I mostly agree.
States can offer many monopoly services.
Still states have big differences, on how power is shared or concentrated.
As more centralized a state is built, the more prone to corruption.
And therefore 90% marketplayers can corrupt things.
I would say, that transparency is key. A marketplayer with 90%
marketshares, which acts transparently could be legitimate.
But a 90% will always be proof of a heavily disbalanced and non-free market.
A 90% player can always dry out, buy or threaten whatever competitor.
For consumers to have good journalism on how such a company operates is crutial.
Just as journalism is needed to control state power, they are also needed to help control
every other monopoly.
To the example with Teleport innovation. Clearly.
When you find out a new technique on how to do something, you have a maketadvantage in knowledge.
And therefore you can probably sell a profitable product.
But eventually other people will figure out, how your machine works and try to produce and sell the same product.
This evultion of markets is crutial for freedom.
Replies (6)
What is your ideal idea?
Some kind of mininal state?
What should state do in your opinion?
Hard to get this answer correct. I will try my best, while hopefully focusing on the most important parts.
As a base I dream of a society, that assumes a majority of individuals to act in good faith. I defnitly would go for a minimal state, that is reinvented over and over again.
Every budget is limited in time and value.
always prefer an opt-in model as default of whatever institution to come up.
I would assume ideal institutions to be creatad out of individuals need. So also rather have institutions that are small and local instead of regional or national. Like this a smaller amount of people have the power to actually change something. The state has a structure where Families can delegate something to a local institution, a local institution can delegate something to a regional institution and the regional to the national.
My dream society a grassroot democracy. No representatives at all. Decisions have to go through popular vote. Unelected individuals come up with ideas for institutions to love an issue, which serves the society as a whole. (could be education, could be security, can be building of common infrastructure: Library, meeting square, a software for digital participation in townsquare discussions)
Yes such decisions are slow. Yes probably some people will never let themself convince about truth. But I think in exactly such big cluster discussions about specific issues, minorities can find eachother, cooperate and maby find a solution as a group.
Something like europe will collapse into a thousand Liechtenstein countries?
Yes. But without a Monarch I woul like.
Here I have model situation/problem.
John wants public pool.
Bob wants new carpark.
How it will be decided what to prioritize? Who will do it?
And how the deciding person would know strength of the desire of each individual?
And how the deciding person can know if John wants the pool as much as Bob? Does he wants it by the same amount? Or less/more?
And Alice want cinema and Sarah wants park and …
Everything can be realized, when enough people are in pro of it to build it and there not being strong oppositions, why your project should be harming the general public.
As said. No delegation. No central decisionmaker. Only reunions to announce Ideas you want to see fullfilled. Then others will might joine.
