From the White-PillBox: Part 42
Another logically inconsistent position of statism: monopolies are bad - because a single entity is in control; government monopoly is good - because a single entity is in control.
This installment of the White Pill series offers another example of the internal contradictions of statism. As explained in essay 36, one of statism’s fundamental weaknesses (and thus a major White Pill) is how so many of the arguments used to support it lead to logical inconsistencies.
In this essay we discuss a glaring logical flaw in statism’s view of monopolies.
Monopoly bad
We are told that a monopoly is an evil outcome of the free market. The classic story goes as follows:
As a business grows, it gains market share. Eventually it crowds out all competition and emerges as the only provider of its product or service: a monopoly. Consumers have nowhere else to go, so it can charge any price it wants, and reduce its quality of service without consequence. Should a competitor appear, the monopoly has several strategies. It can buy out the competitor. Or it can temporarily lower its prices to force the less wealthy upstart out of business. 1
The statist’s conclusion is clear: monopolies are bad.
The statist’s reason is clear: abuse is inevitable when only one entity provides a product or service.
And the statist reaffirms this when he suggests the typical solution: break up the corporation into smaller entities. Again: a single controlling entity is a bad thing.
Monopoly good
Without blinking an eye, the statist takes his reasoning about monopolies and throws it out the window…when the monopoly is the State itself.
He feels the State ought to monopolize law and order, indeed, justice itself. The State ought to monopolize education, health care, money, the roads, etc.
Suddenly the statist believes a monopoly is good. And why is it good that the State should monopolize these fields?
So a single entity can have full control, of course.
The statist is bold, to be sure
The statist makes no attempt to avoid this blatant contradiction. But he doesn’t stop there.
The statist is just as happy to see the State granting monopoly privileges. He finds it desirable for the State to outlaw competition. He wants one entity to monopolize a given field 2.
The statist digs his hole deeper
As with all logical contradictions, the statist entangles himself in further complications.
Ignoring the real world
He warns of theoretical abuses (high prices, poor quality) should a single corporation hold a monopoly. Yet he disregards the real-world inefficiencies and abuses of government monopolies.
Monopoly abuse where it really matters
Our hapless statist sits comfortably by as the State monopolizes the most important services imaginable (law, safety, health care, education, etc.) Day in and day out, the statist can see these key social needs subjected to the very monopoly abuses he warns about.
The immoral cherry on top
The statist denounces the monopolies possible under open competition. He conveniently forgets, of course, that free market success is based on interactions that are consensual.
At the same time he supports State monopolies…which are enforced by the threat (and use) of force. In other words, he supports non-consensual monopolies.
Conclusion
The statist cannot, or will not, recognize his own inconsistencies in supporting the State…a true monopoly by any imaginable definition.
Unfortunately for the statist position, this outcome is virtually impossible in a free society.
Some examples:
In the case of crime: only the police and legal system may dispense justice.
In the case of money: only the Federal Reserve may control legal tender money.
In the case of Internet or cable services: only the single entity chosen by a local government may provide these services.
In the case of mail: only the Post Office may deliver it.
In the case of Intellectual Property: only patent and copyright holders may sell certain inventions and artistic works.
Thank you so much for the thoughtful feedback! You bring up an excellent point about the statist’s attempt to counter their inconsistency regarding monopolies. Namely, that a monopoly is good or bad based on the motivation of the actor (bad motivation when performed privately, good when performed publicly).
Also, thank you for pointing out the statist’s attempt to justify the inconsistency lacks sufficient evidence.
I might add on to your insight, and point out a few more problems with their argument:
1. The statist brings into the argument the public actor’s motivation for a good public outcome. The problem of course, is (as stated in the piece), the statist disregards the (undeniable) fact that the State operates by force…by violating consent. This is the method by which he wants the public actor to achieve his lofty goals…by coercion of innocent humans. In essence, “I want good things for people, and I am willing to make than happen at gunpoint”.
But presumably, holding a gun to people’s head is not a good thing. So he finds himself once again in an argumentative inconsistency. Put another way: the statist will stand by idly and accept the astounding evils that arise from the State (as monopolist of a host of social products and services...see my post https://markmaresca.substack.com/p/from-the-white-pillbox-part-30). But paradoxically he explains this away by his love of humanity.
You are right, it may be true my account of the statist was uncharitable. But I concern myself more with being charitable towards the countless victims of the State, and observe that the statist, whatever his intentions, seems rather uncharitable about them.
2. The statist assumes good motivations by the public actor, and bad motivations by the private actor. He fails to see the logical inconsistency here as well. (see my post https://markmaresca.substack.com/p/from-the-white-pillbox-part-41)
Thank you again!!
Your account in this post seems a bit uncharitable. Statists have a more reasonable (though still flawed) argument to address the apparent inconsistency.
They would insist that private monopolies are bad because those in charge act selfishly, maximizing profit and exploiting their customers. They hope that public monopolies would be run by or overseen by persons motivated to seek the common good, and that everyone will benefit as a result of their good intentions.
While this position lacks sufficient evidence to qualify as credible, it isn’t quite a naked contradiction.