Talk:Coercive monopoly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 21 September 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Resources

  • Talk:Coercive_monopoly/references -- Quotations and citations, without any editorial comments.
  • (Links to archives will go here if the editors can be convinced to permit this Talk page to be archived. See #5 under "Editing: Introduction (2nd try)", below.)

[edit] Purpose of this article as distinct from government-granted monopoly?

What is the informative purpose of this article as distinct from government-granted monopoly?

Virtually all forms of coercive monopoly studied by economists are government-granted monopolies, and the majority of the text here is rehashing the discussion of government-granted monopoly elsewhere. You could make a case that it's possible for economically interesting coercive monopolies to exist without being government-granted monopolies (e.g., Mafia rackets), but most of the article is not about that.

Is there some reason to keep the information duplicated and balkanized like this? If not, I'd advise that we move about 2/3 of this article to the article on government-granted monopoly, integrate it with the existing text there, and have coercive monopoly stand as a page to (1) define a coercive monopoly generally, (2) link to government-granted monopoly as one of the most important types of coercive monopoly, (3) mention that there are a limited number of non-government-granted coercive monopolies, and possibly (4) talk a bit about the distinction between natural and coercive monopolies in broad outline.

Does this sound like a plan? Let me know what y'all think. Radgeek 07:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's ok for some things to be "rehashed" on different articles, especially, when it's the wording isn't exactly the same. A coercive monopoly would include not only government-granted monopoly, but also government monopoly. Some would say some completely private situations are coercive monopolies too ...and example of that might be Microsoft..it's an arguable point especially given that a judge said they engaged in anticompetitive behavior. Free market advocates would say that the behavior wasn't anticompetitive but highly competitive. Feel free to modify this article or add to it, but as far as the content that's already in it, I feel pretty much everything there now is essential. I would put the content back in if it was deleted. RJII 18:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

One conclusion from the AfD debate was to rewrite the article to clarify usage. I have done so, based on the external sources provided (those that were relevant; those that weren't I removed). I removed the mention of rackets, as the external sources may clear that this is usually excluded (probably always, but I've hedged my bets with a brief mention). I have removed the discussion of monopoly types, which unnecessarily duplicated the relevant articles, as well as the discussion of government legitimacy. This should take place elsewhere, not on an article on a term as obscure as this is. If anyone wants to move that discussion somewhere more helpful, the previous version can be found here. Rd232 11:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for dumbing down the article. It much more informative before your so-called "rewrite." Reverting back to previous version. RJII 13:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I've raised an RFC to see whether others agree that this is "dumbing down". Rd232 15:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
You've deleted everything in the article that took a lot of effort from various people to create and replaced it with a couple quoted definitions. I don't want to call it vandalism, but it's close. RJII 15:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Absurd. The definition in your version is wrong, as I showed on the basis of quotes from the existing external links alone. Duplication of monopoly types discussion serves no purpose I can see - there are separate articles for that. (If necessary, move material there.) And as I said, the general discussion under Political Debates does not, I believe, belong here - and I have problems with its style (and lack of sourcing) as well; it reads too much like personal essay. Furthermore, the "a lot of effort" point is an example of the sunk cost fallacy - when you're in a hole, you stop digging; you don't say "well we've come this far - China can't be far off". Rd232 20:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Absurd. It's better to start with Rd232's version, and add back the few points which are (1) accurate, (2) NPOV, and (3) not better stated and left in the other articles. (For what it's worth, I consider myself a Libertarian, although not an Objectivist.) As for my comment about it being a neologism in the AfD -- the definition as a alias for government monopoly, including government-granted monopoly is standard. The one proposed by RJII is a neologism, as far as I can tell, even if an old one. -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The proposed defition from R2d2 is wrong. A coercive monopoly is not defined as a government-monopoly or government-granted monopoly. What you see from the theorists is the opinion that coercive monopoly can only arise out of government intervention. It is not defined as a monopoly being maintained by government intervention. A coercive monopoly is a monopoly immune from the law of supply and demand. So, the definition that's there now is not precise, but it's very wrong to say that coercive monopoly is defined as government-assisted monopoly. That's not the case. RJII 17:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Cite? You hadn't given one in your references, as far as I can tell. And -- I can't rewrite it without it appearing to be a reversion, so I'll add what I believe to be the correct NPOV tag. It would be vandalism to remove it, until a concensus is obtained. Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
R2d2 provided citations. But, he's misinterpreting them. Look how Greenpan defines it, for example. I just modified the definition. RJII 17:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
What part of this, from Nathaniel Branden, am I misinterpreting? "When people speak in an economic or political context, of the dangers and evils of monopoly, what they mean is a coercive monopoly—that is; exclusive control of a given field of production which is closed to and exempt from competition, so that those controlling the field are able to set arbitrary production policies and charge arbitrary prices, independent of the market, immune from the law of supply and demand. Such a monopoly, it is important to note, entails more than the absence of competition; it entails the impossibility of competition. [my emphasis] That is a coercive monopoly’s characteristic attribute-and is essential to any condemnation of such a monopoly. In the whole history of capitalism, no one has been able to establish a coercive monopoly by means of competition on a free market. There is only one way to forbid entry into a given field of production: by law. Every single coercive monopoly that exists or ever has existed—in the United States, in Europe or anywhere else in the world—was created and made possible only by an act of government: by special franchises, licenses, subsidies, by legislative actions which granted special privileges (not obtainable on a free market) to a man or a group of men, and forbade all others to enter that particular field." [1] Rd232 18:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, the phrasing of Greenspan as quoted in my version looks like it's inspired by part of Branden's wording above. Rd232 18:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, look at Branden's definition. It's a firm that it immune from competition. Then he goes on to make the assertion that the only way that is possible is through government intervention. RJII 18:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
And on what basis do you reject that assertion? Rd232 18:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean? I'm not rejecting or accepting that assertion. Certainly there are plenty of individuals who would reject it. RJII 18:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
It's hard not see your claim that you're "not rejecting or accepting that assertion" as disengenuous. In any case, if "there are plenty of individuals who would reject it" it will be easy for you to demonstrate a good reason for rejecting it. Rd232 22:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
You're missing the point, Rd232. In the passage you quote Branden very clearly defines "coercive monopoly" in terms of an economic characteristic (immunity from ordinary considerations of supply and demand due to the impossibility of competition). He then, separately, asserts that the only thing that can cause a coercive monopoly is government intervention. If you could demonstrate that a particular monopoly derives from means other than government intervention but is still maintained by a prohibition on competition, then you would have succeeded in showing that there is something meeting the definition of a "coercive monopoly" but not arising from government force. Some might point to, for example, mob rackets in the construction business or particular parts of the drug trade as historical examples of non-governmental coercive monopolies that Branden has overlooked. And you don't even have to agree to those concrete historical examples to recognize the possibility in principle. —Radgeek 19:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I have three problems with this argument. (i) we have found no sources for somebody outside Wikipedia arguing it. It is in danger of looking like original research. (ii) we have fetishised a few quotes as a "definition" and excluded everything else our source authors say about the concept. (iii) focussing on the supposed definition, it follows from logic alone that a coercive monopoly requires government backing: the only way a company can be immune from market forces is if its income is independent of its market, i.e. if it can rely on government powers of taxation. No private company can conceivably be independent of market forces - why is this controversial? Rd232 21:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Absurd. Start with Rd232's version, then add statements which are (1) verifiable through credible published sources, (2) NPOV, and (3) relevant to this specific article. Frankly, if I'd know about the vote for deletion, I'd have voted to simply redirect this to Government-granted_monopoly. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Since some people have remarked on my comments page due to my earlier comments, I'd like to mention that I now no longer stand by what I said. There are some good reasons to edit this article--after reviewing the uses of the terms that I could find I think it's probably right to say that the term is mostly limited to libertarian economists and theorists, but quite mistaken to dismiss it as neologism and absolutely wrong to identify it exclusively with Objectivism--but there are not good reasons to redirect it to government-granted monopoly, because coercive monopolies (as the term is standardly used by libertarian economists) and government-granted monopolies are two different things; specifically, the latter is a proper subset of the former. Government-granted monopolies don't even cover the whole field of de jure monopolies (which include both monopolies granted to private agencies through licenses and franchises, and also government monopolies created through nationalization or exclusive authority given to government agencies). --Radgeek 19:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
That is an excellent point, and I have since changed my mind, as well: I would now use coercive monopoly as a disambiguation page (as mentioned below, currently under the heading "Reliable published sources"), and redirect it to (among other things) coercive monopoly (economic). Then, on that page, there would be a concise definition followed by links to specific examples, such as government-granted monopoly and black market. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Radgeek, thanks for intervening. Here is the definition I'm proposing: "In economics, a coercive monopoly is a form of monopoly that is immune to competition, due to barriers to entry. As such, it is able to raise prices to any level preferable without provoking the appearance of competition. It is distinguished from a de facto (or "non-coercive") monopoly, which enjoys no such insulation from competitive forces." That sums it up doesn't it? I disagree with the previous definition I supported which said it had to be the result of literal coercion; they don't define it that way. We can see that claimed coercive monopolies don't have to be the result of literal coercion, since subsidies are claimed to contribute. Even Microsoft is claimed to be one, with Judge Jackson saying that the contracts the engaged in amounted to coercion. Like you said, Rd232 is missing the point. The laissez-faire advocates are making an argument, not a definition. RJII 19:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

We need a way to include the definition I believe to be correct, as from Rd232, either in place of, or in addition to, that of RJII. (OOPS, forgot to sign.) I cannot edit it without violating the rules on revert wars, because I would keep Rd232's version, and add a couple of paragraphs and a couple of links to paragraphs in other articles. Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the definition that you're contesting is incorrect. I think it is incorrect. But, so is the definition R2d2 proposed. I have inserted a more correct definition. This is the way you fix an article. You edit. You don't wipe the whole thing out. RJII 18:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
It's worse. Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. Lawrence Kudlow (whoever he is), in the article RJII cites, apparently does not know what a monopoly is, never mind a "coercive monopoly". He writes "coercive monopoly, i.e., one that price-gouges consumers by deliberately curtailing production", when it is basic economics that a monopoly is able to raise prices by curtailing production (and that it will be in its interests to do so). Kudlow fails Economics 101, so if it's that the best you've got, give up now. Rd232 18:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Wow, you really are out of the loop aren't you? Kudlow is a well-known economist. Apparently you don't keep up with the stock market or you'd see him frequently on CNBC. RJII 18:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
What's more, Microsoft products are easy to use, reliable, flexible, adaptable and available to everybody. He obviously hasn't used them. (In other words, whether or not he's a reputable economist, his article has factual errors.) Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, looking at it again, he's probably just using it in a loose adjectival sense, i.e. meaning "a monopoly which is exercising its power over consumers to an extent that is socially deemed reprehensible", rather than in the technical sense which this article relates to. Clearly, exercising market power cannot be considered coercion in a sense relevant here (rackets). Rd232 18:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I thought he rang a vague bell. No wonder I don't watch CNBC when Lawrence Kudlow is on it. Rd232 18:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
He's using it in the dynamic sense. That is, what a firm does, or would be expected to due, if it was immune from market forces --if it was a coercive monopoly. RJII 19:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
"a coercive monopoly, i.e., one that price-gouges consumers by deliberately curtailing production." - this monopoly, hypothetical or otherwise, is not immune from market forces - otherwise it wouldn't need to curtail production to increase price. The only way a company can be immune from market forces is if its income is independent of its market, i.e. if it can rely on government powers of taxation. QED. Rd232 23:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
By market forces, I mean competitive forces. The firm can raise prices without worrying about competition coming into meet the need for lower prices. To raise prices all it has to do is lower production. RJII 13:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
A restatement of what a monopoly can do does not address the following: "The only way a company can be immune from market forces is if its income is independent of its market, i.e. if it can rely on government powers of taxation." Since this is the key part of Branden, Rand's and Greenspan's definition (my words, but an accurate restatement), please address it or concede the argument. Rd232 14:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
That is an argument, not a definition. Branden clearly defines coercive monopoly: "When people speak in an economic or political context, of the dangers and evils of monopoly, what they mean is a coercive monopoly—that is; exclusive control of a given field of production which is closed to and exempt from competition, so that those controlling the field are able to set arbitrary production policies and charge arbitrary prices, independent of the market, immune from the law of supply and demand. Such a monopoly, it is important to note, entails more than the absence of competition; it entails the impossibility of competition. That is a coercive monopoly’s characteristic attribute-and is essential to any condemnation of such a monopoly." RJII 14:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe this quote from Rand will help in understanding: "The alleged purpose of the Antitrust laws was to protect competition; that purpose was based on the socialistic fallacy that a free, unregulated market will inevitably lead to the establishment of coercive monopolies." As you can see, she does not define a coercive monopoly as being government-granted. It's merely the opinion of these individuals that a coercive monopoly is only possible through government intervention. Others would disagree. RJII 18:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Source? Context? (I can imagine "inevitably lead" could include the creation of government monopolies due to the negative social effects of an unconstrained free market.) Explanation over Branden, who clearly says the opposite of the above contextless quote? Rd232 18:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Are you accusing Rand of being a mainstream economist? Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Rand is extremely mainstream. RJII 18:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
POV, and IMHO, wrong. Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

"Some reject this definition, and define a coercive monopoly as one caused by government intervention." Got a source for this? RJII 18:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You gave the sources. Whether or not you understand them, is another matter. Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
You've misread Greenspan. Greenspan defines coercive monopoly as : "a business concern that can set its prices and production policies independent of the market, with immunity from competition, from the law of supply and demand." Then he goes on to opine that this can only be accomplished through government intervention. That assertion of how he believes a coercive monopoly comes about is not his definition of coercive monopoly. RJII 18:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
(Last comment for a few hours.) You've misread Greenspan. However, Younkins is quite clear that he defines coercive monopoly as one caused by government or quasi-government action. Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
You're making the same mistake I and others made when writing this article. A coercive monopoly doesn't necessarily have to engage in coercion. The confusion is understandable. RJII 19:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
"A coercive monopoly doesn't necessarily have to engage in coercion." - If you're going to make statements as gnomic as that, please explain them. Rd232 23:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, coercion is the initiation of force against others. Just because a firm has the ability to set prices in isolation from market forces doesn't mean it's engaging in coercion. Maybe some see price-gouging that would take place in such a situation as coercion. RJII 00:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
"Maybe some see...", "plenty of individuals who", "It seems common sense". This looks increasingly desperate. Rd232 07:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm just speculating on why it's called a coercive monopoly. Your guess is as good as mine. Don't expect me to have all the answers. I probably would have named it "anti-competitive monopoly." RJII 14:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Younkins says that "a coercive monopoly cannot be established in a free economy..." He's not defining but arguing, since others argue that a coercive monopoly (others who, by the way, do not use the term "coercive monopoly" but use the term "natural monopoly" for example) is possible in an unregulated economy. RJII 19:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
"others ... who ... do not use the term 'coercive monopoly' but use the term 'natural monopoly' for example [argue that a coercive monopoly] is possible in an unregulated economy." I wish I could remember the HTML for that really annoying thing that makes glowing yellow ants appear around text. As it is, I'll make do with bold. Rd232 23:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone accidentally removed the NPOV template from the article, so I've restored it. I do hope that when people cool off they can find a way to discuss their edits and reach some consesus. I'll be back to check on that, and help if I can, probably Sunday. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIVIL

I think I'm going to hold off on further comments for a few hours. I'm not sure I can say anything more without violating WP:CIVIL, but RJII has already gone over the line by referring to Rd232 as R2d2. Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. The definition of coercive monopoly cannot be understood in such an emotional state. RJII 18:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrote intro

I rewrote the intro to accord with the common definition. I was wrong about the previous definition, and I hope others, including Rd, can see that Rd's proposed definition was wrong as well. RJII 20:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Given what has been said, you really need to present (solid, concrete, externally sourced) evidence that rackets fall under the definition of "coercive monopoly". Also, I'd like you to explain how renaming the section of monopoly types to "Artificial methods of ensuring coercive monopoly" helps address my concern that the entire section is unnecessary duplication of other articles (government monopoly, etc)? In your answer you might like to address what exactly would be a "natural method of ensuring coercive monopoly". Incidentally, whilst I'm pleased at your removal of the reference to coercive monopoly from natural monopoly, in the context of this discussion it only confuses me further as to what your position is.Rd232 22:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't care whether "rackets" is in there or not. It seems common sense though, that that would be a coercive monopoly. It's just that the firm itself would be doing what the government would be doing to protect its coercive monopoly status. RJII 00:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Given the paragraph I cited from Branden above (three sections up), I'm struggling to figure out how the following addition to the intro can be characterised as anything other than misleading about Branden's views: "Some, such as Alan Greenspan, assert that a coercive monopoly would not be possible without government intervention causing it. Some, such as Nathaniel Branden, assert that there has never been a coercive monopoly that has existed without being maintained by government intervention." (Article version, for context.) Branden clearly said "There is only one way to forbid entry into a given field of production: by law." Rd232 22:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Branden is not defining coercive monopoly there. He is stating his thesis that he's arguing --that a coercive monopoly can only come about through government intervention. Think about it. What would be the point of these people trying to drive the point that coercive monopoly can only come about through government intervention if it was not theoretically possible for it occur without it. It's argumentation. What a coercive monopoly *is* and how it may come about are two different things. Branden, Rand, Greenspan, and several others, are essentially arguing against the idea of natural monopoly --that idea that a meaningful monopoly can arise naturally --without artificial means (government intervention). RJII 23:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Branden, Rand, Greenspan, and several others, are essentially arguing against the idea of natural monopoly --that idea that a meaningful monopoly can arise naturally --without artificial means (government intervention). No, they are not arguing against the idea of natural monopoly, that's your speciality. And if they did argue that a "meaningful monopoly" can only arise through government intervention (they do not, at least not in the sections cited, where they merely argue that government monopoly is bad), how would that help you in your claim that coercive monopoly is not just a synonym for government monopoly? Rd232 07:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Greenspan says that a coercive monopoly can arise due to subsidization doesn't he? That's not a goverment monopoly. I can't believe you're still not grasping this stuff. I saw the information, saw my error, quickly comprehended the new information, and adjusted the article. You're still in a fog. RJII 13:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Your stubbornness has yet to outweigh my patience, but keep trying. "Without government assistance, it is impossible for a would-be monopolist to set and maintain his prices and production policies independent of the rest of the economy." (Greenspan, again) A monopoly achieved in the way you suggest (subsidy alone) is a government monopoly. Rd232 14:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
No, a coercive monopoly maintained by subsidies is not a government monopoly and it's not a government-granted monopoly. These forbid competition by law. A private company that is a coercive monopoly due to subsidization isn't being protected by a law against competition. It's protected by subsidization. And, it's most likely not being protected from competition intentionally, but such immunity is merely a side-effect of subsidization. These doesnt fall under the definition of government monopoly or government-granted monopoly. Again, you have to see that these are opinions on how coercive monopolies arise, rather than definitions of coercive monopoly. RJII 14:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
a "monopoly maintained by [government] subsidies is not a government monopoly". I wish I had an answer to such brazen sophistry; but at least the revelation that black=white will come in handy at chess. Rd232 14:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
A "government monopoly" is protect by law against competition. A government-granted monopoly is protected by law against competition. A monopoly that exists due to government subsidies, rather than a law against competition, does not fall under the definition of government monopoly nor government-granted monopoly. Understand? RJII 14:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Branden, like Greenspan, got his ideas on this from Rand (actually I can't say that with certainty --it could be the other way around. Greenspan worked with Rand ..the ideas could have been developed mutually). This quote from Rand shows that she doesn't define coercive monopoly as government-granted monopoly. Rather, she argues, that it can only come about through government intervention: "The alleged purpose of the Antitrust laws was to protect competition; that purpose was based on the socialistic fallacy that a free, unregulated market will inevitably lead to the establishment of coercive monopolies. But, in fact, no coercive monopoly has ever been or ever can be established by means of free trade on a free market. Every coercive monopoly was created by government intervention into the economy: by special privileges, such as franchises or subsidies, which closed the entry of competitors into a given field, by legislative action...The Antitrust laws were the classic example of a moral inversion prevalent in the history: an example of the victims, the businessmen, taking the blame for the evils caused by government, and the government using its own guilt as a justification for acquiring wider powers, on the pretext of "correcting" the evils." RJII 23:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
More Rand: "Every coercive monopoly was created by government intervention into the economy: by special privileges, such as franchises or subsidies, which closed the entry of competitors into a given field, by legislative action." Isn't it obvious here that she is not defining coercive monopoly but putting forth an argumentative thesis? RJII 01:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
"no coercive monopoly has ever been or ever can be established by means of free trade on a free market." clearly arises from her definition of coercive monopoly, which is clearly the same as Branden's and Greenspan's. (Thank you for confirming that.) Rd232 07:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
If you can't see the difference between a definition and an argument I don't know what to tell you. I'm becoming quickly convinced that this level of conceptualization is over your head. RJII 13:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I reworked the rest of the article to accord with the corrected definition. One paragraph was too far out of whack to be salvagable so I had to delete it. RJII 02:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Leaving aside the issue of just who's having trouble grasping what, would you please, in addition to other questions addressed to you on this page, explain why your assertion that three respectable individuals thoughts on coercive monopoly should be overridden by nothing other than your views? I have already shown that what you term the "argument" of how coercive monopoly arises flows directly from its definition. It is not an independent assertion. Rd232 14:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
But it is an independent assertion. The clearly define their terms, then move on to argumentation. Greenspan: "A coercive monopoly is a business concern that can set its prices and production policies independent of the market, with immunity from competition, from the law of supply and demand." These laissez-faire advocates are trying to show that contrary to popular believe, such a monopoly cannot result from a lack of regulation, but because of regulation. It's an argument. RJII 14:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not an expert but I am pretty impartial to the arguement and I'm inclined to support RJII. Maybe an analogy will support me. Aluminium could be defined as 'a light alloy of atomic weight x, that has this, that, and the other properties'. The fact that it is obtained by refining bauxite is true but doesn't enter the definition of what aluminium actually is. The same would seem to be the case here - coercive monopolies may (or may not) only arise through government action but that doesn't define what coercive monopolies are. Slinky Puppet 14:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pitching in. (I'm going to assume that the voice that wonders, given your username, number of contributions, similar line of thought and similar type of spelling mistake as RJII makes, whether you're a sock puppet, is wrong.) The aluminium is simply a bad analogy, IMHO. For one thing, aluminium is not a theoretical concept - definitional issues do not arise in the same way. For another, it is quite easy to conceive of raw materials from which aluminium can be derived which are not bauxite; some of these exist in nature (eg alunite) and others do not. However, it is not possible to conceive of a monopoly which is "immune from competition" without government support. Therefore, if you define a coercive monopoly as one that is "immune from competition", then it is an intrinsic part of the concept that it involves government support, not some incidental addition resting on empirical evidence. If you take the time to read Branden [2], this is very clear. Rd232 16:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
That's exactly the point that Branden is trying to make --that it's hard to imagine a persistent situation where there is no competition without government intervention causing that situation. But, he's not defining it as a government-enforced monopoly. In fact, he says that when people use the term "monopoly" they actually mean "coercive monopoly" --that is, it's not a new concept, but a term to label to dilineate a situation where there is not a real possibility of competition, from a situation where competition is possible. He says "When "people speak in an economic or political context, of the dangers and evils of monopoly, what they mean is a coercive monopoly." For example, most people think that Microsoft had a coercive monopoly. Most of them may not use the term "coercive monopoly" but they think they were anti-competitive --they set up a situation where competition was not possible. The thesis of the laissez-fair advocates would be that competition with Microsoft was indeed possible. And, that it makes no sense to say competition was not possible since, in their opinion, governmental coercion was not being used. RJII 17:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
By the way, you're correct to assume that "SlinkyPuppet" is not me in disguise. RJII 17:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
(returning to the left)

