Comment: Nothing's *wrong* with competition in the provision of services

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: competition v. monopoly (see in situ)

Nothing's *wrong* with competition in the provision of services

...it's just not *possible* if the service is dispute resolution.

The reason that the dispute resolution business is susceptible to monopoly (unlike every other industry) is because it is inherently violent. It is not possible to settle all disputes peacefully. Without exclusive jurisdictions and/or an appeals process, judges will often end up on different sides of a dispute. Hence, sometimes judges will find themselves on different sides of a *violent* dispute. Competition between judges is inherently violent, unlike competition between (for example) fast food chains or ship builders.

"So why use violence and threats to eliminate competition in the provision of law?"

The use of violence and threats is inherent in the provision of law, and will result in the elimination of competition over time even if no one consciously attempts to create a monopoly.

P.S. See my blog linked above.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."