RE: state vs. insurers (was: Libertarian theory breaking down)

From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Mon Mar 24 2003 - 21:03:41 MST

  • Next message: Emlyn O'regan: "RE: state vs. insurers (was: Libertarian theory breaking down)"

    On Mon, 2003-03-24 at 21:40, Emlyn O'regan wrote:

    >
    > I still don't understand how all the smaller insurers wouldn't get gobbled
    > up into a big monopoly, which then has a monopoly on violence and can decide
    > to become a defacto government. How do you protect against this?
    >
    ### An insurance company has lower market entry costs than in the case
    of making a state (where you need to hack out a territory from other
    states by force, keep the people from fleeing). This should be
    sufficient to assure competition, especially since most people would
    switch to new providers long before the old one could consolidate its
    position. At least as long as there would be no major concentration of
    land held by one insurance agency, since this would make competition
    impossible.

    Rafal



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 24 2003 - 21:11:32 MST