'similar line of thought' - I'm agreeing. My line of thought would be similar.
'similar type of spelling mistake' - I'm very sorry for spelling argument as arguement.
'number of contributions' - I have been a 'lurker' for sometime but I do not edit for the sake of it and I don't pitch in all over the place without thinking first. I've spent a lot of time trying to understand the guidelines and NPOV so that my contributions may be more useful and I'm currently writing some articles off-line. However, I will not contribute further to this topic. I was only trying to help and to be accused of not being myself after a single post, simply because I didn't support you in this one area, is hurtful and unnecessary. If my argument is weak then refute it with reasoning. If you wish to drive people away from wikipedia you are going about it the right way. Slinky Puppet 09:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry if you're offended; I listed the four things (three you mention above plus your username) to point out why the thought crossed my mind (they were not intended to be criticisms). I did say (albeit in a convoluted way) that I was assuming this was not the case, and then responded on that basis. Again, sorry - no-one's trying to drive any constructive contributors away. You're probably better off not responding to this topic any further anyway; it's kind of a black pit of timewasting and unconstructive argument. Good luck with the articles you're writing. Rd232 10:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your contribution. You just pointed out that you can see the difference between defining a coercive monopoly and arguing how it can come about. Rd232 here has shielded himself from the light of reason, and yes, his accusal of you as a "sock puppet" is contemptible and characteristic of my experiences with him on Wikipedia. RJII 22:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I point out only for others (RJII never listens to a word I say) - I did not "accuse" SlinkyPuppet of being a sock puppet: I mentioned the possibility in an aside (with reasons), then proceeded on the basis that he was not. When he was offended by that aside, I apologised here and on his userpage. There's much I could say about RJII's behaviour, but I think it speaks for itself. Rd232 08:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
OK. Sorry - I overreacted a little there. It's probably best if we all just wipe the slate clean and start again :)<\br> Given the attention this page seems to have received over the last day or so this is probably superfluous - but I thought I would add it anyway. I think that the "Rd232 definition" may be a logical fallacy of the form Argument from ignorance. The fact that the experts have not found an example of a non-governmental coercive monopoly (yet), or can not conceive of such a situation, does not prove that such a situation can not occur. The article should certainly point out that all analysis to date strongly suggests that coercive monopolies need governments but I don't think it should be in the definition. Slinky Puppet 13:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, we started off on the wrong foot, so let's wipe the slate clean and write constructive things on it. :) To avoid complicating the discussion flow further, I started a new section. Rd232 16:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
You're on the right theoretical track. But, "experts" have at various times in history have found examples of coercive monopoly that were not caused by government intervention. Alcoa was one; Microsoft is a recent one [3] They break these up with anti-trust. At least they allege that they're coercive monopolies. Whether they're truly are coercive monopolies is where the POV comes in. RJII 06:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft

Here is a reference to Microsoft as a coercive monopoly: "Raymond suggests Microsoft is covering its tracks in lieu of "a fast exit out of the packaged-software business, a lock on your critical data and network services, and an indefinite extension of the coercive monopoly position." [4]

From the same guy: "The thing a lot of people somehow missed is that the courts affirmed the findings of fact – that Microsoft is indeed a coercive monopoly," [5] RJII 02:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, United States v. Microsoft. I see you added your coercive monopoly idea to that article too (diff). Rd232 07:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
So essentially you're relying on Eric S. Raymond's characterisation of Microsoft (and of Jackson's findings against it). No disrespect to Raymond, but excuse me for suggesting that given his views, this characterisation is not a credible source for defining what a "coercive monopoly" is. Rd232 07:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I just looked him up. Apparently he is a notable individual. His opinion that MSFT is a coercive monopoly is therefore notable. Besides, all he's dong is relaying the Judge's findings. Judge Jackson found that they were a coercive monopoly. RJII 19:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
You know he's notable from the fact that he has a Wikipedia article, which I wikilinked above for you. He is strongly anti-Microsoft, which is why I discount his description of it from this debate. It's like saying "does 2+2=4"? I know someone who says it's 5! And they're famous, so this is an opinion that should be taken into account! Rd232 19:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, from an external link in United States v. Microsoft: "Newsweek manipulatively lumps Microsoft, a dominant free-market company, with government-backed monopolies, such as the Bromkonvention, a German chemical cartel of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, that used government's legalized monopoly on coercion to forcibly dictate prices and obstruct competitors from entering their market."[6] Rd232 07:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't believe you don't understand why I provided a quote about Microsoft. My position is not that Microsoft is or was a coercive monopoly. I was simply showing that some think it is. Some think it's not. Judge Jackson apparently thought it was, hence his order for a remedy. My point was to show that a private entity can, theoretically, be a coercive monopoly --if it constructs "barriers of entry" that exclude the possibility of competition. Now there are those who will disagree that it was a coercive monopoly, such as Kudlow (as we see in the attached article), and I think we both know that Greenspan and Rand would disagree as well. But they're not disagreeing because there is no government intervention, they're disagreeing because they think there is the possibility of competition. Their position is that government intervention is the only way to establish a coercive monopoly is not a defintion of coercive monopoly --it's their opinion of how a coercive monopoly is established. Again, what a coercive monopoly *is* and how it may be established are two different issues. All these people provide a clear definition of coercive monopoly, but you want to attach their arguments that government-intervention is responsible to the definition. Not only is it a misunderstanding on your part, it would be POV to assert that in the article. RJII 13:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
The point about Microsoft is that you're relying on Raymond for the characterisation as "coercive monopoly", who've I argued is not a credible source in this theoretical debate. The rest of what you say is refuted by discussion we've already had; I will refrain from repeating myself. (And I say refuted, not rejected.) Rd232 14:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I didn't provide Raymond as a source inasmuch as just a tool for you to grasp what is meant by coercive monopoly. It just means a firm that enjoys immunity from competition, however that immunity is established. By the way, the quote above you provided indicates that the writer belives that Newsweek thinks Microsoft was a coercive monopoly. RJII 14:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
The term "coercive monopoly" does not appear in the article. Rd232 14:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
"I didn't provide Raymond as a source inasmuch as just a tool for you to grasp what is meant by coercive monopoly." If this makes some sense that rises above its internal contradiction, I'm not aware of it. Rd232 14:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
One doesn't have to call Microsoft a coercive monopoly to believe it a coercive monopoly. If you think Microsoft was able to eliminate the possibility of competititon, then you think Microsoft was a coercive monopoly. RJII 14:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
If you could explain how any private company could ever "eliminate the possibility of competition" without government backing, that would be helpful. Rd232 17:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
It would be helpful to me as well. Maybe you could look at Judge Jackson's explanation. RJII 17:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, it's not difficult to find sources that claim Microsoft engaged in "coercion" to prevent competition. If Microsoft was a monopoly and engaged in coercion, then it would literally be a "coercive monopoly." The argument from the laissez-faire side is that Microsoft did not engage in coercion --there was still the opportunity for competition. RJII 18:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
For example from the Proposed Finding of Fact from the case: "Microsoft's coercion of Apple to agree to exclusionary restrictions lacks justification." [7]
Oh for the love of God. Microsoft is not a monopoly. Therefore it is not a coercive monopoly. Rd232 19:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not arguing that MSFT is a monopoly. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. The fact is, however, that many do believe MSFT was a monopoly. Those "many" include MSFT's competitors and Judge Penfield Jackson. RJII 19:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Let's get back to the theory at issue. It is a theoretical term. (Or if you wish to persist, provide sources as to MS being a "coercive monopoly", other than Raymond whose value as a source we disagree about.) Rd232 22:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Summarising the issue

In an effort to avoid this getting completely bogged down, and make it feasible for others to see what's going on, let's try and recap.

  1. Definition. The key phrase in the usual definitions identified in the discussion (Branden, Rand, Greenspan) is that a coercive monopoly is "independent of the market, immune from the law of supply and demand.". A normal monopoly has a substantial degree of market power - depending on the scale and scope of its monopoly - but is far from "immune" to supply and demand. The only thing that can allow a firm to be "immune" to supply and demand is to have a source of income independent of the market it supplies. This implies government support, through taxation, or through guaranteeing there will be no competition. This is a conclusion that follows from the definition. (Any counterclaim that does not include a specfic counterexample for how a firm can be "immune" to supply and demand without government backing is worthless. I say this because totally vague and unsupported assertions have been made on this crucial point several times.) Rd232 21:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Usage. Some people of a certain political perspective describe the above as "coercive monopoly", because of their emphasis on the fact that every act of government is ultimately backed up by a threat of coercion in the case of sufficient non-compliance with the state. The motivation for the term is essentially political (if not polemical), since otherwise "government monopoly" and related, more familiar terms are perfectly sufficient. The reason for describing government monopolies as "coercive monopolies" is to assist in the argument that such monopolies should not be allowed to persist; Branden's polemic (it is that) makes this quite clear.[8] Rd232 21:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Pure coercion. RJII asserts that rackets and the like - monopolies based on violence - are also coercive monopolies. This usage is conceivable but not backed up by any external sources (despite repeated requests). Furthermore it is clearly excluded from the standard definition. Rd232 21:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Other types of coercion. An even looser sense of coercion, yet further from the definition of "coercive monopoly" as a theoretical construct as discussed here, is a looser usage of "coercive monopoly power". This has no clear meaning (there is a wide range of possibilities around the idea of monopoly power and ethics, mostly overlapping with standard monopoly theory), but has popped up in relation to Microsoft. This usage is a red herring; if it were sufficiently attested (which for my money it is not), it would be worth a footnote ("some people also sometimes use ... in a loose sense to mean..."). Rd232 21:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

RJII has, in this version of the article, ended up in a complete mess, with a definition of coercive monopoly that is essentially the same as "monopoly". There are two quotes from his comments which I bolded, in which he demonstrates a clear confusion between natural monopoly and coercive monopoly. One he ignored, the other he went off on a tangent about subsidies and getting his knickers in a complete twist over the definition of government monopoly. He wrote at one point above, rather truthfully, "I'm just speculating on why it's called a coercive monopoly.". We do not need to speculate - we have a clear definition. I remain of the position that this version of mine sums up everything that needs to be said in the article. Rd232 21:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the addition of government subsidies as possible government support of a (coercive) monopoly, and it should be mentioned in one of the articles on monopolies. However, I do not see any support of this (third; fourth; ?) definition of coercive monopoly in the quoted articles. There was some support for RJII's previous definition. Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean by RJII's previous definition? The original version I came in on talked about rackets (without sourcing of any kind) - this is the reason I mention 3. The origin of 4. is RJII's various comments on Microsoft and elsewhere. I support neither of those, not without further sourcing. Rd232 22:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I think this needs, at the least, a disambiguation between Rd232's definition and RJII's, and at the most, a short set of definitions with pointers to the other monopoly articles. Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
RJII's definition, insofar as it differs from 1. above, has no sourcing. 4. might be sourceable, in which case it could be distinguished in a usage footnote as I said; I very much doubt there is anything precise enough obtainable on that subject to be called a definition. Rd232 22:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Re: Definition: you claim in several places that the definition of "coercive monopoly" requires government intervention to be involved. But (1) this is not part of the definition you mention above; (2) it is only established by some further argument about possible sources of effective prohibitions on market entry. Now, I think that you are clearly right that the sense of the word prohibition being used is essentially concerned with force: so RJII is very much mistaken to think that when people loosely use the term "coercive practices" to describe what they consider to be shady dealings on Microsoft's part (for example) they are not using the notions of "prohibition" or "coercive" (or, probably, "monopoly" for that matter) in the same sense that this article discusses. The article should not be rewritten to accomodate such usages, since (1) they usually don't coalesce into the term "coercive monopoly" and (2) it's not clear that there is any coherent economic definition underlying them. (A short note about these usages it may be appropriate.) But I think that you are clearly wrong to claim that this means that "government intervention" is part of the meaning of "coercive monopoly"; Branden, Rand, et al. are making a substantive empirical claim about possible sources of the prohibition, and whether you think they are right or wrong the answer is not settled by definition.
Re: Pure coercion: you're right that it's much more common for "coercive monopoly" to be used in describing the practices of government. Since I don't have access at the moment to academic fulltext databases, I'm stuck with what I can get on Google; but for what it's worth, here's an example of the usage that I found through a couple of minutes on Google. (Caveat: this is a political scientist, citing a criminologist; so if you want a citation from someone in economics I'll have to dig more.) Emphasis is mine:
Although the challenge backfired and led to more strenuous efforts by the government--acting under public pressure--to confront the Mafia, the events in Italy illustrated the vulnerability of even advanced industrialised states to the challenges posed by powerful TCOs. Moreover, these challenges to state authority may be unavoidable. As one eminent criminologist has noted,
each crime network attempts to build a coercive monopoly and to implement that system of control through at least two other criminal activities--corruption of public and private officials, and violent terrorism in order to enforce its discipline.33
TCOs, therefore, by their very nature undermine civil society, destabilise domestic politics and undercut the rule of law.
...
33 R. J. Kelly, "Criminal Underworlds: Looking Down on Society from Below" in R. J. Kelly (ed.), Organised Crime: A Global Perspective (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1986), pp. 10–31.
— from Phil Williams (1994): Transnational Criminal Organizations and International Security. Survival, Vol. 36, No. 1, Spring 1994, pp. 96–113. Oxford University Press. Reprinted in In Athena's Camp: Preparing for Conflict in the Information Age, 1997, RAND Corporation. (No relation to Ms. Rosenbaum.)
Hope this helps. —Radgeek 20:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
That may be a useful source for writing something in the article about the political sense of a coercive monopoly (monopoly on the use of coercion). It is the essence of mafia that they challenge the government's coercive monopoly and try to replace it with their own. This reminds me vaguely of what Mancur Olson said about stationary bandits and the origin of government. Rd232 22:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Better summary of the issue

The issue is the definition of coercive monopoly. I offer the following quoted definitions:

Nathaniel Branden: "When people speak in an economic or political context, of the dangers and evils of monopoly, what they mean is a coercive monopoly—that is; exclusive control of a given field of production which is closed to and exempt from competition, so that those controlling the field are able to set arbitrary production policies and charge arbitrary prices, independent of the market, immune from the law of supply and demand. Such a monopoly, it is important to note, entails more than the absence of competition; it entails the impossibility of competition. That is a coercive monopoly’s characteristic attribute-and is essential to any condemnation of such a monopoly." RJII 04:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Branden notes here that coercive monopoly does not label a new or obscure concept. He says that what "coercive monopoly" refers to is what people normally are referring to when they speak critically of monopolies. They are referring to a firm that has "exclusive control of a given field of production which is closed to and exempt from competition..." And, he goes on to mention that when they are exempt from competition they are free to set prices "immune from the law of supply and demand." What is meant by this, in context, is that since there are no competitors to deal with, they are the sole determiners of supply, and, the consumer either has to take that price or go without --there are no alternatives for the consumer. Again, as Branden points out, the term "coercive monopoly" is just another word for "monopoly" in the way people normally conceive of the term. RJII 04:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Here's the right end of the stick: "When people speak in an economic or political context, of the dangers and evils of monopoly, what they mean is a coercive monopoly". Rd232 16:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Exactly, a coercive monopoly is what people have in mind when they want anti-trust to get involved. RJII 18:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Alan Greenspan: "A "coercive monopoly" is a business concern that can set its prices and production policies independent of the market, with immunity from competition, from the law of supply and demand. An economy dominated by such monopolies would be rigid and stagnant. The necessary precondition of a coercive monopoly is closed entry -- the barring of all competing producers from a given field." RJII 04:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Greenspan says essentially the same thing. A coercive monopoly occurs when a firm is safe from competition. After the definition, like Branden, he goes on to state what he believes is the only way for a coercive monopoly to occur -government intervention. And, he doesn't limit this to coercive intervention but says subsidies are also responsible: "This can be accomplished only by an act of government intervention, in the form of special regulations, subsidies, or franchises." RJII 04:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, different forms of government authority can be used to create monopolies. All monopolies created by government are government monopolies. There is no other way for a monopoly to be immune from competition other than by government fiat. Rd232 16:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Your POV. Don't assert your and Ayn Rand's POV as if it's the indisputable truth. RJII 18:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It's important to distinguish the difference between definiting coercive monopoly and asserting how it can come about. Branden and Greenspan define coercive monopoly, but the go on to assert what they think to be the only way a coercive monopoly can come about --government intervention. But government intervention is not part of the definition. It's an argument of how a coercive monopoly comes about. If a firm has exclusive control of a given field of production which is closed to and exempt from competition," it is a coercive monopoly regardless of how that came about or how it is maintained. There are individuals that assert that Microsoft, for example, was a coercive monopoly. The Judge in the case even asserted that Microsoft engaged in coercion to maintain a monopoly position. Now, you may ask why would someone use the term "coercive monopoly" if it referred to what people are already referring to when people speak critically of monopoly. The reason why these people go on about "coercive monopoly" is because there is a kind of monopoly they don't oppose --a "non-coercive monopoly." They have no problem with a firm that is the sole producer of a good or service in an environment without competition, as long as competition is possible --as long as competition is not being prevented by government intervention. On the other hand, most people condemn "monopoly" period. RJII 04:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Government intervention is implicit in the definition, because there is no other way for the defined entity to exist. Rd232 16:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
That's your POV. Others think that a coercive monopoly can indeed come to be in an unregulated economy. Hence they favor anti-trust laws. RJII 18:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

