find that it's perfectly possible for large and small companies to exist alongside each other. That's called free competition. Smaller companies often enjoy benefits that make their products cheaper to produce or more attractive locally, and they may compete on that basis. For the government's monopoly on violence that is not so.


An 8-year old could understand the difference, and this is peak pedanticism.

Probably because a monopoly in trade has nothing to do with a monopoly on violence. — NOS4A2

So they're different because they're different. Great explanation!

Amazon cannot stop you from setting up an internet sales company — Tzeentch

Yes, it can. It can leverage it's capital to prevent you from gaining any market share, it can use it's army of corporate lawyers to prevent you from competing fairly, it can use it's cross-domain power to make it difficult for you to obtain the subsidiary services you need (like servers, or smart devices for example). There are tons of ways Amazon can prevent me from setting up a competing service.

The difference here is that you've arbitrarily decided to call al those ways 'fair competition'.

It seems like what you're doing is blaming Amazon for your failed enterprise, when it is you yourself who is to blame for not being able to provide a better or cheaper product that people want to buy from you. — Tzeentch

Seems to me you're blaming the government for your failure to rouse a bigger, more loyal army, when it's you who simply isn't charismatic enough to develop such a loyal following.

Does a government let you compete freely on the market? No. Under no circumstance. It won't even allow you to offer your product, let alone compete. — Tzeentch

Does Amazon let me compete freely? No, it does everything in its power to maintain its market dominance.

It doesn't matter if you're able to provide a better product than the government, as soon as you try to put it on the market, you are stopped either by law or by force. — Tzeentch

Violence is not a product.

You then try to make an argument that if only you're able to get above a certain threshold of customers, you would be able to violently overthrow the government, implying this is the same as how companies compete on the market. This is of course not the case, and no such threshold is necessary for a normal business to compete on the market. — Tzeentch

You're saying that a corporation does not need customers to compete?

You'll find that it's perfectly possible for large and small companies to exist alongside each other. That's called free competition. Smaller companies often enjoy benefits that make their products cheaper to produce or more attractive locally, and they may compete on that basis. For the government's monopoly on violence that is not so. — Tzeentch

So the only people who commit violence are the government? Where the hell do you live?

So they're different because they're different. Great explanation!

To be fair, it was a shit question based on a false analogy.

You've got it exactly backwards. — Tzeentch

Anyone can claim this. And yes, I’m sure you don’t consciously aim to harm people. Nevertheless, what you think is a means to, say, “freedom,” is in reality a fantasy— a useful fantasy to cover the policies of an extreme and rather savage version of capitalism.

Incidentally, I’m not in favor of “big government” or whatever conventional view of present-day liberals you want to ascribe to me. I’m just not fooled by the myths of free markets, individualism, and “liberty” offered by neoliberals as justification for the massive transfer of wealth that’s occurred these last 40 years. That’s certainly not getting us anywhere. So yes, given the choice I would definitely choose the New Deal era.

To be fair, it was a shit question based on a false analogy. — NOS4A2

I think everyone was quite clear you thought it a false analogy from your opening remark.

This is a discussion forum. If you're wanting somewhere just to keep a record of 'stuff you think' might I suggest a notepad?

Does Amazon let me compete freely? No, it does everything in its power to maintain its market dominance. — Isaac

That is the essence of free competition. You understand that competition entails using power to compete?

So the only people who commit violence are the government? Where the hell do you live? — Isaac

Nice try, but crime rings are not participating in a free market. If you think they do, see what happens when you offer your services for violence publicly.

Got any more pedanticism in you? You seem to possess an inexhaustible supply.

That is the essence of free competition. — Tzeentch

So what? Declaring it 'free competition' is begging the question. I'm asking about why violence is not seen the same way and the answer you're giving me is "because we give it a different name".

You understand that competition entails using power to compete? — Tzeentch

Same as government's. Or are you just too weak and lazy to muster your own army and compete?

crime rings are not participating in a free market. — Tzeentch

I never said they did. They compete for control by violence. They gain it in some small areas but can't compete with the power of the government to reach whole cities. Just like small bookshops vs Amazon.

I only tried to answer the question “How do governments monopolise violence?”

If you want to keep asking questions in a discussion forum, don’t be surprised when you get answers.