If something is almost a government, but not quite, and creates a monopoly, that would I suppose technically be a counterexample to the claim that monopolies are all caused by governments. However, while it would demonstrate the claim to be false, it wouldn't demonstrate that it is far from being true.
However, I wouldn't claim that all monopolies are all from government or nearly from government. I probably wouldn't even claim that almost all monopolies are.
Mao gave a very concise yet accurate description of this state of affairs: "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".
And Mao didn't know shit. Violence is for those who do not have power.
> All political institutions are manifestations and materializations of power; they petrify and decay as soon as the living power of the people ceases to uphold them.
-- Hannah Arendt
Yes, in practice, it's threat of violence rather than actual violence doing the trick most of the time. But the reason why that threat is respected is precisely because the violence behind it is very real, and we all know it.
And this all has nothing to do with majority rule etc. A gang that has most neighborhood residents as its members is still a gang. And when gangs do get formed "for protection of both the group and the individuals", they still need to use violence (or threat of violence) towards that goal, oppressing those that would oppress them otherwise. So you might end up with a "good guy with a gun", but it's still a guy with a gun. Remove them, and government becomes an advisory council, making recommendations rather than laws.
I don't think tried to understand the distinction between power and violence that Arendt makes.
How does potentially getting arrested for breaking a law prove that political power comes from violence?
> Yes, in practice, it's threat of violence rather than actual violence doing the trick most of the time. But the reason why that threat is respected is precisely because the violence behind it is very real, and we all know it.
It can just as well be a mutual and voluntary agreement. It's not like people who don't rape or murder usually all just refrain from that because it's illegal and would be met with violence, so I would argue the opposite is also true, we made certain things illegal so we can deal with it in a structured manner where the laws ideally apply equally to each. Just like children don't just obey or imitate adults out of fear, just like many open source projects are successful without any threats.
The "violence" in "monopoly on violence" isn't any more sinister than the "road safety regulation" in "monopoly on road safety regulation", at least insofar every affected individuum is part of the entity that has said monopoly.
> So you might end up with a "good guy with a gun", but it's still a guy with a gun.
Yes, and? You just keep stating that as if it means something. What is your point, in relation to my original point of government being ours in principle, and being changeable? It's not like that there is no gun if you don't have a "good guy with a gun", that gun is a given, so why even bring it up?
If it were a completely mutual and voluntary agreement, then you wouldn't need a government as such, or laws, or any enforcement thereof. And that would be an anarchist commune, not a state.
Any place that has laws, and penalties for breaking those laws, has an implicit threat of violence against law-breakers - it's really that simple. And if it is making that threat at all, it's because it expects the law to be broken by some.
> The "violence" in "monopoly on violence" isn't any more sinister
I didn't say anything about it being sinister in principle. It's only sinister if it causes more violence than it prevents.
> What is your point, in relation to my original point of government being ours in principle, and being changeable?
I was specifically responding to another person saying that "a gang is a little bit like government", further expanding on that. It was not directed at you or your comment.
(I am currently too much of a statist to really reject the idea of a state being "legitimate" , in a way that probably distinguishes it from gangs in general.)
I would say it can be, but more importantly, it doesn't have to be:
> Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government.
-- Noam Chomsky
And even if consumers are to be able to "vote with their wallets", if workers are supposed to to have a choice of employer and certain protections, there needs to be some regulation that goes for everybody, and is enforced for everybody. It's not going to happen out of generosity, or consumers researching everything on their own. How would you even make sure the food you eat is not toxic? Not that regulations make it 100% safe, but they can be a lot more efficient and very helpful, just like they can be horrible and backwards.
I really think a major obstacle is that people see government as something that acts on them, instead of something through which they ideally would act together as equals and improve their lot in a way that transcends the scope and lifespan of the individual. Yes, there is a lot of corruption, but the thing is, that's something one can get to work at -- when it comes to (some) corporations, it's too often consumers talking about them amongst each other, "hoping" things will change as they often get worse.
> People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
-- Adam Smith
When drug dealers or street gangs carve up territory, you might call that a form of local monopoly, and it comes from people themselves, no state intervention required. Usurping parts of the government for that purpose is something bigger gangs or corporations may do (also see "War is a Racket"), but it's not technically required I would say.