From the above, hopefully you can see that a coercive monopoly is simply a situation where a firm is the exclusive provider of a particular kind of good or service and is safe from competition due to barriers to entry. The advocates of laissez-faire argue the the only cause of barriers to entry is government intervention. Interventionists, such as those who launched a lawsuit against Microsoft, believe that contracts it engaged in were barriers to entry, and "coercive." Hence, the term "coercive" in coercive monopoly does not necessarily refer to literal coercion. As evidence to this, note that Greenspan holds that subsidies can cause coercive monopoly. Finally, witness this quote from Ayn Rand: "Every coercive monopoly was created by government intervention into the economy: by special privileges, such as franchises or subsidies, which closed the entry of competitors into a given field, by legislative action." Anyone with sense can see that she not defining coercive monopoly but making a claim of how she believes is the only way one may come about. Like Greenspan's assertion (his essay on this appears in Rand's book Capitalism the Unknown Ideal), Rand is clearly making an argumentative claim, not citing a definition. One can easily see that the statement is a response to claims that coercive monopolies can arise in an unregulated economy. In conclusion, for the definition in this article to be NPOV, it must not define coercive monopoly as resulting from government intervention, lest we bias the article in favor of the laissez-faire school of thought. Even the laissez-fair school does not define coercive monopoly in such a way, but makes a claim in regard to the origin of a coercive monopoly. RJII 00:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence describes any kind of monopoly, not a coercive monopoly in particular. It goes downhill from there.Rd232 16:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
It describes the kind of monopoly people have in mind when they speak of "the dangers and evils of monopoly" --the kind they want broken up. In other words, that's the definition of a coercive monopoly. RJII 18:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

If I ever write something as incoherent and irrelevant as the above, please shoot me. I'm sorry, I simply cannot reply to such nonsense, which so ignores everything that I have carefully laid out, without spattering it liberally with a great deal of insult. I will try again later. And the cheek to head a pointless re-assertion of your confused and self-contradictory position on one nitpicking aspect you've created out of thin air (that irrelevant dichotomy between definition and assertion) as "Better summary of the issue"! After all the effort I have put into trying to debate reasonably with you, I am literally trembling with anger here. Rd232 06:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Pity you. RJII 13:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
And, let me point out to everyone that the above user "Rd232" tried to have this article deleted through a vote and was unsuccessful. He has no authentic interest in the quality of this article. His whole intent is to get rid of it, and since he hasn't been able to do that so far, he obviously wants to minimize it to irrelevance. He won't be successful. RJII 13:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I put it up for deletion on the strength of the article and the information I could find. The AfD produced some additional information, which with subsequent discussion shows that it does deserve a short entry. I changed my mind based on evidence - you might try it some time. I developed said short entry based on the available information, and ever since RJII has waffled contradictorily around the subject without adducing additional evidence to support his views. As for "minimizing to irrelevance", this is absurd. An entry that is short and to the point is far better than one that is long, vague, and fully of unsourced personal opinion around related topics. Rd232 16:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
You came to admit in your vote for deletion that you hadn't even read the article. If that's not the sign of an incompetent and irresponsible Wikipedian, I don't know what is. This topic of "coercive monopoly" is fresh to you and you're flabbergasted by it, but that's no reason to wipe out the whole article and replace it with a few quotes. Obviously, you act without thinking and reading. RJII 18:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Since you will go on about this, I'll clarify. I had read the intro, skimmed the middle bit (lokked like irrelevant and confused guff) and looked at the external links, and skimmed those. I even Googled a bit. I saw nothing to change my opinion that the article was a neologism, and nominated it for AfD. At some point I took the time to read the guff properly, and I found it so bad that I made the remark you refer to ("I hadn't read the article"), because it makes up the bulk of the article. It was an unfortunate phrase, but there's no to repeatedly belabour the point. And oh yes, the AfD produced the Branden source, which is still the best we have on the economic concept of coercive monopoly - so it was hardly a waste of time. You might actually say it's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. (But then you've been here long enough that you should know this.) While we're on the subject, you've also been here long enough to know better than to accuse of me vandalism (in an edit summary) and of bad faith (repeatedly, here and elsewhere). Rd232 22:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable published sources

Part of the problem with the POV in this article is that it stems from sources which are not reliable within the context of this article. For example, I have enormous respect for Ayn Rand (she wrote one of my all-time favorite novels), but she's not an economist. Neither is Nathaniel Branden. I often agree with both of them, but remarks from either of them do not constitute a reliable published source for purposes of this article. They aren't experts in the field, and, for the purposes of Wikipedia, their opinions carry no more weight than yours or mine. If editors of this article would stick to the verified statements of economists in reliable published sources, the bulk of the POV dispute would evaporate.
Alternately, if you want to focus on philosophy rather than on economics (as it appears some editors do), then make that explicit. Rd232's version does, and supports its statements with citations, so I am reverting to that. Let's start there, have a verified source for every new statement, and make sure that every new statement is relevant to this article (a great deal of what people have added previously is, at best, only tangentially relevant). -- BBlackmoor (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverted back with couple sources linked in the intro, if that's what you like. Deleting a whole article and replacing it with a few quotes is not the way to edit an article. Also, there is no requirement that everything in an article is sourced. It's only necessary that certain things be sourceable, that is, if a source is requested for a statement then it should be obtainable. In addition I'd like to point out the POV statement in the dumbed-down version to which you reverted: "As Branden makes clear, "In the whole history of capitalism, no one has been able to establish a coercive monopoly by means of competition on a free market. There is only one way to forbid entry into a given field of production: by law." Branden's statement that a coercive monopoly can only happen by government intervention is his opinion. Others disagree, for example, the claim that Microsoft was/is a coercive monopoly. It's fine to cite his opinion, but to precede it with something like "As Branden makes clear" is highly POV in favor of the Objectivists and other laissez-faire advocates. RJII 15:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
LOL. I think that's first time I've been accused (implied in last sentence) of being biased towards laissez-faire. Rd232 16:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I think the philosophical arguments should be removed entirely. But Rd232's version, at least, makes the disrtinction between the opinions of economists and the opinions of philosophers. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Good point, I addressed that, by noting the economists and the philosopher (though Greenspan and Branden and Rand's points are pretty much identical).
No, you've simply reverted to "your" version again. Look, RJ: your perspective on this is clearly disputed. It does no one any good for you to keep dumping more and more of your POV into the article. It's counterproductive. For the article to be NPOV, various points of view need to be balanced, and that isn't gojng to happen this century at the rate you are going. Stake a step back, start with a simple, concise definition that everyone can basically agree on, and work from there. You don't like Rd232's definition? Fine: suggest a simple, concise alternative. Then, when you have consensus on that first paragraph or two, move on to the next section. Discuss each new section here, on the Talk page, and then when you have a reasonable consensus, post it to the article. Baby steps. Continually reverting the article to "your" version doesn't accomplish anything: it simply wastes everyone's time (including yours) and forestalls any real discussion. If you want to demonstrate good faith, stop re-posting your disputed version, and reach consensus on your edits before you add them. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed - I have refrained from editing the article throughout this debate in the hope of reaching some agreement through reasoned debate; otherwise there would have been a pointless edit war. Rd232 16:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I've just about giving up debating with you, as it's clear that you have no interest in the quality of this article. You inititially tried to delete the article. I've provided very cogent explanations on why you're understanding is really screwed up. You are not editing or arguing in good faith. RJII 16:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
What POV is it you purpor that I have? I'm the only one providing the view of both sides in the article. "You don't like Rd232's definition? Fine: suggest a simple, concise alternative." That's exactly what I've done, and put it in the article. What you and Rd232 are doing is tantamount to vandalism. The way to edit an article is not to wipe it clean. I will continue reverting this article. RJII 16:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, if that's your intention, there's certainly nothing I can do to stop you, but if you do persist in reverting the article without coming to a consensus on what you add, Wikipedia does have mechanisms to deal with that. However, it's a huge hassle, so I'd rather not go that route. Will you please reconsider your intention to keep re-adding your POV without reaching consensus on it? -- BBlackmoor (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
What a hypocritical statement. You're also reverting the article without a consensus. There is a lack of consensus either way, in case you haven't noticed. You are reverting the article without a consensus. The longer article was there for many months. Rd232 just created his dumbed down two paragraph version a few days ago. You and Rd232 are in the wrong here. RJII 17:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
The point is that my short version focusses on the essence. If we start from that and we can maybe pin that down, and then add back whatever material is necessary. (This is exactly what Bblackmoor suggested earlier.) Note that length is not a virtue in an article, information is - and there was a lot of material which was only tangentially relevant, and/or unsourced. Nor is the length of time that a poor state of affairs has persisted an argument for failing to improve it. Rd232 17:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
That is tantamount to vandalism. It's not proper to wipe out a substantial article and start from scratch. If you think certain sentences are wrong, go through it line by line and edit. RJII 17:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
It's not proper to repeatedly post an essay on which there clearly is no consensus. Whether you want to contribute to this article or not is up to you, but you aren't going to be permitted to use it as a venue for your original research. That's against Wikipedia policy, and in a case like this where there are people right here asking you to stop doing it, it simply isn't very polite. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
You are deleting 3/4 of the article without consensus. Cut your "consensus" crap. RJII 17:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

On the subject of published sources, if you look at Google Scholar, most use "coercive monopoly" in an entirely different sense, referring to the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of force (coercion) as a "coercive monopoly". A point I made in the AfD debate, AFAIR, but forgot about. Use of "coercive monopoly" in peer-reviewed publications is single-figures, and all are in this sense (which was what led to the AfD nomination in the first place, before finding Branden and Greenspan refs). Rd232 16:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. Perhaps what this article really ought to be is a disambuguation page, which points to:
What do folks think about that? -- BBlackmoor (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that's going in the right direction. The trouble is disambiguation pages don't normally have the type/quantity of usage information I think is essential. How about making coercive monopoly a disambig between coercive monopoly (economics) and the political meaning. The latter entry would point to Weber's Thesis if there's nothing more appropriate, with a short sentence on the disambig page noting the politics meaning (which I think is fairly uncontroversial so doesn't need sourcing etc). coercive monopoly (economics) would be a short definition of the term - including the links to government-granted monopoly etc which are already there, perhaps made more prominent - based on my version. (Based on - this is Wikipedia after all. :) ) Rd232 17:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
That seems reasonable, although it would be nice if RJ would change gears and actually contribute to a mutually-agreebale concise definition. Lacking that, yours seems as good a place as any to start. I don't suggest taking any action, yet, of course: let's give it a few days, and see what other editors have to say. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Rd232, you still don't get it. Of course a government is a coercive monopoly. And it's meant in the same sense as it's defined by economists --an entity which is blocking out competition. Ayn Rand also refers to government as a coercive monopoly --a coercive monopoly that she supports. A government has a coercive monopoly on coercion (on law enforcement, etc). That's why a government is called a coercive monopoly --not because it's job is to coerce, but because its job of coercion is restricted from competition. RJII 17:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
See if these two sources help clarify the political meaning: [9] (PDF) and [10]. There're both reviews of Randy Barnett's book, but quite helpful. (And publically accessible!) Rd232 17:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Radical libertarians (anarcho-capitalists) frequently note that government is a coercive monopoly, becuase it doens't allow competition. They advocate replacing governmental functions of protection with private competing businesses. Again, government is a coercive monopoly because it prevents competition in the business of law and order. RJII 17:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
RJ, you need to read the Wikipedia policy on original research. Much of what you say might be true, but Wikipedia is not a venue for primary source material. Right now, you are essentially using Wikipedia to write an essay based on your opinions and experience. That's not how Wikipedia works. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I've done the research. I am not engaging in "original research." If you need sources all you need to do is ask those who have been writing this article. RJII 18:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
By the way, if you're thinking I wrote most of this article, you're wrong. It appears most of it was written by a user named "Radgeek." Maybe we can get him in here. RJII 18:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I just left a note to him and see you have as well. RJII 18:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Summarising the issue (economics only)

Recent comments by Radgeek and SlinkyPuppet are in a similar vein, and as the discussion is getting convoluted, let's try and focus on the core of the issue.

  1. SlinkyPuppet said I was using Argument from ignorance, and Radgeek implied it. Honest men can disagree, but I'm going for Reductio ad absurdum, so let me be as clear as possible. A coercive monopoly is "immune from market forces". For a company to be immune from market forces it has to be able to make production decisions independent of how much it sells; it has to be able to sustain losses indefinitely. This is absurd, inasmuch as it contradicts the very nature of a private company. In practice only government can sustain losses indefinitely, because of its powers of taxation. In theory, it is true, social institutions other than government could do the same, if they had sufficiently reliable source of income; I'm thinking of tithes here. So the point becomes: no private company can be independent of market forces, but non-market insitutions (most relevantly, government) can be. Rd232 16:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The coercive monopoly is not immune to all market forces --it's immune to competitive market forces. It can't price goods so high that no one will buy them or it will go out of business, of course; but, it can price them much higher than would be the case if there were competitors. Greenspan says "ALCOA was a monopoly -- the only producer of primary aluminum -- but it was not a coercive monopoly, i.e., it could not set its price and production policies independent of the competitive world." A coercive monopoly is perfectly imperfect competition that is ensured by any measure than can ensure that. It's the argument of laissez-faire advocates that the only way to ensure that is through government intervention. They conclude then, that antitrust laws should not exist. RJII 16:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • You say "The coercive monopoly is not immune to all market forces --it's immune to competitive market forces.", which you clarify as refering to the consumer demand for the monopoly's product/service being a market force the coercive monopoly still has to take account of. You then cite Greenspan as describing a coercive monopoly as one that can "set its price and production policies independent of the competitive world.". This directly contradicts your previous statement, since Greenspan is surely referring, with "competitive world", to consumer demand too. (What else can he be referring to? We're talking about monopoly here, and by definition there are no competitors.) Rd232 21:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
        • From this comment, I'm convinced you didn't read what I wrote. I'm honestly wondering if you've been drinking. A coercive monopoly is protected from competition. As I pointed out, it's not immune to all market forces. The only market force which it doesn't have to answer to is competition. This means it can make pricing and production decisions knowing that no matter what they are, there will be no competition to contend with. If there is a possibility of competition then a firm knows not to "price-gouge" customers, because then competion will come in offering lower prices and take their customers. A non-coercive monopoly tries to keep its prices as low (or quality high) as possible to retain its monopoly position, because competition is possible. I know you haven't read the Greenspan essay or you wouldn't be having this lack of understanding. He explains it all quite well. And, no, Greenspan is not referring to consumer demand when he speak of competition. Consumers of your products are not your competitors. RJII 01:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
          • "A coercive monopoly is protected from competition. As I pointed out, it's not immune to all market forces. The only market force which it doesn't have to answer to is competition." - is the sort of thing which leads to this discussion being so confusing - you don't use precise terms. But OK, on taking the time to read Greenspan's article [11], he's clear, and is essentially talking about contestable markets - the impact of potential competition from potential entrants on the incumbent's strategic interests in setting price (to deter entry). A coercive monopoly does not have to deter potential entrants through price, because it does so through other means - especially government authority (law/law enforcement). This brings me neatly to point 2 below (unless the formatting get's broken again, in which case it becomes a second point 1.) Rd232 09:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Now you're catching on. RJII 21:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. But this discussion about logic arises from accepting a (IMHO) false distinction between "definition" and "everything else which source authors say". It is clear from Branden, Younkins etc that the concept is intended to relate to government monopoly and applied to government monopoly. Regardless of whether government backing flows logically from the "definition", this is what the term means according to our sources. If we can't find other relevant sources which use the term differently, it would be original research to reject that meaning.Rd232 16:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Not true. The people are writing essays to argue a thesis. They're not writing essays to define "coercive monopoly." These are designed as responses to the position (probably the mainstream position) that coercive monopolies are caused by laissez-faire capitalism. Is the argumentative character not clear to you? They plainly state the definition of "coercive monopoly," then they go into arguing that what's causing them is government intervention in the economy, that is, a lack of capitalism. RJII 20:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

There are a great many points be be made here, which is why I strongly suggested starting from scratch, but if folks don't want to go that route, we can try to improve the article "live", section by section. Since we have to begin somewhere, it makes sense to begin at the beginning: the introductory paragraph where we provide a concise definition of "coercive monopoly". Here, in my opinion, is the problem which has caused most of the dispute over this article. According to the reliable, verified sources (reminder: no original research!), there are two and only two primary requirements for something to be defined as a "coercive monopoly":

  1. A monopoly must exist. The Wikipedia article on monopoly defines this, so we do not have to explain it here.
  2. Said monopoly must be created or perpetuated through the use of force or the threat of force.
This is an arguable point. As Greenspan and the others say, a coercive monopoly can be created by subsidies. That's not force. It's "government intervention." And, as some argue, situations such as Alcoa, Standard Oil, and Microsoft were coercive monopolies that were not created by government intervention, but by the lack of it. Don't you understand that what the laissez-faire advocates are doing is arguing against the other side that says laissez-faire is responsible for coercive monopoly?? RJII 20:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This is relevant to Rd232's suggested edits because it is clear that government is not the only agency which can exercise force (or the threat of it) in order to establish or maintain a monopoly. There are documented, verified examples to supoort this, such as the paragraph I added a few days ago regarding organized crime during Prohibition. Clearly, a government-granted monopoly is not the only type of coercive monopoly.

This is relevant to RJII's suggested edits because RJ has added numerous statements which, although they may or may not be true, are not supported by verified sources. For example, although there are verified sources which support the statement that Microsoft had a monopoly (such as the link to the court documents which I added a few days ago), there is no evidence that Microsoft ever used or threatened to use force in order to create or preserve that monopoly. I hate Microsoft as much as anyone else, but that is not relevant to this article. Microsoft's crimes and misdemeanors are simply not relevant: without the use or threat of force, there is no coercive monopoly.

