Mumpsimus wrote:

[...]
>Bill Bartlett wrote:
>     You say there are two kinds of monopoly, one variety of which you say
>     has never existed. So that means that there is only *one* kind of
>monopoly.
>
>Nope.
>In baseball a pitcher who throws precisely 24 pitches (home) or 27 pitches
>(visitor) has pitched a 'perfect game' ... that one has NEVER happened
>does not preclude its existence.

In a parallel universe, presumably? OK, I qualify my remarks, if it has
never occurred then it does not exist *in our universe*. A mere theoretical
possibility falls short of being an actual existing thing.

>Bill Bartlett wrote:
>      But I think you are right, all monopolies require coercive
>enforcement and
>      in that sense there are no "natural" monopolies. All property for that
>      matter, since private property is but a monopoly right to use property,
>      artificially maintained by force.
>
>All rights are force or the threat of force, but you are attempting to
>subject free exchange into this equation which is dishonest.

All I'm saying is that exclusive private property rights are a monopoly,
upheld by the threat of force.

This is being clearly illustrated in Zimbabwe at present. For some reasons
of its own the state of Zimbabwe has suspended the enforcement of some
property rights. Allowing mobs to simply evict white land-owners. Whites
are a minority in that country, so this is clearly racial discrimination in
the enforcement of law, similar to the racially discriminatory way the
property rights of indigineous minorities are abrogated in places like
Australia and the USA.

But large property-owners are always a minority, only the armed might of
the state stands between them and the "natural" order of things - more
equitable control of the means of production.


[...]
>Bill Bartlett wrote:
>      You misunderstand. I don't deny there is the potential for class mobility
>      for a few people. Largely downward mobility of course, evidenced by the
>      inexorable increase in disparities of income. The rich are getting fewer
>      even as they are getting richer.
>
>This too is false.
>You presume a person at the bottom remains there (and vice versa) which
>is simply inaccurate.

I presume the exact opposite, I explicitly asserted that there is potential
for class mobility. Do you have poor English comprehension skills?

>  You further blame the apple for these woes when it
>is clearly the banana which is at the core ... most likely because of your
>support for the latter or at least the Power it brings.

You are babbling incoherently now, I didn't mention apples or bananas at all.

[...]

>Wealth is NOT distributed but created.

Not out of thin air it isn't. Wealth is created by applying labour to the
natural world. Labour creates all wealth and is thus entitled to all the
wealth it creates. But unfortunately you are wrong that wealth is not
distributed, the wealth created by labour is redistributed at the
discretion of the owners of the tools that labour uses, largely (surprise,
surprise) *to* the owners of those tools. Private property is thus a tool
primarily used to separate the creators of wealth from the product of their
toil.

>
>Whimsical opinions of Political efforts have no basis in reality.

I'm sure *you* know what you're talking about here. ;-)

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas