Comment: No, that's not what I'm saying

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: hold on (see in situ)

No, that's not what I'm saying

A monopoly DRO will emerge even if none of the DROs behave aggressively. A DRO does not need to use aggression to get or keep a monopoly. The reason:

DROs will often find themselves on opposite sides of a dispute: i.e. one will rule one way, the other will rule another way. Two contradictory rulings cannot be enforced, so which DRO enforces its ruling? In the absence of an established appeals process or court of final appeals: the one that can. The one that is strong enough to enforce its ruling. What happens to the other DRO, the one which is not strong enough to enforce its ruling? It can't compete. The DRO capable of enforcing its rulings necessarily prevents its competitors from enforcing theirs. It becomes a monopoly "in a fit of absent mindedness," as it were. It doesn't need to actively "prohibit competition." It just needs to be able to enforce its own rulings, no matter which other DROs issue contrary rulings - and provided its rulings are just, it is not aggressing by enforcing them.

I'm saying we'll get a non-aggressive monopoly no matter what. If we create a free market in dispute resolution and let it unfold, who knows how the non-aggressive monopoly that emerges will be structured. Whereas, if we design a non-aggressive monopoly and start with that, we can control its structure. Structure matters. How the monopoly is structured as an organization will largely determined whether and/or how fast it evolves into a state (which is what we want to avoid).

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