So, where does this put us? In the context of the introductory paragraph(s), we must clearly define "coercive monopoly" as it is defined in verified sources. We must then edit the article so that the only statements which remain are relevant specifically to "coercive monopoles" and which are both NPOV and verified through reliable sources. This obviously exclusdes unverified information; it also excludes information which is common to all monopolies (price fixing, lowered quality, and so on). Personally, I would prefer to work on that improved definition here, on the Talk page, and only place it in the article after we have reached concensus. However, RJII has made it clear that he will not cooperate with that. Therefore, I am putting forth my suggested phrasing for the opening paragraphs and placing them in the article as-is. I have also added a disambiguation link, per the instructions at Wikipedia:Disambiguation (I do not feel that a full disambiguation page was needed)). I would be very happy to have anyone else modify or re-word my suggested phrasing. The only real requirements are, as always, that the information is neutral, verifiable, and does not constitute original research.

And, as always, there is the Wikipedia requirement that we are civil to each other. With that, here is my suggested phrasing. Note that I have also included links to the other (non-coercive) type of monopolies, for the assistance of the reader.

Once we have removed the unverified and POV information, and moved information common to all monopolies to the monopoly article, we can begin work on clarifying and strengthening what remains. Sound like a plan? -- BBlackmoor (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You're off the mark. A coercive monopoly is not defined as one maintained by force. It's defined as a a firm that is immune from competition. Laissez-faire advocates argue that they are the result of government intervention. Invterventionists (those who support antitrust) argue that they are the result of laissez-faire. We have explicit definitions from sources and you're just ignoring them and creating your own. Another word for that is "original research." RJII 20:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
"A coercive monopoly is not defined as one maintained by force." All of the verifiable sources I have read in the past 13 years or so, and all of the sources cited in this article (so far), explicitly define it as a monopoly created or maintained through the use or threat of force. That does not mean that this is the only definition, of course, but if you have a different definition, you will have to cite sources. The sources to which you attribite "immune from competition" definition describe what coercive monopolies do, not what makes them coercive monopolies in the first place: there is no competition because they are monopolies, and they are monopolies because of the use or threat of force, and this is what makes them "coercive monopolies". The source material makes this abundantly clear. Additionally, your connection between barriers to entry and coercive monopolies is not supported by reliable sources: there are a number of barriers to entry which have nothing whatsoever to do with coercive monopolies: economy of scale, customer loyalty, advertising, research and development, and sunk costs, among others.
Furthermore, much of what you describe as what monopolies do is not isolated to coercive monopolies -- they apply to any monopoly (price fixing, lack of competition, reduction in quality, etc.). What belongs is this article is what makes a coercive monopoly different from other types of monopolies. As for the opinions of laissez-faire advocates/opponents, that is a different issue (and much of that really belongs in the monopoly article, as well). -- BBlackmoor (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Also, I think "immunity from competition" describes specifically a government-backed monopoly, not a coercive monopoly created by illegal means. Gang wars ought to make this pretty clear: there can be competition via the use of force itself. (Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.) If force is used to continue economic competition by other means, it's fair to include competition via force, which the coercive monopolist clearly cannot be immune from. Plus, there may be an implied "legitimate" in "immunity from competition", since even legal monopolies may suffer from illegal competition. Rd232 15:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
You have not provided a source for your definition. I provided sources for mine. Your putting in the same definition that I had put in before Rd232 took it out. I initially agreed with that definition, but since Rd232 tried to delete the article, and after I read the sources I'm now aware that my definition (which is also your definition now) is wrong. You are making the same mistake I was making by tying the argument from the laissez-faire camp to the definition. It's a POV to define it that way. Again, the laissez-faire camp does not define it that way either. Greenspan, for example, defines it: "A "coercive monopoly" is a business concern that can set its prices and production policies independent of the market, with immunity from competition, from the law of supply and demand." Branden defines it basically the same way: "a coercive monopoly—that is; exclusive control of a given field of production which is closed to and exempt from competition, so that those controlling the field are able to set arbitrary production policies and charge arbitrary prices, independent of the market, immune from the law of supply and demand." These people go on to argue that coercive monopolies can only happen due to government intervention (not exclusive to coercive intervention, i.e. subsidies are given as an example). You have to realize that this argument is not their definition of coercive monopoly. These essays are not meant to define coercive monopoly, but argue against the mainstream position that coercive monopolies are the result of laissez-faire. Aside from that, about the "barriers to entry" the definition said "securely shielded from competition, due to barriers to entry" so that excludes barriers to entry that don't shield from competition. Regardless, I had deleted the mention of "barriers to entry" to avoid the confusion that you just brought up --it was not in the version which you just deleted, so it's a moot point. RJII 14:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Government subsidies are another expression of government authority, and ultimately based on the coercion underlying the ability to raise the taxes necessary to pay for them. So forget about subsidies, they don't change anything about the definition. Rd232 15:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Point by point:
  • "You have not provided a source for your definition." Yes, I did: it's right there at the end of the sentence. But just about any source that discusses coercive monopolies will do: they all define it the same way.
You pointed to sources that don't define it the way that you say that define it. That's the problem. The definitions they provide are explicit. But, you're attaching their pro-laissez fair arguments to the definnition. Defining what a coercive monopoly is and arguing what causes them are two different things. RJII 19:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "A "coercive monopoly" is a business concern that can set its prices and production policies independent of the market, with immunity from competition, from the law of supply and demand." While that is true of coercive monopolies, that is because it is true of all monopolies: that's simply a result of it being a monopoly. That is not what distinguishes a coercive monopoly from any other type. You are taking the comment out of context. You need to read the source references more closely. It's like you read somewhere that hummingbirds have wings and a beak, and so you think the definition of hummingbird is "a creature that has wings and a beak". While it's true, that's not what distinguishes it from other birds.
No, being immune from compeition is not true of all monopolies. It's only true of coercive monopolies. Non-coercive monopolies are not immune from competition ..they just happen to be the sole provider of a good or service. Read the Greenspan essay for more information. RJII 19:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Your comments about the "laissez-faire camp", and other such comments, do not belong in the opening paragraphs. It does not matter to the definition of a "coercive monopoly" whether we think a coercive monopoly is good or bad, justified or unjustified. A coercive monopoly is what it is, and that is what the opening paragraph should say, succinctly and concisely. Differing opinions on its merits belong further down in the article. That's where we can present different POVs on the subject.
I am glad that you realize that you were mistaken about "barriers to entry". Now we are beginning to move forward. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't mistaken about the "barriers to entry." It was just unecessary to say that. Your reading of the definition was mistaken. RJII 19:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that we have the Rothbard source [13], we can define a coercive monopoly in the most obvious way, and then remark on the usage. How about this:Rd232 15:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Rothbard does not define coercive monopoly there. He just describing an example of a coercive monopoly. RJII 19:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
A coercive monopoly (sometimes coerced monopoly) is a monopoly sustained by the use of coercion - force or the threat of force - to exclude potential competitors. In other forms of monopoly, potential competitors are deterred from entering the market purely by their inability to make a profit at the price levels the incumbent can sustain, either because of the incumbent's inherent cost advantage (natural monopoly) or the incumbent's strategic pricing decisions (contestable market). A coercive monopoly does not have to deter potential entrants through price, because it does so through other means, namely coercion.
Cute, but you're making up your own definition --it's the same definition I had before you took it out and started this conflict. But, I don't agree with it anymore. It's original research. A coercive monopoly is simply on that is immune from competition (however that can be accomplished). RJII 19:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The concept of coercive monopoly encompasses government monopoly and government-granted monopoly, on the basis that the government authority underlying these is ultimately based on the government's monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion. In this sense it has been employed for example by Nathaniel Branden and others associated with Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism.
Coercive monopoly is a relatively rarely-used term in economics. When not referring to government-backed monopolies, the term is often used rather loosely, for example in referring to Microsoft (which has never been accused of threatening the use of force).
Much of this is verbal fog: additional words that just obfuscate the user's understanding. We don't need to re-define "monopoly" -- there is a whole Wikipedia article for that. So remove all of that. Nor do we need to describe in detail how other types of monopolies are created: ther are other Wikipedia articles for that, as well, and we simply need to link to them. Finally, we do not need to address in the opening paragraph the different kinds of coerciove monopolies -- that should be addressed further down in the article, where we can go into more detail, provide examples, and so forth. What that leaves us with is the definition I have written.[14] While I am sure it can be phrased better, it does 'not need to
  1. define a monopoly (linking to monopoly is sufficient),
  2. describe other types of monopolies in detail (simply naming them and Wiki-linking the names is sufficient),
  3. describe the effects of a monopoly (immunity from competition, price fixing, etc.), or
  4. get into detail as to examples of coercove monopolies or the various points of view on whether they are good or bad, justified or unjustified (that is better addressed in more detail in the body of the article).
Keep it succinct: just focus on how the source material defines a coercive monopoly. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The reason I wrote the draft above was that I dislike your definition's second sentence - it coins "non-coercive monopoly" as if this was a term independent of "coercive monopoly", states the obvious inversion of the first sentence, and notes other forms of monopoly in a way that isn't particularly illuminating. My version doesn't "define" a monopoly - it illuminates the distinction between monopoly in general and coercive monopoly, in relation to the crucial aspect of how they come about, which is the only real distinction. Being clear on this distinction is not a waste of words. Nor does it describe other types in detail. And I think something on usage needs to be in the intro, albeit that paragraph could be improved. There is a difference between being succinct and not actually saying anything - your definition comes dangerously close to merely saying "a coercive monopoly is a monopoly based on coercion", which is barely a dicdef. Incidentally I'm quite happy to see my version rewritten - but I think this is the (kind of) info that should be in the intro. Rd232 17:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I guess you do have a point there. It had not occurred to me that using the phrase "non-coercive monopoly" might be confusing. Now that you mention it, we should avoid neologisms whenever possible. Perhaps it should just say "other types of monopolies"? And you may well be right that a word or two to describe the other major types of monopolies in the opening paragraph would be helpful for comparison. Perhaps we can compromise? Try writing a version somewhere between your preference and mine, and see how that goes. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
It's probably better if you have a go - I'm sure you're clearer on what you dislike about my version. Rd232 18:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, what I dislike about your version is less important than that we come to a consensus. I really would prefer that you try your hand at writing a version you like, taking into account my comments above, but since you are taking a break from Wikipedia until 2005-10-20, I will do as you request. If we are lucky, perhaps RJII will join the discussion, and we'll really start getting somewhere. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Establishing a coercive monopoly

Okay, we have a working definition.[15] Now let's move on to the next section, "Establishing a coercive monopoly". As before, I personally would prefer to work on that section here, on the Talk page, and only place it in the article after we have reached concensus. However, RJII has made it clear that he will not cooperate with that. Therefore, I am putting forth my suggested phrasing for this section in the article as-is, focusing on neutrality and verifiability, and making sure that we stick to what the source material says. My main goal at this stage is to remove the unverified and POV information, and remove information that is common to all monopolies. I am not putting much effort in to re-writing this section for clarity at this stage, although of course if someone else would like to do so, be my guest. I will list the various disputed comments here, pending a verified supporting citation.

  • It has been successfully argued in a U.S. Court of law that Microsoft Corporation's particular use of contracts was "coercive." Eric Raymond's opinion notwithstanding, there has not, to my knowledge, ever been an argument in a court or in a respected legal journal accusing Microsoft of using force or the threat of force to achieve or preserve its monopoly. Until such a citation is found, this statement can't be included in this article. (Incidentally, I have tremendous respect for Eric Raymond, but he is neither a lawyer nor an economist, and he is even more biased against Microsoft than I am. Eric Raymond is not a reliable source when it comes to Microsoft's business practices.)
I thought everybody knew that the Court ruled the Microsoft was using "coercion." I linked the Court's finding of facts earlier in these discussions. I'll have to dig it up again. Listen to Janet Reno: "Microsoft is unlawfully taking advantage of its Windows monopoly," Janet Reno said on issuing her demands, "to protect and extend that monopoly and undermine consumer choice.... Today's action shows that we won't tolerate any coercion by dominant companies in any way that distorts competition." [16] RJII 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
All monopolists or near monopolists or cartels exercise market power in a way others may find abusive. Others may describe this as "coercive", too. But that has no bearing on whether the powerful firms achieved that market power through coercion, and may therefore be distinguished from standard monopoly as a "coercive monopoly". Rd232 17:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Advocates of a laissez-faire economic policy are quick to assert that a coercive monopoly can only come about through goverment intervention. This is some heavy-duty POV. Let's try not to indulge our biases quite this brazenly.

Other than these two statements, this section really is quite good. I re-arranged it slightly so that the thesis is presented more cohenrently, but the facts themselves, and the supporting citations, are excellent. I have to admit to RJII that I was wrong when I suggested wiping the article completely and starting over from scratch: removing the POV and the unsubstantiated statements is proving easier than I expected. You guys have done a good job. If everyone could focus on keeping things neutral and verifiable, and put a little more effort into being civil, this could be a great article. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I still think this section duplicates other articles to no great effect - it doesn't distinguish or analyse. The vagueness of the current title (and the ones in previous version) reflects this: there's no clarity on what the section is trying to do, or why. Having said that, if we can agree on a useful intro, I can live with a cleaned-up version of this section. Rd232 17:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I've no doubt it can be improved. I was just pleased that once the POV and cruft was removed, there was good verifiable info there that could be retained. You guys (including RJII) have done some good work on this article, and I thought it was important to give you guys credit for that. But by all means, feel free to keep going. What kind of changes would you put into this section to make it more informative (remembering that we aren't to be drawing conclusions or making assertions ourselves, we are just summarizing what reliable sources on the subject have stated)? Or would you re-organize it? What do you have in mind? -- BBlackmoor (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll have a think about it; but I think for the moment nailing the intro is the priority. Rd232 23:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diffence between defining coercive monopoly and arguing how it may come about

Just summarizing the dispute so far: The sources clearly define coercive monopoly as a monopoly that is immune from competition. Arguing what causes them is a different issue. Therefore, an assertion that they they are due to government intervention should not be presented as part of the definition. Likewise, arguing that using exclusive contracts to exclude competition (as is claimed of Microsoft) should not be considered as part of the definition. Bblackmoor and Rd232 are still not able to see the difference between defining coercive monopoly and arguing what causes a coercive monopoly. Radgeek, SlinkyPuppet, and I do see the difference. RJII 19:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not quite keeping up with current discussion. Bblackmoor and I, on the basis of a new source (Rothbard [17]) are taking the definition as being founded on the use of force (see the cantaloupe section). I now think the usage by Branden etc in relation to government is important to describe, but not as part of the definition. Again, the loose usage of the term for which I gave Microsoft as an example is not part of the definition of the concept. Furthermore, your immunity from competition is only applicable to government monopoly, and only if treated as meaning immunity from legal competition - I've explained why somewhere above. Finally, "immunity" is nowhere given some special status as a definition, it is just one of a number of phrases some authors use to describe the concept. Rd232 23:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Rothbard does not define coercive monopoly in that. He's just pointing out that the state is a coercive monopoly --it is protected from competition. What makes something a coercive monopoly is that is is protected (or immune, securely shielded, or whatever) from competition. RJII 16:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Cantaloupes! Read about the damn cantaloupes!! LOL. Seriously, look at that example carefully for what it implies about Rothbard's concept of coercive monopoly. Rd232 17:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
RJII, you are mistaken. Not just a litle bit, either: you are profoundly mistaken, so much so that I have to question your understanding of the entire topic. However, one of the core principles of Wikipedia is consensus. Perhaps a straw poll be helpful? Or, if you prefer, a formal poll according to Wikipedia procedures? -- BBlackmoor (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
As you said when you came up on this dispute, you are new to the topic. I have extensive familiarity with free market philosophy. RJII 16:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
"As you said when you came up on this dispute, you are new to the topic." In this, too, you are mistaken. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Rd232 has just archived almost all of the talk page. I suspect it's to hide the arguments of others that oppose him. How shady. How can we unarchive it? The information is very relevant and should be immediately readable. RJII 19:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This is surely the most amusing example yet of (a) RJII's poor research and (b) RJII's reluctance to assume good faith. A single click on History and a quick scan would show you that it was Bblackmoor who did the archiving. (This was possibly a mistake on his part, since archiving whilst a debate is ongoing always risks annoying someone or other.) Rd232 23:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
It was not a mistake: the Talk page had grown to an unweildy length, and you two had already done the work of summarizing the dicussion up to the point of archival. Besides, a large portion of the existing "discussion" was little more than a series of uncivil comments, which should never have been posted to the Talk page to begin with. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
How about you unarchive it then? There was a lot of very relevant material and argumentation in there pertaining to the present dispute. If I knew how to unarchive it I would. If you don't, I'll figure it out. But, I'm sure we'd all appreciate it if you restored it. RJII 00:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Blackmoor is to blame, then. RJII 23:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
A recent edit by RJII [18] included this in the edit summary: "Fraudulent interpretation of sources.". If RJII wishes to have an RFC etc against him, he's going about it the right way. Rd232 23:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Let's try to assume good faith on RJII's part for as long as possible. He should make more of an effort to abide by Wikipedia policies (such as being civil, which not optional), but for the time being, he does seem motivated by a desire to improve the article, even if he is not going about it the right way and he's not taking the time to read the sources to which he refers. I remain hopeful that he will come around. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
What condescending crap. I'm well-read on this. Either you haven't read the sources or, for some mysterious reason you're not able to understand them, or you're being dishonest and trying to push a laissez-faire or Objectivist POV. Which is it? RJII 00:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and de-archived the Talk page, since BBlackmoor wasn't willing to fix this impropriety of his. The discussion was still live and is very relevant to what's going on right now. There was no reason to archive it. His motives for archiving it and refusal to fix it, I find highly suspect. Especially, since he just left this message on my personal Talk page "RJII, please consider this my second official request that you participate in the discussion on the Coercive monopoly article." In addition to covering up the fact that others agree with me on important points, it looks like he's trying to create the impression that I haven't been engaging in discussion, when it's obvious I have been engaging in voluminous discussion. RJII 13:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"This page is 120 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." Do you not see that message? You had already summarized the existing discussion (under the heading "Summarising the issue (economics only)"), and had ceased responding to the previous sections of text -- there is no need to keep all of that on this page. Besides, nothing had been deleted -- there was a link right there at the top of the page, linking to the archived discussion and to the Wikipedia article which governs archival of Talk pages. But it's certainly not worth arguing over. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me try one more time to clarify the issue as I see it. The most natural interpretation of "coercive monopoly" is a monopoly to which coercion is intrinsic, in just the same way that wood is intrinsic to a wooden chair. Until recently, I didn't have the sources to support that most natural interpretation - Branden etc seemed to imply something different, around government. Now we have Rothbard's cantaloupe selling hypothetical example [19], we have a good source for that interpretation as the core meaning. In this context (!), much of what was said before about universal governmental origin of coercive monopoly being an additional (and POV) assertion by Branden etc now makes perfect sense. This government monopoly=coercive monopoly needs discussing in the article, but it's an application of the underlying concept, with the link being that government authority depends ultimately on the monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion (thereby linking neatly with the other sense of "coercive monopoly"). Rd232 17:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, now for my understanding of RJII's current position. This is to declare &;quot;immunity from competition" as a canonical definition (on what basis this phrase is enthroned above everything else our sources write isn't clear) of coercive monopoly. But all monopolies which do not operate in contestable markets have a degree of immunity (the degree depending on the level of barriers to entry). The only difference between a coercive monopoly and another type is the means by which is sustained - either (private) coercion or government authority, rather than price. Remember, too, that no monopoly based on private coercion can be immune from competition - because as it sustains its monopoly by force, so it is vulnerable to competition via force (eg gang wars). (It is immune to competition from pacifists, but I don't think that's what RJII's getting at.) Only government can meet the "immunity from competition" criterion, if the criterion is interpreted as "immunity from legitimate competition" - because government can define what is and is not legitimate. Which is precisely, I think, Branden's point. Rd232 17:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Coercive monopoly is a theoretical ideal. It's a monopoly that can act independently of would-be competitive forces --competition is "impossible." The closer to that ideal, the more of a coercive-monopoly something is. In actuality, a perfect coercive monopoly is probably impossible. Indeed, it's possible to compete with monopolies of which competition is forbidden by law. For example, see my discussion in that article on Gibbons and Vanderbilt running a steamboat illegally to compete with the government-granted monopoly to Fulton. We all know about black markets. Laissez-faire advocates claim that the only way one can have a coercive monopoly is through government intervention. Others claim a cause of coercive monopoly (whether they use that terminology or not) is laissez-faire, and advocate government intervention to dismantle or regulate them. RJII 17:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
By the way, Branden would not equate legal with legitimate. He would say that illegal competition is legitimate --morally defensible. RJII 18:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
So if coercion plays no (necessary?) part in creating it, and all monopolies may use coercion, why is it called "coercive monopoly"? Rd232 18:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Good question and I don't have an answer that I can verify. I can only speculate. Maybe at one time the conception of "monopoly" was (or is still) limited to a firm that was immune from competition --a possible danger. Then, eventually people started using it to refer to situations like Alcoa (and more recently Microsoft) which did not use force. As a response, laissez-faire types either popularized or coined the term "coercive monopoly" to retain the conception of a firm that is truly immune from competition, as they felt people were blurring the distinction between a legitimate monopoly (one where competition was possible) and a monopoly that people should worry about. That's why Branden says "When people speak in an economic or political context, of the dangers and evils of monopoly, what they mean is a coercive monopoly." In other words, a monopoly *is* a coercive monopoly, if you're talking about a monopoly that anyone should be concerned about. I would love to see the first uses of the term --whether it was in use before Greenspan and Rand, or whether they coined it. If they did coin it, I don't think they're the creators of the concept of a firm that is immune from competition (able to act independently of would-be competitive forces) --that's the concept that is important, noteable, and interesting (regardless of how that monopoly may come about). So, if they did coin it, they merely coined a label for an already existing conception, then went on to make the assertion that government intervention is responsible for any monopoly that people see as a "danger or evil" (one that isn't answerable to competitive forces (and can price-gouge consumers if it wishes, with no possibility of competition coming in to remedy the situation)). RJII 18:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I should have said "legal"; the relationship between legality and legitimacy isn't straightforward. Rd232 18:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

A monopoly and a coercive monopoly differ, but only because of some confusion about the term monopoly. It is a non-coercive monopoly if I open up a store which is the first of its kind in a given market (geographically, or otherwise) with which no one is prepared to compete. That is a natural monopoly. Another example would be a transit system established through completely voluntary means. No one competes because it is either not practical at the moment or not literally possible (without offering a substitution rather than precisely the same good or service). A coercive monopoly (which includes virtually all modern monopolies) should be defined as one that is instituted or maintained through coercive (violent) means. Microsoft does indeed maintain a coercive monpoly, if, like me, you deny the legitimacy of Intellectual Property rights (outside of the contracts that bind the parties in related areas). That is to say, they use the threat of violence to achieve their ends. Such threats ought rightly to be considered coercion. There is no way to maintain a monopoly in the face of willing, rights-respecting competitors other than through coercion by either the government or some other party. Anarchists of my bent would not find the distinction between the two kinds of coercion particularly important, other than for purely pragmatic reasons, since it is effectively a distinction of degree, not kind. Dick Clark 20:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Many would say that Microsoft's coercion was its use of contracts --as in "we're not going to give you X if you don't give us Y." I think you would agree with me that that's not coercion. Yet, Microsoft, like many other alleged monopolies, was ruled to have been a monopoly (in the sense of a coercive monopoly ..one in which competition was not possible). RJII 20:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The court found that Microsoft held a monopoly[20] and that it used anticompetitive tactics to maintain that monopoly[21]. To my knowledge, there has been no court decision or judicial opinion which has declared that monopoly coercive.[22] Saying it does not make it so, even if you say it several times a day (as you do). You are entitled to your opinion, as am I, but we are not entitled to indulge those opinions when writing a Wikipedia article. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The Court affirmed the plaintiff's finding of fact. [23]
  • "Microsoft used its leverage over office productivity suites to coerce Apple to enter into an exclusionary agreement that favored Internet Explorer and severely disadvantaged browser rivals"
  • "Microsoft used its leverage over Apple, specifically Apple's dependence on Microsoft's Office productivity suite, to coerce Apple to enter into an exclusionary agreement that favored Internet Explorer and disfavored rivals"
  • "The restrictions Microsoft coerced Apple into accepting had significant exclusionary effects"
However, this is irrelevant. Because whether they used coercion or not, they were ruled to be a coercive monopoly --they were ruled to do something, whether coercive or not, which eliminated the possibility of competition --the definition of coercive monopoly. RJII 21:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Straw Poll: definition of "coercive monopoly"

Do not respond to the straw poll in this section. Respond to the straw poll in the section below, titled "Responses". The poll will conclude 2005-10-25.

  1. The reliable source material defines a "coercive monopoly" as "A coercive monopoly is a form of monopoly that is created or perpetuated through the use of force or the threat of force."[24]
  2. The reliable source material defines a "coercive monopoly" as "A coercive monopoly is a form of monopoly that is immune from competition."[25] (substitute "immune from competition" for whatever you wish in the same vein, such as "securely shielded from competition," "protected from competition," "not answerable to competition," "insulated from competition," "independent of the competitive world," etc.) RJII 17:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neither of these definitions is supported by the source material.

[edit] Responses: definition of "coercive monopoly"

  • Definition 1: 5 votes
  • Definition 2: 2 votes
  • Definition 3: 2 votes

1 -- BBlackmoor (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, whadaya know. Bblackmoor votes for his own edit. Who would have figured? RJII 21:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

1 -- Dick Clark 20:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Frankly I'm not sure that 2 is any more than an extrapolation of 1, but I like 1's succinctness and precision.

1 is a POV of how immunity from competition may come about. It should not be part of the definition. Some have the POV that Microsoft's use of contracts prevented competition, for example. Also, (1) does not even mention the exclusion of the possibility of competition. It's conceptually lacking. What's essential about a coercive monopoly is that there is no possibility of competition. Read Greenspan and Branden for more information [26] [[27]] RJII 20:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think 2 can be extrapolated from 1, because a monopoly sustained by the extension of competition into non-economic areas (coercion, force) is subject to competition in those areas, as the example of gang wars makes clear. Rd232 21:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

1 - Rd232 21:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC). I held off voting until now, but RJII's recent responses in the previous section have convinced me that we're not gong to find a middle ground by discussion. He obviously holds sincerely to the belief that (a) "immunity from competition" is the core of the definition and (b) immunity from competition can be meaningfully distinguished from legal monopoly (i.e. immunity from legal competition). I don't understand how he justifies either of those; and there is if nothing else a certain irony in the fact that his original view (coercive monopoly is monopoly based on the use of coercion) is now the one I hold, after much discussion and additional sourcing.

I thought you read Greenspan's essay. "A "coercive monopoly" is a business concern that can set its prices and production policies independent of the market, with immunity from competition, from the law of supply and demand." [[28] RJII 21:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Also Branden, "Such a monopoly, it is important to note, entails more than the absence of competition; it entails the impossibility of competition. That is a coercive monopoly’s characteristic attribute-and is essential to any condemnation of such a monopoly." [29] There you see, impossibility of competition is the essential attribute of a coercive monopoly --its "characteristic attribute." RJII 21:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The reason they state that in those terms is because they're about to go on to argue that coercive monopoly can only come about by government action, and this formulation assists that by ruling out eg Mafia-created monopolies, which are not immune from competition (live by the sword, die by the sword). Rd232 22:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
There you go. Now you've got it. They go on to argue how coercive monopoly comes about. That argument is seperate from the definition. The definition is a monopoly which is immune from competition. RJII 23:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
What I said was that the definition was chosen to fit the argument they intended to make. They could have taken different definitions. Rd232 23:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
If that were true, what would that matter. Regardless, those are the sources that define coercive monopoly. RJII 23:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

3 - Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Thinking it over, Greenspan supports 2; Branden assumes there is no difference, without stating a usable definition; Rand didn't define the term, but I'd have to say she assumed "maintained by use of coercion" (neither 1 nor 2) was the common definition; Younkins states "... a coercive monopoly results from a state grant of exclusive privilege.", yet a another definition; and Rothbard uses 1. I don't see a consensus definition.

Eh? Greenspan's key phrasing is the same as Branden (both 2), and I don't see a difference between Rothbard's and Rand's approach (as you describe Rand's above) - both 1. Rothbard and Rand additionally go on to agree with Greenspan/Branden's formulation, and it's clear from the latters' discussions that they consider immunity from competition only to be possible by the coercion of government authority. If, like Rand/Rothbard, they considered other possibilities, 1 as the fundamental definition would be clearer; but they skip the step which Rand/Rothbard don't. Younkins, along with everyone else, argues that in practice the only coercive monopoly worth worrying about is a government monopoly. They're all saying much the same thing: coercive monopoly is based on force, but only government has the clout to make coercive monopoly actually happen; which is worse than conventional monopoly because a lazy private monopolist may one day be replaced, but a legal monopoly won't be (it's "immune from competition" - at least if you ignore the possibility of legislative change). Rd232 23:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
What a coercive monopoly is the result of, is not the definition of coercive monopoly. That's what I'm trying to get across here. Regardless of what various schools of thought say it is the result of, it is defined as a monopoly that's immune from competition (as opposed to a monopoly that one can compete against if you have a better product/price/marketing/strategy). RJII 23:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Younkins' definition is 1; Younkins, like Branden, seems to be of the opinion that the only agency which can effectively use force to create a monopoly is the state (and this is one of the relevant POVs from reliable sources which should be explored in the article), but that is not a requirement for the definition itself. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
"What a coercive monopoly is the result of, is not the definition of coercive monopoly." - yes it is. This is what distinguishes it from ordinary monopoly - that it has come about through coercion, private or governmental. Immunity from competition is a quality that arises from that coercion, because that is how the coercion creates monopoly - by excluding competitors (by immunising against competition, if you will). In any case, as I keep thinking, "Bugger the definition, let's look at the concept as a whole as X,Y and Z have used it". That's what my original, short version did, and that approach avoids all this definitional entanglement. Rd232 23:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
You're engaging in "original research." The sources explictly define coercive monopoly as monopoly immune from competition. RJII 00:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I do not think that would be productive. As long as RJII continues to ignore the basic premise of what makes a coercive monopoly a coercive monopoly, and continues to describe coercive monopolies in terms that just as easily apply to all monopolies, his edits are going to be problematic. More importantly, regardless of whether he's right or wrong, he needs to learn to abide by Wikipedia policies. That by itself is sufficient reason to continue with the straw poll and make the concensus on this matter (if there is one) clear. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
If you think "a monopoly immune from competition" applies to all monopolies then you really don't have much of a clue of what's going on here. A monopoly is simply a situation where a firm is the sole-supplier of a good --it doesn't have to be immune from competition. A coercive monopoly is one where a firm is the sole-supplier of a good *and* it is immune from competition. That you don't know this basic information yet is appalling. Clearly you haven't read the essays concerning this. I urge you to thoroughly read and understand Branden's and Greenspan's essays (especially Greenspan's).[30] [[31] This probably can't be understood with just a cursory examination of the issue. By the way, a vote might show what the majority thinks, but it doesn't mean they're right. I will continue to argue this issue until I'm convinced, through the use of sources and reasoned argumentation, that I'm wrong. Likewise, you shouldn't depend on majority vote, but reasoned argumenation and sources to be convinced that you're wrong. RJII 00:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
And here we get to the core of the problem: the point of the straw poll is not to convince anyone that they are right or wrong. Whether I am right or wrong, or whether your arguments convince me of anything, is entirely irrelevant. What matters is that the information in the article is neutral, verifiable, comes from reliable sources, and that the article reflects consensus opinion of those sources. If ten thousand people said that I was wrong, I may or may not change my mind, but whether I do or not simply does not matter for the purposes of this article. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The point of the straw poll may not be to convince anyone that they are right are wrong. But it sure serves to point out who needs to be convinced. RJII 03:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

1 seems closer, but I'm not happy with the word "force" here. Yes, at some level laws are basically backed by force, but there is a very different connotation in "created or perpetuated by law or through the use of force or the threat of force", which I think is actually more on the mark. For example, Ancien Régime France was full of monopolies with government sanction; to say that they were "created or perpetuated through the use of force or the threat of force" is in some sense true, but it would be far more accurate to say that they were created and perpetuated by laws and royal edicts. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The link is that law (or more broadly, government authority) is ultimately backed up by the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of force (the other, political sense of "coercive monopoly"). We can either explain that link in the intro, if we accept force/coercion as encompassing or underlying law; or include law in the definition, as an alternative to (private, illegitimate) force like Mafia. Maybe the best solution is simply to list both interpretations, if we can find a non-clumsy way to do that. Rd232 07:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

1. (See #Prohibitions_and_Impossibility below for further discussion.) Radgeek 19:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

2. I've not seen this article before today. I don't think this is a term with a clear and settled definition amongst economists, however it is fairly clear to me from the sources you're referring to that when used the term refers to economic characteristics, like being immune from supply and demand, and not to the particular methods which produce it. Economists, unlike political philosophers, don't really know what coercion is. I would add that there is clearly a lot of wikistress going on around this article and that has not helped this discussion... The Land 08:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That would seem to bring us closer to my alternative version, focussing on usage we can demonstrate rather than a definition we can't satisfactorily pin down. Rd232 08:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

2 I initiatally voted for 3 but just changed my vote to 2. (1) is conceptually deficient. It doesn't define coercive monopoly as the sources define it. (2) defines the term correctly as the sources explicity define it. While the argument that coercive monopoly is caused by government intervention or coercion is not part of the definition, the fact that everyone who uses the term "coercive monopoly" holds this opinion is reason enough to note that fact right up there adjacent to the definition. I just modified the opening paragraph to do just that. RJII 09:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Selective use of sources can be used to support either arguement. Overall 1) is better due to it's simplicity and absence of discussion that belongs in subsequent sections. As mentioned above - the use of the term 'force' may be easily misinterpreted into it's most literal sense i.e. use Windows or Bill Gates while smack you in the face :). Explicitly stating 'law' would be benifical.

It should really be "coercion", not "force", which covers persuasion by both force and authority. Rd232 13:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem with that is twofold. First, it's really sloppy to use a term to define itself (we have an article on monopoly, so that can pass). Second, coercion is too vague: inevitably, some people will mistakenly apply the word to things other than literal, physical force. "Food Lion doesn't carry my favorite flavor of pudding! Help, I'm being coerced!" -- BBlackmoor (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
"use a term to define itself"? I don't know what you mean. Even if we say "coercive monopoly is a monopoly based on the use of coercion", this is not useless, as the lengthy discussion we've had makes clear (we could say other things). It might be preferable to say "is a situation where the sole supplier of a good sustains this monopoly position through the use of force or authority". The core meaning of coercion is force/threat of force; it may be extended to include authority (Collins dictionary), and may be extended even further to refer to any harm inflicted or threatened with a view to changing someone else's behaviour. But there are limits; it's hard to imagine how the Food Lion example could be coercion (maybe if you go in the direction of a drug dealer withholding drugs in order to get something from you). Remember that threat and a demanded change in behaviour are required - otherwise it's just harm, deliberate or otherwise. Rd232 14:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
"it's hard to imagine how the Food Lion example could be coercion" It is hard to imagine, yes -- and yet we have the exact same argument being made vis a vis Microsoft, despite a complete dearth of evidence to support that interpretation. Simply saying "coercive = coercive" is clearly not sufficient. BBlackmoor (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prohibitions and Impossibility

RJII is perfectly right to point out that there is a distinction (and I think one clearly marked in the grammar of the arguments) between defining a coercive monopoly and making arguments about how one comes about. But I think he's gravely mistaken about what the reliable sources are defining a coercive monopoly to be. It is quite clearly indicated that an essential feature of coercive monopolies is that they are "immune" from market competition in the sense that competition is prohibited, where "prohibition" means a ban that is enforced by some entity through the use of threat of force. (Ex hypothesi, any monopolist is protected from competition by barriers to entry of some sort; otherwise she would not be a monopolist. If the definition of "coercive monopoly" simply makes it coextensive with "monopoly", then you have surely not got the definition right.) Some economic commentators also use the word "coercive" loosely to describe any kind of business practice by market leaders which they consider shady or exploitative, but they are simply not using the word in the technical sense that the sources we are concerned with use it. -- Radgeek 07:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The sources are very clear that what defines a coercive monopoly is immunity from competition. Branden says that's its "characteristic attribute." However, notice who uses the term. The only people that use it are those that think that a monopoly immune from competition is the result of coercion. I think that's where the confusion is coming in. Other people use the term "monopoly," simply, to refer to monopoly that is something to be concerned about --one immune from competition. So, the concept of a firm immune from a competition is out there already, but those who label that concept coercive monopoly are those that think such a state of affairs is the result of coercion. Hence, I added to the "definition":"Those who employ the term maintain that such a monopoly is the result of government intervention or firm-initiated coercion." That nails it don't you think? RJII 09:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point. I certainly agree that the sources define "coercive monopoly" in terms of "exemption from competition," "impossibility of competition," et cetera. The issue is what phrases like "exemption" and "impossibility" mean in these contexts. If you expand "impossibility of competition" so as to include all barriers to entry then you are clearly doing violence to what the people who coined the term meant by it, since you are effectively expanding the term so as to make it coextensive with "monopoly" simpliciter. Now it's true that most people who use the term think that coercive monopolies are the only kind of (stable) monopolies; but that is certainly a substantive argument that they have to make, not a matter of the definition of the term. I think, rather, that it is quite clear that when Branden et al. describe a firm as "exempt from competition," or an industry as "closed to competition" they mean that competition is prohibited by an agency which can effectively enforce its orders. (Surely they do not mean that competition is metaphysically impossible; nor that it is merely economically impractical. The monopolists in question are called coercive monopolists for a reason.) The attempt to sidestep the issue with the "addition" just adds verbal fog; you may as well say that those who use the term "slavery" maintain that such a condition is the result of one person forcing another into servitude. If you want an initial definition that hews closer to the ipssisima verba of (say) Branden's statement, you could say "A coercive monopoly is a form of monopoly in which one firm becomes the sole supplier of a good or service because competitors are effectively banned from entering the market." A note could be added somewhere, perhaps in the first paragraph, remarking that it is referred to as "coercive" because the ban is enforced by the use or threat of force. Radgeek 17:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
This is very well put - I think Radgeek should write the intro! I'll add that if there is a way to ban someone from doing something except by the use of force or authority (coercion), I'd like to hear it. Rd232 08:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you're allowing the theoretical aspect of coercive monopoly. It's a hypothetical abstraction of a situation where competition is impossible. That's all one needs to know to theorize what would happen in such a case. The term refers to a concept that already exists by other names, as Branden points out. For some, (Branden just says "people" in general) that term is simply "monopoly." For others it's "non-contestable market." I think what we have is a case of people coming up with the term "coercive monopoly" (Rand, etc) to label this idealized abtraction with what they felt was a more appropriate label, given what they felt was the only way that competition could be "impossible" --through coercion. They are clear to defined it as a case where competition is impossible. Then they go on to argue that that's can only be acheived by government intervention. Maybe a more explicit term like "impossible" would take care of it for you? I think if we define it as the use of coercion we truly are coming up with our own definition (original researc), regardless of how apparently logically necessary it is for coercion to be used to make competition impossible, as the sources do not define it that way. There is a difference between this proposition and their definition. Would "impossible" cover it? RJII 17:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
You are misreading Branden at this point. He does not state that when "people" talk about "monopoly" they really mean "coercive monopoly;" he states that when they talk about the political and economic evils engendered by monopolies they are talking about coercive monopolies. (He explicitly discusses "non-coercive monopolies" below in the article, and suggests that "people" are wrong to condemn them, and that there is little use in lumping them together under a common category with "coercive monopolies." (To use the Randian argot, he is suggesting that "people" often unjustly condemn the free market by committing a fallacy of frozen abstraction.) As for "impossible," as I state above, the problem with it is that it could mean any number of things. Some of them are clearly not meant: Branden et al. are not claiming that competition with a coercive monopolist is logically impossible or even physically impossible. And given Branden's other remarks and the efforts to distinguish coercive from non-coercive monopolies, I think it's also clear enough that they do not mean merely that competition is not economically feasible. Branden does make clear several times what he means by "impossible" -- that the market is "closed" to competition, that competition is "forbidden", etc. This clearly identifies "impossibility" with "an enforced prohibition." Radgeek 19:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Let's look at a more complete quote: "When people speak in an economic or political context, of the dangers and evils of monopoly, what they mean is a coercive monopoly—that is; exclusive control of a given field of production which is closed to and exempt from competition, so that those controlling the field are able to set arbitrary production policies and charge arbitrary prices, independent of the market, immune from the law of supply and demand. Such a monopoly, it is important to note, entails more than the absence of competition; it entails the impossibility of competition. That is a coercive monopoly’s characteristic attribute-and is essential to any condemnation of such a monopoly." There is no way you can tell me what you just did after reading that. It is explicit. Competition is impossible. And when people speak of a monopoly in the context of one that is an evil, what they have in mind is a coercive monopoly. Coercive monopoly, he defines as one "closed to an exempt from competition..." and that the "impossibility of competition" is the "characteristic attribute" of a coercive monopoly. And like Greenspan, he says that coercive monopoly is "made possible only by an act of government: by special franchises, licenses, subsidies, by legislative actions which granted special privileges." A coercive monopoly is not only possible by laws against competition, but its possible by regulations and subsidies that have the effect of making competition impossible. RJII 19:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I don't think there is any need to worry about the word "impossible" as implying physical impossibility. That's exactly what it means, but like a lot of concepts in economics they're defined in absolute terms. That doesn't mean that a situation where it was almost impossible to compete wouldn't be a coercive monopoly. As we know, even if a business is outlawed, competition is still possible (black market). RJII 19:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Again, the issue at hand is not whether or not folks use the term "impossible" in stating the defining features of a coercive monopoly. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is what they mean by it. Contrary to what you seem to believe, "possible" and "impossible" are not words with a single univocal meaning. (And if you don't believe me, please consult some readings on modal logic.) I explain some of these meanings above and give an argument for why the term is almost certainly being used in the sense of "forbidden." If you are going to insist that the coerciveness of a monopoly turns on it being physically impossible to compete with the monopolist (except that you then claim it's not physically impossible, but rather almost; but doesn't that just make it almost a coercive monopoly, by your argument?) then frankly this has descended into farce. Radgeek 05:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
"A coercive monopoly is a form of monopoly in which one firm becomes the sole supplier of a good or service because competitors are effectively banned from entering the market." A note could be added somewhere, perhaps in the first paragraph, remarking that it is referred to as "coercive" because the ban is enforced by the use or threat of force." I'd be more than happy to go along with that compromise, Radgeek. It makes the point that RJII appears to want made, and it makes clear what is meant by "coercion". What do you think, RJII? Would that be an acceptable compromise? BBlackmoor (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't like "banned" because it implies intentionality. As Greenspan points out, the act of granting subsidies can create a coercive monopoly. Competition isn't "banned" or made illegal in that case. Rather, immunity from competition is the effect. Also, regulations can create coercive monopoly --regulations that aren't bans on competition, but have the effect of preventing competition. You can put low price caps on a firms goods and heavily subsidize it. That creates a coercive monopoly without "banning" competition. Maybe something like "competition has been rendered impossible." How's that? RJII 19:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
As I mention above, "rendered impossible" is not helpful because it is ambiguous in a way that makes the attempted definition problematic. Do you have anything against "effectively prohibited"? (I don't know about "banned," but it seems pretty clear to me that "effectively prohibited" does not imply that the ban is the explicit intentional aim of the policy.) Radgeek 19:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about that. It's not as strong as "banned" but I think "prohibited" still come across as conscious decision to prevent competition. I admit it's not too bad though. Branden says "impossible." Greenspan says "impossible" but also uses the word "barring." How about that ..barring? It's got a little intentionality to it if one wants to interpret it that way. Maybe it's best when in doubt to use a source's term? RJII 19:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see much difference between "prohibited" and "barred", but I'd go along with it just to get somewhere. So how's this: "A coercive monopoly is a form of monopoly in which one firm becomes the sole supplier of a good or service because competitors are effectively barred from entering the market. Such a monopoly is referred to as "coercive" because the barrier to entry is enforced by the use or threat of force." BBlackmoor (talk) 2005-10-18
Something like that is fine. But, I disagree with the assertion in the last sentence. You're asserting why it's called "coercive monopoly." I don't think we can make that leap --that's a speculation on the motives for the creation of the term. I think it's best to say "Those who use the term coercive monopoly maintain that ..." And, saying "use or threat of force" is not what is said in the sources. Instead we see "government intervention." So, I think it's best to say something like "Those who use the term coercive monopoly typically maintain that such a state of affairs is caused by government intervention." RJII 20:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
(sigh) So you're okay with Radgeek's compromise[32], as long as it excludes everything other than your POV. Well, I tried.... BBlackmoor (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Did you not read what I just wrote? You want to assert why the term is used rather than how it's used. That's POV which you cannot substantiate. I'm not going to compromise the Wikipedia NPOV and source policy to appease you, so don't even try. RJII 20:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
How about "A coercive monopoly is a form of monopoly in which one firm becomes the sole supplier of a good or service because competitors are effectively forbidden from entering the market" (etc.)? Given that Branden (for one) explicitly uses the phrase "forbid", it seems like a natural candidate. Radgeek 05:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
"Forbid" implies some authority is giving an order. That was kind of a circular sentence from Branden..probably not intentional: "only one way to forbid entry into a given field of production: by law." It looks to me like it's separate from the definition, too. I think your earlier "prohibit" is better than that. You do agree that a coercive monopoly can arise through subsidies, right? That doesn't "forbid" competition, but it can make it "impossible." How about something like "competition has been rendered impossible as a result of being prohibited or effectively barred."? That would cover both subsidies and outright banning of competition, as well as those who hold that coercive monopoly is a result of a free market. (good strategic move btw. you offer an even stronger word and I accept your previous one). RJII 20:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
"You do agree that a coercive monopoly can arise through subsidies, right? That doesn't "forbid" competition, but it can make it 'impossible.'" Potayto, potahto. Whether a coercive monopoly is the result of force used against potential competitors, or whether it's force used against customers who would potentially spend their money elsewhere, the fundamental definition is the same, and it's used that way by every economist who's ever used the term: domination of a market through the use of force or the threat of force (see Talk:Coercive_monopoly/references). I see no point in these semantic games and your "strategic moves", other than to obstruct a real discussion and to prevent our ever reaching a consensus. Enough with the game-playing and obstruction: it's time for you to start participating in the discussion and working toward a compromise. (see "Editing: Introduction (2nd try)", below) -- BBlackmoor (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't even talk to me. You won't get a reply from here on out. I've written you off based on your obvious bad faith, lies, and harrassment. I suspect anyone else who has closely observed you has ceased lending you credibility as well. I will engage in discussion with everyone else but you. Au revoir. RJII 18:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion copied from the RFC

RFC pages aren't really for discussions. I removed the discussion from the RfC and left the definition of the problem. Here are both below for future reference. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Talk:Coercive monopoly - recently listed at WP:AfD, which it survived, with some clarification of the term and its origins.[33] Attempt to (radically) rewrite the page on the basis of that discussion and the info in the external links were reverted wholesale with no more explanation than the claim that it was "dumbing down the article". Old version / New version 15:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, you deleted everything in the article and replaced it with two definitions. I don't want to call it vandalism, but it's pretty close. It's certainly dumbing it down. RJII 15:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Please do not accept this user's attempt to undermine this Request for Comment. I would ask users to please look at the two versions, and at the external links (the most relevant ones, neither of which were found by me, are clear in the new version). See also Talk:Coercive monopoly on the reason for removing most of the text. Rd232 15:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Noting that the original version in dispute is no longer there. Coercive monopoly was wrongly defined and has now been corrected, in my opinion. RJII 20:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
          • The discussion is very much ongoing. Rd232 08:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Please, only those with at least some familiarity with "coercive monopoly." Please limit your intervention in proportion to your familiarity. Thanks.
            • It is a relatively obscure term which no-one here is familiar with. Since the argument revolves around the interpretation of sources (and the need for more, which is difficult because of the obscurity), anyone who knows something about economics is welcome to contribute. Incidentally, the comment above is another attempt by RJII to dissuade visitors to this page from getting involved. Rd232 08:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
              • "Incidentally, the comment above is another attempt by RJII to dissuade visitors to this page from getting involved." That's b.s. Obviously, I'm trying to dissaude people that haven't read a shred of anything concerning coercive monopoly to get involved. Everyone else is fine. For example, you even went so far as to put up this article for a vote for deletion, precisely because you were not familiar with it. You even admitted you didn't read the article before doing so. That's unacceptable and exactly the kind of mentality that we don't need here. RJII 16:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
                • The RFC page is not a place for discussion, which is why Tony Sidaway moved it here. I have clarified before (somewhere above on this page) what I meant when I said I hadn't read the article, and I will not repeat it again. Rd232 22:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
                  • In the vote for deletion, which you initiated, you admitted: "I've only just bothered to read the article - I'd nominated on the conceptual issue alone." [34] Then when I brought that up on this page you backpeddled and said: "I had read the intro, skimmed the middle bit (lokked like irrelevant and confused guff) and looked at the external links, and skimmed those." What a joke. You didn't read the article. You "skimmed it" and therefore had no almost no clue what you were trying to delete. That's not the action of responsible editor. If you vote for an article's deletion, you should more of an acquaintance with it than just a skim. You were wrong to put it up for deletion. Look, we both know you don't like this article and you would rather not it exist. You're even deleting links to this article from other articles (such as the link from contestable markets). However, this article is here to say and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. It's a real term that encapsulates a real concept --obviously a concept you want to censor. But, it's here to stay. Live with it. RJII 22:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
                    • Billions of blue blistering barnacles! I will not explain myself to you again. Quite how you find the audacity to claim that I do not want this article after all the discussion I have engaged in is beyond me. Anybody else who cares, please see the Afd discussion and Talk:contestable market. Rd232 08:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
                      • You tried to get the article deleted. That didn't work, so your next move was to make it as short as possible. You deleted the entire body of text below the intro and replaced the intro with a couple quotes and sentences. You were making "coercive monopoly" mean nothing more than a synonyum for government monopoly --to trivialize it. Someone provided a source that the term has been used to refer to a firm that itself uses coercion so you were forced to modify this position to be a firm that uses coercion to maintain a monopoly. You've been trying hard to hide the very concept of coercive monopoly --a firm that's immune from competition. If you were able to convince everyone that it's merely a monopoly that uses coercion then it would make the article trivial and without theoretical substance. You're working on this article/debate now because you're attempt to delete it didn't work. The next logical step for someone who doesn't want an article to exist it to tr y to minimize it. That's exactly what did and are still trying to do. [35] RJII 14:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
                          • You don't seem to have noticed that I have given up trying to convince you, as I gave up once on Talk:Statism after your refusal to engage with the evidence there. I have far better things to do (on Wikipedia and off!) than bang my head against your wall. If you stopped attacking me and refusing to assume good faith, I wouldn't be making any comments here at all (unless or until there is some progress). Rd232 talk 16:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
                              • I don't assume bad faith on your part. I just don't like that you tried to get the article deleted, and then when the vote wasn't successful you deleted the entire body below the intro without prior discussion and consensus. If that can be done in good faith, fine. And about the statism article, you're wrong. I did engage with the evidence, as anyone can see on the Talk page. The other editor and I worked together and came to a consensus. We're both pretty satisfied with the intro now. You threw your hands up and gave up because you couldn't handle the pressure of someone disagreeing with you. If you can't handle disagreement you shouldn't be here. RJII 20:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
                        Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith -- BBlackmoor (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
                        • Has nothing to do with good or bad faith. It's factual he tried to get this article deleted, and factual that after that didn't work, he deleted the entire body of text below the intro (without prior discussion and consensus on the talk page). [36] And you were right there behind him doing reversions back to his stub. I was simply reverting the article back to it's prior state (before the "vandalism") and that's when you started your attack with b.s. publicly stating that I was reverting without "consensus." Sleazy I tell you. I did assume good faith with you Bblackmoor, but now I know better. I can't assume what I now know to be false. RJII 15:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
                    • How does attacking Rd232 assist us in coming to a consensus on this article? Can we please focus on the task of editing this article? (see "Editing: Introduction (2nd try)", below) -- BBlackmoor (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
                      • How does Rd232 attacking me assist in coming to consensus? How does you attacking me for responding to Rd232's attacking assist? Go figure. But, if I'm attacked I'm going to respond. Besides, isn't little hypocritical of you for coming down on someone else for personal attacks? RJII 01:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
                        • I have always tried to address actions, and to distinguish between the person and their actions. I believe I have usually succeeded; forgive me if/when I have not. Rd232 08:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two versions

Looking at the RfC I note that two versions are contrasted: what I take to be the current version, and a rewrite on about 11:53, October 10th. I've placed a "twoversions" template into the protected article so that people wanting to look at the rewrite can easily do so. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to call that other one a "version." It's a "stub" that Rd232 made and tried to replace the article with, without prior disussion or consensus. RJII 13:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I took another look at the current protected version (which was last edited mostly by RJII, so I take the gist there in the hope he will agree with it) and my old alternative one. Here's my final attempt to reach a compromise wording (the first sentence is Radgeek's):

A coercive monopoly is a form of monopoly in which one firm is the sole supplier of a good or service because competitors are effectively banned* from entering the market. The term is not widely used in economics, but has been employed for example by Nathaniel Branden and others associated with Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism. Those who use the term usually argue that the only coercive monopolies that exist are government-backed monopolies.
As a coercive monopoly is securely shielded from possibility of competition, it is able to make pricing and production decisions with the assurance that no competition will arise. It is a case of a completely non-contestable market, with insurmountable barriers to entry.
The term may also be applied loosely to a firm which dominates a market and uses its market power in ways that may be considered abusive towards competitors.

* banned=barred=forbidden=prohibited
Rd232 talk 11:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Not too bad. That's pretty much what's there right now. I would not bring up Objectivism like that though. There seems to be plenty of people using the term that we don't have any evidence of being Objectivists. And, what is the point of saying "not widely used"? How is that relevant to anything? I hate to bring this up again, but given that you tried to have this article deleted, and then when that wasn't successful you deleted the whole body under the intro, it appears to be POV-pushing on your part to try to minimize the term's importance. RJII 15:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The term isn't widely used in economics. That's simply a fact, RJ. But if you think Rd232 is mistaken, it should be trivial for you to find references to, oh, four economics textbooks should be plenty, I think, to prove your point. Spend an afternoon at a library. We'll wait. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC).
I've done enough searching on academic databases and Google scholar to confirm that it is not used widely in the economic sense we're discussing (the political sense isn't too common either, but more so). Summary: 2 hits on swetswise.com (both to political sense); ditto on sciencedirect.com (different ones); ingentaconnect.com 7 (some duplicated, all political). Google Scholar [37] has 64, most to the political sense. Rd232 talk 15:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question. Even if it's true that it's not "widely used" what is the point of mentioning that in the article? There's lots of encyclopedia articles about terms that are not "widely used." The fact that you're pushing for that to be stated appears to be confirming my suspicions. This is a continuation of your mission to try to make the article/term irrelevant, isn't it?. RJII 18:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
If you don't see how the usage of a term is relevant to its encyclopedia entry, I really can't help you. The usage statement might, however, be better off further down the intro. Rd232 talk 23:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Would you be willing to add these statistics to the Talk:Coercive monopoly/references page? You may need to create a new section at the top for it. "Statistics", maybe? Be sure to include URLS and the specific search criteria you used. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I added the Google Scholar link above. The others aren't publically accessible (they're academic databases). I searched for "coercive monopoly" on the widest possible basis (full text if available, abstract/title/keywords if not). Rd232 talk 23:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
"The others aren't publically accessible (they're academic databases)." You can still list them as references. Not everything has to have a URL. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

I've unprotected this article as there seems to be no ongoing discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess Tony missed the Survey, the complete and total lack of consensus, and the potential complaint concerning the person who made it necessary to protect the page to begin with. Very well. I will withdraw (and am deleting) my suggestions for reaching a consesus on this article, my request for a Survey, and my various complaints about RJII, since it would seem that I am the only one who thinks his behavior is deliberately disruptive. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-10-27 T 03:42:55 Z
Well, Bblackmoor claimed I was disrupting discussion, so, as a show of goodwill I left for a few weeks to let discussion progress unfettered by my "disruptions," and look what happened. All discussion came to a halt. So much for the lie. RJII 03:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
And see what has happened since: you are once again disrupting the article and fighting against consensus and verifiability. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-01-16 T 21:04 Z

[edit] Disambiguation

I corrected the disambiguation link to read: This article is about a monopoly establshed or maintained through force or the threat of force. For monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force, see Weber's theory of the state. Reason: "coercive monopoly" is a monopoly establshed or maintained through force or the use of force[38][39], and Weber's theory of the state is about "the legitimate use of physical force". -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-10-29 T 17:41:41 Z

[edit] deleted inappropriate disambiguation

The header directed readers to Weber's theory of the state. I think there's some confusion here. A government is not a coercive monopoly because it uses coercion to arrest people for crimes, etc. It's a coercive monopoly because it bars competition with its service of employing coercion to arrest people. RJII 17:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if we concede your definition, there's still a need for disambiguation. A "monopoly on cocercion" should be disambiguated from a "coercive monopoly". Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Weber doesn't call it a "coercive monopoly" does he? I don't understand the point of the disambiguation. A government is not defined as a coercive monopoly. A government is a coercive monopoly because it doesn't allow competition in maintaining security. The US Post Office is also a coercive monopoly because competition in delivering mail isn't possible --does that mean why should have a "disambiguation" link to the Post Office article? RJII 04:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] alternative definition

"An alternative definition, not further discussed in this article, is that a coercive monopoly is a form of monopoly that is created or perpetuated through the use of force or the threat of force." Any source for this? RJII 20:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

In spite of your attempts to obfuscate the issue, Younkins and Rothbard use something very similar to that definition. Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Where in those articles do they define coercive monopoly? All i see is them making the standard laissez-faire assertion that one can only come about through government action. Stating how something comes about doesn't state what it IS. It's already stated in the article that most of those who use the term have that POV. RJII 04:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Younkins's article is not consistent with Greenspan's definition. I have to assume that something in there is a definition. Rothbard is not an economist, so I suppose his thoughts are irrelevant -- but he makes it clear that he rejects Greenspan's definition. -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Where does he make this "clear"? I'm not seeing a definition from Younkins nor Rothbard. RJII 23:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
By the way, Rothbard was indeed an economist. Where does he make it clear he rejects Greenpan's definition? RJII 02:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It's POV not to recognize that some economists use that definition as a definition. -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what you're saying here. As far as I can tell they're using the ordinary definition ..a monopoly not answerable to competition. RJII 23:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

An alternative definition of coercive monopoly that has developed is a monopoly that is created or perpetuated through the use of coercion that successfully prevents competition.

is acceptable to me. I'll probably not insist on the NPOV tag. -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

All cited references but one in Talk:Coercive monopoly/references use the "not possible to compete against because coercion is being used" definition. Thus I am reverting to the better article championed by RJII - the current one is really really bad. Thanks for the Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/RJII which brought this to my attention. Hogeye 19:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Greenspan, Rand, Branden, etc, define it as a monopoly impossible to compete against. Then they go on to argue that such a monopoly can only be achieved by government intervetion. It's important to see the distinction between the definition and the argument. Otherwise, "coercive monopoly" is just a trival term with no importance in terms of economic philosophy. It would just be a monopoly formed by government intervention. So what? What's important, in terms of economics, is the ramifications of a monopoly that is impossible to compete against. A non-coercive monopoly (or efficiency monopoly) is one that exists because it is providing a superior quality/price ratio to the market, so that there's no profit in competing --but competition is possible if they raise prices too much or lower quality. The version you're reverting to is insufficient. Branden says: "the idea of a coercive monopoly "entails more than the absence of competition; it entails the impossibility of competition. That is a coercive monopoly’s characteristic attribute-and is essential to any condemnation of such a monopoly." Greenspan defines it:"A 'coercive monopoly' is a business concern that can set its prices and production policies independent of the market, with immunity from competition, from the law of supply and demand." --That's the essential definition. Did you really read the intro thoroughly? RJII 19:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
They are explaining the fuzzy phrases "impossible to compete against" and "closed entry," so the coercion condition is a necessary part of the definition. "Impossible to compete against" is an unfortunate phrasing, since stictly speaking, if someone is already doing it, production of the good/service is possible, e.g. even if it is against statist law. Any good definition must specify coercion. All cited definitions but Ludlow's specifies a coercion requirement.
The primary definition in the current article is null, unless you're talking about a non-existant good, such as a perpetual-motion machine. I can compete with the US Post Office, the Federal Reserve, the US govt marijuana program, or whatever you name. It may be illegal or expensive, but those are certainly not "immune from competition," nor is competition "impossible." Hogeye 20:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
You have to keep in mind that economic definitions like this are in absolute terms. In a monopoly situation there are no competitors at all. As you know, there is illegal competition with government coercive monopolies, which would mean, by definition, they are not a monopolies at all. A monopoly is defined as a situation where there are no competitors whatsover. So, when has there ever been a monopoly --much less a coercive monopoly? How about we work on the definition, but leave the rest of the article as is and modify it you want. There's essential coercive monopoly theory in the intro. RJII 20:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreement withdrawn, as the fact that the definition is in dispute is missing. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Got a source for any other definition? RJII 23:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Done previously. If I say any more, it would be at risk of violating WP:CIVIL -- Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "monopoly" is used as a purely theoretical economic term. But terms such as "coercive monopoly" and "natural monopoly" are applied terms, meant to describe real-world phenomena. A pure economic model of, say, optimal monopoly price and quantity to produce doesn't "care" whether it's a coercive or natural monopoly. I don't think it's accidental that we call it a "coercive monopoly." We call it that because it involves coercion. A definition that leaves that out is deficient.

For example, what about a monopoly due to technological superiority (or secret recipe.) If someone doesn't have the know-how, then one might say it's "impossible" to compete. Yet this is not a coercive monopoly, but a natural monopoly in my book. Hogeye 21:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You are aware that a monopoly is defined as a situation where there are no substitite goods aren't you? Just because you have the sole recipe for a certain food, it wouldn't mean it's a monopoly, because there are other substitute foods. If no one gets around to making any substitute foods, you have a monopoly, but not a coercive monopoly. I too, used to define coercive monopoly casually as a monopoly enforced by coercion. But, I can't ignore the sourced definitions. Greenspan, Rand, Branden, clearly define it at the outset as a situation where it is impossible to compete. That's why I think there should be that definition or both. Also, think about a coercive monopoly that exists because of subsidies, such as all the theorists mention. It's not illegal to compete, yet it's a coercive monopoly because government has intervened. And, yes taxation is obtained by coercion but the taxation is not what's stopping the competitition. What's stopping the competition is the use of that taxation --subsidies. Subsidies themselves aren't coercion. And, of course you have to deal with the claims from antitrust people that Microsoft, Alcoa, etc were coercive monopolies. I think it's great to have that in there so the reader can judge for himself --was the possibility of competition really excluded or were they actually efficiency monopolies maintain their "monopoly" (if you can call it that) simply by providing a good price/quality ratio to the market? RJII 21:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I am aware that monopoly is defined in terms of substitute goods, but am also aware that that definition is dependent on how broadly or narrowly you define "substitute goods." Obviously there were substitute operating systems for Windows, but MSFT's competitors defined substitute very narrowly so as to claim a monopoly anyway. And of course there are substitute metals for aluminum. Coca-cola's competitors could no doubt define Coke-substitutes in a narrow way, and claim they are a monopoly. Definition 1 still seems totally meaningless to me. "Not possible" is not a fuzzy term at all - it's not open to interpretation (like, say, "authority.") By definition 1, coercive monopolies do not exist. Economic models don't use the concept at all - theoretical economics uses plain old "monopoly." I don't know about business ethics usage. Hogeye 21:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that these laissez-faire theorists use the extremely fuzzy definition 1 given in the current article. I think they define "coercive monopoly" in terms of coercion.

Survey of definitions of "coercive monopoly" from the list:

Greenspan - "The necessary precondition of a coercive monopoly is closed entry - the barring of all competing producers from a given field.

  • "barring" means coercion. Coercion 1, Impossibility 0

Kudlow only gives a necessary condition, not a full definition - [a monopoly] "that price-gouges consumers by deliberately curtailing production."

  • n/a; no score for either; still Coercion 1, Impossibility 0

Rothbard - a coercive monopoly "uses violence."

  • Coercion 2, Impossibility 0

Younkins - "A coercive monopoly results from a state grant of exclusive privilege."

  • Coercion 3, Impossibility 0

Branden - "... coercive monopoly — that is; exclusive control of a given field of production which is closed to and exempt from competition."

  • "Closed to" - what can he mean by that? He talks both about "the impossibility of competition" and "Every single coercive monopoly that exists or ever has existed—in the United States, in Europe or anywhere else in the world—was created and made possible only by an act of government." I don't quite see that "impossibility" was intended to be literal here - he probably meant impossible without a significant possibility of aggression or some such. But giving the benefit of the doubt, we have:
  • Coercion 3, Impossibility 1 with only the layman mentioning "impossibility."

The current article doesn't even correctly quote Branden's definition; it quotes the fuzziest part of his explanation. Hogeye 22:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't agree that all these laissez-faire theorists that subsidies cause coercive monopoly? I think you're missing the distinction between what causes coercive monopoly is what is a coercive monopoly. RJII 21:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Compound question. I agree with the laissez-faire theorists who say that subsidies funded by aggression can contribute to the creation of coercive monopolies (def 2). Your turn: Do you agree that most laissez-faire theorists define "coercive monopoly" in terms of coercion? Hogeye 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
No, I don't. I think they clearly define it as a situation where a firm is immune from the possibility of competition. Then, they go on to argue (an this where their POV comes in) that a coercive monopoly can only result from government intervention. Pro-interventionists, on the other hand, argue that coercive monopolies are caused by laissez-faire. There's even a source for this: "Business ethicist, John Hasnas, says that "most [contemporary business ethicists] take for granted that a free market produces coercive monopolies" [40] Note that John Hasnas is not an interventionist. He thinks these interventionists are wrong to think that. But, you see, he's not talking about the definition of a coercive monopoly --he's talking about the cause. All these essays from Rand, Greenpsan, Brandon, etc. are arguments against the common statist belief that laissez-faire causes coercive monopolies and therefore we need anti-trust laws. They're not simply defining coercive monopoly. Again, there is a difference between defining a coercive monopoly and saying, as Younkins does, that "A coercive monopoly results from a state grant of exclusive privilege." He's just responding to the statist position that says a free market is the cause. RJII 02:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Hasnas is wrong. He writes, "Most [contemporary business ethicists] take for granted that a free market produces coercive monopolies." I think most [contemporary business ethicists] take for granted that a free market produces monopolies, and villify all monopolies without distinction. Laissez faire theorists make the distinction between natural monopolies and coercive monopolies and argue that all monopolies are not bad - some are worse than others. These theorists define a coercive monopoly as one that involves coercion. E.g. Brandon defines it as a monopoly with "exclusive control of a given field of production which is closed to and exempt from competition." It's closed by virtue of force, or threat of it. The other theorists are even more explicit about aggression in their definitions.

It looks to me like you are taking an ad hoc and imprecise comment by Branden (about impossibility) to be a definition, and ignoring all the real economic theorists. Hogeye 23:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the "impossibility" definition as as issue. I really couldn't care less if it said "impossible" or "extremely difficult." But I would prefer "impossible" because it's just a definition like most economic definitions --an abstract ideal. It doesn't matter if it occurs in reality or not. A coercive monopoly is very much an economic concept, as much as it is a political concept for libertarians. I don't know how you can say I'm ignoring the economic theorists when they clearly define it as a situation where a monopoly is secured from the possibility of compeitition. Greenspan defines it: "A "coercive monopoly" is a business concern that can set its prices and production policies independent of the market, with immunity from competition, from the law of supply and demand." Would you be ok, matching it more closely to his definition, since Braden is not an economist? RJII 01:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems like that definition would include monopolies based on technological advantage. Xerox's xerography tech once gave them a monopoly in the 1950's; they were forced by an anti-trust suit to give away their patents to competitors. Xerox/Apple for a while had a monopoly on operating systems with GUIs, until the competition caught up. These, to me, are natural monopolies, not coercive monopolies. Yet the definition of Greenspan's you give above (from where?) would make these coercive monopolies. Do you agree, RJII, that these examples are natural monopolies? Hogeye 03:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if the patent thing is a good example, because one could argue that enforcing a patent is coercive. As far as the Xerox/Apple thing, that's a non-coercive monopoly (everything that isn't a coercive monopoly is not a natural monopoly). This is the point I'm trying to make. A coercive monopoly is not simply a situation where there is no competition. It's a situation where there is no competition AND where there is no (or almost no) possibility to compete. There was a possibility to compete with Xerox/Apple --the technology and efficiency of would-be competitors just hadn't caught up yet. There was nothing stopping competition but human ingenuity. Look at what Greenspan says: "The crucial question which they failed to ask is whether "active" competition does inevitably lead to the establishment of coercive monopolies, as they supposed -- or whether a laissez-faire economy of "active" competition has a built-in regulator that protects and preserves it. That is the question which we must now examine." Can you see that by making that statement he's holding the definition of coercive monopoly independent of what may cause a coercive monopoly? If you ask what causes coercive monopoly then you're not defining coercive monopoly by its cause. This reiterates my point that these essays from economic libertarians are arguments against the statist position that laissez-faire causes coercive monopolies (which the statists simply usually just call "monopolies"). If you edit out this conflict by simply defining coercive monopoly by its cause then the article is just trivial --of little economic or ethical importance. RJII 06:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
RJ> "There was a possibility to compete with Xerox/Apple --the technology and efficiency of would-be competitors just hadn't caught up yet."
So there was no possibility to compete since they were not caught up. Or conversely, there is a possibility to compete even if the government decreed a death penalty for competing in GUIs. Do you see what I'm getting at here? It is totally arbitrary to describe inability to compete due to tech lag as "possible" but inability to compete due to threats of force as "not possible." It may in fact be easier to ignore the law than catch up in technology.
RJ> "Can you see that by making that statement he's holding the definition of coercive monopoly independent of what may cause a coercive monopoly?"
Yes, but that does not imply that the definition of "coercive monopoly" is not "a monopoly maintained by coercion." In the quote Greenspan is asking whether "active competition inevitably leads to coercive monopoly." He's in no way implying that coercion is not the defining criteria for a coercive monopoly. He's challenging the notion that success or bigness, in and of itself, proves that coercion was used, as trust-busters seem to assume.
RJ> "These essays from economic libertarians are arguments against the statist position that laissez-faire causes coercive monopolies (which the statists simply usually just call "monopolies")."
Right - the statists are generally unaware of the concept of "coercive monopoly." All monopolies look the same to them. The term "coercive monopoly" was coined to underline the fact that some/most monopolies depend on coercion by the State - a fact that statists like to evade. It is a persuasive term, no doubt about it. It makes the trust-buster acknowlege the coercion involved, and appeals to the NAP (which even statists generally accept in their personal lives.) The term has no relevance to formal economics; its ethical significance is simply that it denotes the class of monopolies for which the NAP is applicable. Hogeye 07:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The definition that's there now (which is or is something like I wrote originally before I changed my mind on this): "In economics, a coercive monopoly is a form of monopoly in which a firm maintains its status as the sole provider of a good or service by using coercion (either legal or illegal) to prohibit competition." ..just doesn't cover it. How about subsidies? In the case of subsidies competitors are not being obstructed by coercion but by being "immune from the law of supply and demand." RJII 01:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point. The definition also implied that the coercion was done by the firm, when actually it is generally done by the State. Here's my try at an upgraded definition:
In economics, a coercive monopoly is a form of monopoly in which a firm is the sole provider of a good or service due to the use of coercion (either legal or illegal) by the firm itself or a third party (usually the government).
Note that "to prohibit competition" has been dropped, so now a subsidy resulting in a monopoly qualifies. Hogeye 02:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the definition given at the beginning of this section is more concise:
A coercive monopoly is a form of monopoly that is created or perpetuated through the use of force or the threat of force. Hogeye 03:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say this man, but the intro and article as you have it now just sucks. You took out all the explanation of non-coercive monopoly (or efficency monopoly) and how such a non-coercive monopoly must be careful to not raise prices to high or quality to low in order not to breed competition. I highly recommend you, and everyone, read that Greenspan essay Antitrust to really get a grasp of the contrast between a coercive and non-coercive monopoly (I can't emphasis that enough --it's a great essay. I had no clue until I read it.) The article is not interesting at all now from the perspective of economics. RJII 06:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
All monopolies are either natural or coercive. A non-coercive monopoly is a natural monopoly. Natural monopolies are mentioned and briefly described. Hogeye 07:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
DiLorenzo, Thomas J. (1996), "The Myth of the Natural Monopoly", The Review of Austrian Economics 9(2) [41] RJII 05:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
"Natural monopoly - A monopoly that does not arise from government intervention in the marketplace to protect a favored firm from competition but rather from special characteristics of the production process in the industry under the current state of technology. Theoretically, natural monopoly arises when there are very large "economies of scale" relative to the existing demand for the industry's product, so that the larger the quantity of the good a single factory produces, the cheaper the average costs per unit get -- right up to production at a level more than sufficient to supply the entire demand in the relevant market area." - A Glossary of Political Economy Terms
DiLorenzo's point in the article you cite is that a natural monopoly is almost always temporary in the real world - in the long run someone catches up or finds a substitute. Hogeye 06:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
A natural monopoly is indeed such a theoretical situation AND does not arise from government intervention. But, not all non-coercive monopolies are an example of that situation. That guy's phrasing is a little misleading --it does look like he's saying that everything that is not government backed is a natural monopoly (or maybe he is saying that; if so, he's wrong). There is the case of efficiency monopoly --one that is able to keep the price/quality ratio of an offered product so low that there is no profitable opportunity to compete. You didn't read the Greenspan essay? He talks about a monopoly that comes about because a firm is able to increase efficiency to a point where its able to offer such a low price that no one can compete without losing money. RJII 06:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I read it. If "a firm is able to increase efficiency to a point where its able to offer such a low price that no one can compete without losing money," then there are "special characteristics of the production process in the industry under the current state of technology." The special characteristic being, in this case, extraordinary efficiency. An efficiency monopoly is a special case of a natural monopoly. Hogeye 17:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
A natural monopoly results because of economy of scale. In other words, for example, each additional widget produced costs less to produce than the previous widget produced, because the large purchase price of the machine is a one-time cost. So, eventually the machine is paid off and the firm is able to sell the widgets at a very cheap price such that any potential competitor would not be able to get in on the market because of the large cost of the machine (fixed costs). An efficieny monopoly is, as economist Lawrence Reed puts it "is simply a situation where a company gets a high market share not because of any government grant of exclusive privilege, subsidy, special tax treatment, or the like, but because it simply does the best job." It's providing a good that serves the customer preferred price/quality ratio so well that no one has found a way to compete. Maybe you could say a natural monopoly is a kind of an efficieny monopoly, but you couldn't say that all efficiency monopolies are natural monopolies. A natural monopoly is specifically defined form of non-coercive monopoly --it's solely defined by being the result of economy of scale. RJII 19:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a verbal argument - whether to use the term "non-coercive" or "natural" to describe monopolies that are not coercive. I'm mellow. I'll replace "natural monopoly" with "non-coercive monopoly" in the article. Hogeye 19:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's a definition from The Economist website dictionary that defines natural monopoly, and actually mentions efficiency monopoly as well in the definition as being distinct from a natural monopoly: "When a MONOPOLY occurs because it is more efficient for one firm to serve an entire market than for two or more FIRMS to do so, because of the sort of ECONOMIES OF SCALE available in that market. A common example is water distribution, in which the main cost is laying a network of pipes to deliver water. One firm can do the job at a lower AVERAGE cost per customer than two firms with competing networks of pipes. Monopolies can arise unnaturally by a firm acquiring sole ownership of a resource that is essential to the production of a good or service, or by a government granting a firm the legal right to be the sole producer. Other unnatural monopolies occur when a firm is much more efficient than its rivals for reasons other than economies of scale. Unlike some other sorts of monopoly, natural monopolies have little chance of being driven out of a market by more efficient new entrants. Thus REGULATION of natural monopolies may be needed to protect their captive consumers." [42] RJII 02:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I have read Greenspan's essay. I am generally in agreement with it, but it would be wrong to skew the article towards his point of view, or to turn it into a back-and-forth argument resembling this talk page.
I was under the impression that the phrase "coercive monopoly" is most often used by those who oppose anti-trust laws. But this is not stated in the article, which at one point even tries to argue that the phrase is not necessarily judgemental. This is misleading. – Smyth\talk 12:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Take a look at the version that was there until recently reverted to an old version: [43] ( 19:44, 13 December 2005 RJIII). It's much better. RJII 15:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I looked. That version has an extraordinarily bad definition of coercive monopoly. Hogeye 17:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The older version is even more rambling and unfocused than the current one. – Smyth\talk 19:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the term

Smyth has a good point; the article should point out that the concept of "coercive monopoly" was (probably) in response to the primitive notion that all monopolies are bad, and (we need to check this) was inspired by the anti-trust laws debate. Does anyone here have information about the first use of the term "coercive monopoly?" Hogeye 17:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

To address Smyth's concerns, I added the following paragraph to the intro:

The notion of coercive monopoly probably arose from debates on the merit of antitrust laws. Whereas proponents of antitrust laws generally assert that all monopolies are essentially the same, opponents pointed out that monopolies can come about and/or be maintained either through voluntary means or coercive means. That monopolies can come about through coercive means is not disputed; the dispute centers on whether how much this difference matters in government policy with respect to monopolies.

Hogeye 17:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That's one of the things I've been trying to get across here. These essays are responses in opposition to the mainstream statist position that laissez-faire causes coercive monopoly. I've been trying ever since I created this article to find evidence of the term being used prior to the Objectivists, but I have't been able to. Supposedly Alcoa was claimed to have been a coercive monopoly, but I don't know if those supporting the antitrust actions against them used the term "coercive monopoly." The understanding among the Objectivist group, and Branden and Rand says this explictly, is that when pro anti-trust people speak against monopoly what they're referring to is a coercive monopoly (even if they're not using that term). I'm guessing Rand or Greenspan coined the term, but I'm not sure. RJII 17:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
So apparently where we disagree is this: I think the pro-antitrust people are against all (private) monopolies, i.e. they make no distinction between coercive and non-coercive monopolies. (Thus the Objectivists pointed out the difference and gave a name to it.) You think that the pro-antitrust people knew about the difference already, and only objected to the coercive ones. Frankly, I don't see any evidence of that. They never used the concept of coercive monopoly, and they railed against monopolies that were not remotely coercive - like the efficiency "monopolies" of Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum. Hogeye 19:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, think about this now. The Objectivsts think that when the anti-trust "people speak in an economic or political context, of the dangers and evils of monopoly what they mean is a coercive monopoly" according to Rand and Branden. Now, we know that the anti-trust people were/are not opposing government-granted monopolies, right? Therefore, the Objectivists believing that of the anti-trust advocates means that the Objectivsts don't define coercive monopoly as one backed by government. Look at what the Judge said in regard to Alcoa: "[Alcoa] insists that it never excluded competitors; but we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively to embrace each new opportunity as it opened, and to face every newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, having the advantage of experience, trade connections and the elite of personnel. Rand, Greenspan, et al. define coercive monopoly the same way anti-trust advocates define monopoly --a situation where competition is being excluded ("barred" in Greenspan's words). RJII 19:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
RJ> "Now, we know that the anti-trust people were/are not opposing government-granted monopolies, right?"
Right. Therefore, the antitrust people were not against coercive monopolies. They liked coercive monopolies just fine if they were sanctioned by the State. Thus Branden was wrong in his guess about "what they mean." He was projecting his distinction onto people who made no such distinction. Hogeye 21:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah. Good point. I'll have to think about that. RJII 21:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you that POV comes in with Branded guess what they're thinking. However, if Greenspan thinks that people were claiming Alcao was a coercive monopoly, then his definition of coercive monopoly must jibe with those who wished to break up Alcoa. The judge said competition was "excluded." The judge didn't say "coercion" was being used. RJII 02:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I think you are making too much out of both camps using the word "exclusion". Objectivists will argue that true "exclusion" or "coercion" is impossible in the long term without government help, because they believe that no exploitative monopoly can remain a monopoly without government help. However, antitrust advocates will use those two words freely about actions that are entirely voluntary and non-violent, because they do not recognize the same distinction between private and government barriers to entry.
In summary, as we all seem to agree that the term was invented to make a specific point, I think the article should limit itself to explaining that point and the responses to it. We should not wander beyond this and start inserting our own debates. – Smyth\talk 20:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you. And that's why this version [44] is superior, because it lays that conflict out and discusses both sides (not that it's perfect or anything). RJII 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I think, RJ, that you misunderstood Smyth. He's saying that the debate should be omitted from the article entirely, or at least cut down to a minimum. I don't think that the debate should be entirely ignored, so I suggest that we trim down the "Political Debates" section to a brief description of the issues - to about half or less of its current size. Smyth, does the article's third paragraph suffice in showing "that the term was invented to make a specific point?" Hogeye 21:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a good start, but it really needs a reference for the term's origin. – Smyth\talk 00:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Tag

Arthur Rubin, you really need to explain exactly why you put the NPOV tag there. I understand that you want an additional definition that says a monopoly created by coercion, but you haven't come up with a source. Also, why on Earth would that be POV issue? Sounds more like a factual issue to me. If you can't explain yourself, then the tag needs to come down. Do you have any sources for your definition claim? (I understand I put your definition there before, but it was only to appease you, which I shouldn't have done without a source). RJII 19:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I noted in the article that "some note that a firm can engage in coercion to maintain a monopoly." Will that do it for you? Rothbard says a coercive monopoly can come about by a merchant itself using violence (I remember you mentioning something about that article). I do think you're confusing how Rothbard is saying a coercive monopoly can come about, though, with his definition. I think it's pretty clear that he's using Greenspan's (and others') definition as a premise when he says " coercive monopolist will tend to perform his service badly and inefficiently" --that is, since the merchant is safe from the possibility of competition it can make pricing and production decisions without an eye on preventing compeition by keeping prices low and quality high. RJII 20:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A number of posters here have stated that your definition is wrong. I don't agree, but it's clearly not the only definition used by economists, as has been pointed out many times -- including a few times by me. I would accept a note about the alternative definition in the first paragraph of the introduction. I would not accept anything looking like "some note that a firm can engage in coercion to maintain a monopoly."
And -- it's an NPOV issue because it goes to the question of whether the article should exist at all. I suppose "grossly inaccurate" might cover the issue, but I think it's POV that you deny that the other definition "A monopoly maintained by coercion" is used by economists. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I've put in phrasing I would accept. If you concur, and this phrasing remains, I'll agree to removal of the NPOV tag. It is not correct that the problems indicated by the previous NPOV tags have been resolved. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I ask again. Do you have a source for your definition? RJII 02:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find a source in your references. I did before -- but give a couple days. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I'll be waiting. RJII 03:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
If you look up in the #alternative definition section, you'll find that I noted two articles from economists who could not have been using your definition. I concede that they may not have a clear definition (although Rothbard seemed fairly clear). You denied it, but the denial has no basis in fact. That is your unsupported POV. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
A monopoly maintained by coercion *IS* a coercive monopoly, but that's not the definition of a coercive monopoly. As you said yourself, those citations don't have a "clear definition"; the sources I provide do. The definition of a coercive monopoly is one where it is impossible to compete against. It's amazing you would hold out Younkins as a source, when he says explicitly that "the necessary precondition of a coercive monopoly is closed entry that can only be achieved by an act of government intervention in the form of special regulations, subsidies, or franchises." Subsidizing a firm, such that they can stay in business without being profitable and bypass the necessity of reacting to market supply and demand, is not in itself coercion. But, it *is* preventing competition --subsidies can be used to acheive coercive monopoly. Note that Younkins says government intervention is a "precondition" --in other words, what brings a coercive monopoly about, rather than what a coercive monopoly IS. RJII 19:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Specifics, as I was going to note before:
  1. Rothbard, in chapter 28, makes it clear that he defines coercion as the invasive use of physical violence or the threat thereof against someone else’s person or (just) property, distinguishing it from other definitions of coercion. As there is no specific definition of coercive monopoly, it is clear that it must relate to his definition of coercion, or chapter 22 would be a nullity.
I think it's clear from reading his The State Versus Liberty that he's premising everything on Greenspan's definition. Sure, violence creates the coercive monopoly, but that's not the definition of a coercive monopoly. And, you admit that he doesn't define it. So, it's "original research" if we define it for him. RJII 19:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. A "precondition" often means it's an implicit part of the definition -- so obvious that it does not need to be stated. Younkins seems to be saying that. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, he says subsidizes can be responsible for coercive monopoly. RJII 19:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Is a subsidy preventing competition by coercion?

As long as RJII continues his edit war, an NPOV tag is the least warning this article merits. This article is a textbook example of the problem with Wikipedia. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-01-16 T 21:01 Z

My edit war? I'm not engaged in an edit war. Don't come back here causing trouble like you did last time. It's best to stay away from situations where you have nothing constructive to contribute. RJII 03:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Correction: there is no point in contributing anything to this article as long as you are preventing it from being competently edited. Until that situation changes, the NPOV tag will stay. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-01-17 T 19:43 Z
No it won't. Not unless you can point out specific NPOV problem. The NPOV tag is not meant to be a permanent branding on an article, but a tool to fix any perceived NPOV problems. RJII 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there a Controversial template somewhere? At the present time, I can't say I'm comfortable with the article, but I can't point out a specific POV violation in the article except that I feel the alternative definition should be more prominent, and possibly even have a fork article. If BBlackmoor feels differently, he can put back the NPOV tag. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
A fork article? But, the article covers monopolies created by coercion. All you're doing is essentially changing one word in the definition --"barred" to "coercion." It amounts to the same thing. How can you bar a firm from entering the market? The only way I know of is by coercion. That's what the article is mainly about. RJII 03:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
You're contradicting yourself. If you don't object to the change from "barred" to "prevented by coercion", why don't you suggest it and make (almost) everyone happy? Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Because there is a difference between definiting a coercive monopoly, and making an assertion about how a coercive monopoly can come about. Different people have differing opinions on how it can come about. Some say it can only come about by government intervention (including subsidies), and others say it comes about because of the LACK of government. I'm dedicated to NPOV and standing up for the anti original-research policy. RJII 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, your own personal definition is in there. So what are you complaining about? I haven't deleted it. I just think it's original research. I SHOULD delete it, but it's not really worth the trouble because it's inconsequential. It comes out to the same thing in effect, and the same economics applies. RJII 19:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why not merge with monopoly?

I don't see how "coercive monopoly" is distinct from "monopoly". Salvor Hardin 17:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The article explains how it's distinct from monopoly. A monopoly is simply a situation where there is one supplier and no competition. A coercive monopoly is situation where there is no competition AND competion is barred. A monopoly can exist without competition being barred. It could be the case that simply no one has made the effort to compete your business yet. Or, maybe your business has found a way to make your product so cheaply that you can charge such a low price that others can't beat, so until others can figure out how to make competiting goods cheaper they won't be able to to charge a low enough price to make a profit (called an efficiency monopoly). Or, maybe your business is doing such a great advertising that everybody convinced that your product is superior. In those two cases cases, others are free to compete. It's just that doing so won't be profitable, so there's no point in doing it. In a coercive monopoly, you couldn't even engage in unprofitable competition if you wanted to. Why? Because the government, or the firm itself, would stop you through the use of force. A coercive monopoly is a kind of monopoly, but not all monopolies are coercive monopolies --so it definitely should not be merged. RJII 18:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Since when is that the definition of a monopoly? I thought a monopoly meant competition was impossible. Salvor Hardin 21:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
A monopoly is simply a situation where a firm is the sole supplier; no competition exists. So, what you're thinking of when you think of monopoly is actually coercive monopoly. Indeed, "When people speak in an economic or political context, of the dangers and evils of monopoly, what they mean is a coercive monopoly—that is; exclusive control of a given field of production which is closed to and exempt from competition, so that those controlling the field are able to set arbitrary production policies and charge arbitrary prices, independent of the market, immune from the law of supply and demand. Such a monopoly, it is important to note, entails more than the absence of competition; it entails the impossibility of competition. That is a coercive monopoly’s characteristic attribute-and is essential to any condemnation of such a monopoly." [45] Imagine you opened a business out in the middle of nowhere. You have no competitors, and are therefore are a monopoly, but no one is going to be upset at a you because you're not forcefully preventing competition. Anyone is free to move next door and set up a competiting business. If someone does move next door and you are able to price your products so low that your competitor can't make a profit and they can't stay in business you're still a monopoly but not a coercive monopoly, because others are free to compete if they can figure out how to price their products as low as you and still make a profit and stay in business. So, when you're thinking of a "bad" monopoly, you're not thinking of a mere monopoly, but you're thinking of one that is not possible to compete against; the reason that situation would be bad is they could price gouge (exploit) consumers if they wished. A non-coercive monopoly, cannot price gouge consumers for any significant amount of time because competition would move in on the action and lower prices would result through competition and it knows this. Therefore, characteristic of a non-coercive monopoly (an ordinary monopoly) is low prices. They know they must keep prices low to dissuade competition from coming in. That's how they became a monopoly --through price competition, rather than coercion. RJII 01:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I never knew. Huh. Well, the lead-in on the monopoly page still needs to get fixed. Salvor Hardin 12:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft (2)

I don't see how there's absence of force in Microsoft's monopoly. There was/is a basic requirement (or at least a very strong incentive) that almost anyone trying to use computers in business has to run Windows, and Microsoft has a government-enforced monopoly on supplying copies of Windows. Anyone trying to produce Windows CD's in competition with Microsoft will get busted for copyright infringement, either through direct physical coercion (raids by federal marshals) or legal coercion (lawsuits, court injunctions, etc). So maybe the Microsoft example can be expanded or removed. I'm sure that more valid examples exist. Phr (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That only makes sense if enforcing copyright is considered "force". Some do, I suppose, but it's not mainstream, even among libertarians. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard any theory that says that if you try to enter a market and guys with guns make you stop, that isn't force. Phr (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a question of property rights. If you accept that Microsoft may be able to prevent people from copying their software by liscensing agreements, then preventing others from violating those agreements is not *force*, even if done with guns. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
If I find a Windows CD in the street and start copying it without signing anything, I'm not breaching any kind of agreement with Microsoft. The only grounds Microsoft has for sending guys with guns after me is an external, government-enforced monopoly. Anyway, the whole concept of coercive monopoly becomes meaningless if you can label every deployment of guys with guns as non-force, by simply defining it as defense of a property right instead. Also, at least in the US, the notion that copyright is a property right (in the common-law sense) is non-mainstream or even extremist. It was rejected in Wheaton v. Peters very early in the country's history which established that copyright is purely a creation of the government. So the Microsoft example being described as non-force still seems completely bizarre and counterintuitive to me. I'm sure there's some better example or explanation of what I'm missing. Phr (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The intro and sources.

I just noticed that both the sources (sources one and two) given for the old definition at the top of the article are Objectivist in nature (one is Greenspan, yes, but it is quoting him from a lecture given in 1961, when he was an diehard Objectivist; the other is the Objectivist Newsletter.) I have no objection to devoting a sentence or two to the Objectivist position on coercive monopolies, but it shouldn't be in the intro, and certainly shouldn't dominate the article; a paragraph at most would be enough to summarize it. --Aquillion 17:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition is wrong

The definition isn't quite right, especially "a monopoly maintained by coercion." A coercive monopoly is the control of a vitally needed commodity or service, leaving users or consumers at the absolute mercy of the controller. The "coercive" part is the harm that the monopoly can do to people, such as denying people access to that vital good or resource. Yes such a monopoly can be maintained by coercion, but that's not what makes it a coercive monopoly. The Greenspan comments are correct, but aren't really a definition. That's a consequence of coercive monopoly. He's saying that if someone has a coercive monopoly that he can price his goods however he wants without worrying about compeition. If you own the only source of water, you have a coercive monopoly. You can deny it to people and can raise prices as high as you want because there is no possibility of competition. The U.S. Post Office would be a coercive monopoly because it has exclusive control over the delivery of letters. People are at the mercy of the Post Office. They raise their rates on stamps and you have no choice but to pay that if you want to mail a a letter and they aren't restrained by any competitive forces. In terms of definition, it's not a coercive monopoly because government is protecting it from competition, but simply because it has exclusive control of that service. Government is why it has exclusive control. I'll look up some sources and see if I can work on this. Economizer 00:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, simply having sole control of a commodity or service is not a coercive monopoly. There is a firm in Sudbury, Ontario which has the only nickel mine in North America; Coca-cola has the only recipe to Coke; Apple has the only Mac OSX operating system; Xerox had sole control of certain xerographic technologies until others caught up; you have the sole control of your particular set of talents and abilities. These are all natural monopolies, not coercive monopolies. Hogeye 18:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand the definition. You overlook "vitally needed commodity or service." If one person owns the only water supply in the world, then he has a coercive monopoly. If someone has a recipe for Coke it's not a coercive monopoly because there are substitute goods. A monopoly a situation where there are no substitutes. Producers&Parasites 20:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point.Anarcho-capitalism 20:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Bad point. The assertion that a coercive monopoly is "the control of a vitally needed commodity or service" is not supported by any of the references. Definition was right. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is. There is a source there. That is the general definition I learned in economics. Think of it as an "evil" monopoly. If you own the only water supply then you can let everyone die of thirst or even ask them to sign themselves over to be your slave for life in order for them to recieve water. There is no way for anyone else to compete. But if you own the only Coca-Cola supply, others can compete against you with other types of soda, orange juice, water, etc. If the government grants a patent for Coca-Cola no one is allowed to compete with you by selling Coca-Cola, but since there are substitute products it's not a coercive monopoly. A monopoly HAS to be a situation with no competition. That is the definition of a monopoly. Producers&Parasites 03:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no cite for the main definition in the monopoly article — it seems I would be justified in rewriting that completly using a cited definition. There were cites for both definitions back in JulyMay, but I stopped watching the article when User:RJII was banned in June. Apparently someone other than User:RJII has been vanadalising the article by removing cited definitions, but I may need to revert the entire article back to that version to produce a consistent article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me??? I'm the one that did the latest revision of the article and I did not remove cited definitions. And I am not a vandal. The article was wrong. A coercive monopoly is not necessary a monopoly maintained by coercion. It can be maintained without coercion as well. The "coercion" part is the exploitation of consumers, otherwise known as price-gouging or outright denial of the vital good. In a free market, price-gouging doesn't work for any significant amount of time because competitiors come in to take advantage of profit opportunities. A coercive monopoly can only exist under two conditions. Either the provider happens to be the sole owner of the vital resources or the government has made competition illegal. Economizer 21:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks like there are two definitions and that's what's confusing people. It seems that since Ayn Rand argued that a coercive monopoly can only result by government intervention, that some people have started definining it as a monopoly protected by the government because they weren't aware of the classic definition. When Rand says a coercive monopoly can only be created by the state she's not saying that that's what a coercive monopoly is. She's just claiming that the government is the only cause of them in the real world. I'll see if I can note in the article that there are two definitions. Economizer 21:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for calling you a vandal. The cite didn't get reinserted properly after User:RJII was banned. Younkins and Rothbard use essentially the definition I reinserted, although Yonkins goes on to say that it must be government coercion; i.e., force of law. The definition you're using is yet a third definition, which should also be inserted in the introduction, as it seems adequately sourced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Greenspan, Rothbard, Younkins, and Brandon all give the monopoly created or maintained by coercion definition. This is the classic definition. Foldvary's definition is non-standard, and frankly, very weak. I.e. "exclusive control over a vitally needed resource, good, or service such that the community is at the mercy of the controller" doesn't say what kind of control, how; it includes a fuzzy "vitally needed" condition," and the vague and connotative "mercy of the controller" phrase is dubious. Foldvary doesn't sound like an economist; he sounds like someone with an agenda. Hogeye 23:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intellectual Property

I'd love to list Intellectual Property as a government granted monopoly here, but I'm way too biased. Mathiastck 09:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course IP is a govt-granted monopoly. I added it in. Hogeye 18:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Pre-Berne copyrights could have been handled by license agreements, but the point is a good one. Should trademarks be added, as well? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Not all legal monopolies are coercive monopolies. A patent for the recipe for Coke would not be a coercive monopoly because there are substitute products. There is no such thing as a monopoly where there are competiting goods in the market. Producers&Parasites 20:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
That is correct. A monopoly has no competition.Anarcho-capitalism 20:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
What is a competing good is arbitrary. There is no other Coke, so for all people who only want Coke, Coke has a monopoly. Furthermore, weaselly "vitally needed" (commodity or service) is clearly wrong. I guess Foldavy doesn't think there can be a coercive monopoly in luxury goods? I'm glad the standard definition (monopoly enforced by coercion) is back. Hogeye 21:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Cocacola is not a coercive monopoly, because it's not harmful to society. A coercive monopoly is a situation that should be broken up. Free market advocates, like me, say that a coercive monopoly can only result in the REAL WORLD from state intervention. It's the same for a luxury good. Just because only Coach can sell Coach bags, it doesn't mean Coach is a coercive monopoly. Economizer 21:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
We decided that "harmful to society" is not part of any of the cited definitions of "coercive monopoly" in May-June, except for a few which devolved into a "coercive monopoly" is a monopoly that is harmful to me. Do you have a specific cite to the contrary? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the cite that added for my definition that you keep removing. Economizer 21:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The classic definiton of coercive monopoly is exclusive control over a vital resource, such that the controller can exclude others from having access to it or they can charge exhorbitant prices because there is no way for anyone to compete. Economizer 21:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/e/Talk%7ECoercive_monopoly_0fa5.html"