Can There Ever Be Too Much Decentralization?

[iluvbitcoins]

How does a capitalist exploit you in an anarchocapitalist society?
There are millions of companies looking for workers, and they have to compete to give the best possible conditions and higher wages in order to obtain the limited workforce. By default the workers live prosperous lives.

Collusion and cartels to start with. If everyone has self-interest, with no independent and impartial entity to provide checks and balances, there is nothing to stop the society running out of control. What's to stop monopolies forming as well? A big company can grind its competitors into the dust by lowering prices, and then once the competition has gone it can charge whatever the hell it wants, fair or not.

I'm not saying the present system is great, it's not, it has awful flaws and huge inequality, and the government aren't impartial at all. I'm just saying I think anarchy would bring problems too, and with no accountability there's nothing to keep it in check. I don't believe it's self-regulating. Well, except through violent uprisings and revolutions, but again, that's hardly an improvement.

Cartels only exist because goverments make things illegal and eliminate 95% of the competition allowing crooks to use coercion to inflate artificial prices and control the black market.
When have you seen a cheese cartel? Or a laptop cartel?
Why were there alcohol gangs during the prohibition era?
Where are they now when alcohol is legal?

Consumers are an independent and impartial entity and they choose which companies fail and which prosper.
Monopolies only form because of goverment involvment in the market. In a free market it's almost impossible to form a monopoly because everyone wants a piece of the cake if there's enough money in it and competition will naturally arise even if you somehow formed a monopoly on a certain resource, alternatives would arise because of the monetary incentive.

[DaftAjax]

<....> "Just a theory of mine, please take it with a grain of salt."

It's not a theory. IMO it's a great analogy.

But there's something that bothers me. If we already set foot on what is who and who is what, then shouldn't we now incorporate who/what decides their respectful roles? I don't think it's just the people, more likely it is the "system" that people lived and been living in their whole life. It's easy for us to decide whether something is good or is bad just because it's right or wrong, respectively. But then again, who decided that such acts are "right" and are "wrong"? Again it's the system. Because we believe or we lived under that system for, I would say, in a very long time--such actions or decisions that way before, are cautiously being decided--now have become a norm to our current era.

So if you think about it, we think it's too much because we decided that "too much" is wrong. But in truth, it's not always the case.

[topshelfcrypto]

\
Do you think a centralized 5G tower can exist and that it would be less harmful? lol

Are you talking about the alleged safety of 5G?

[topshelfcrypto]

Collusion and cartels to start with. If everyone has self-interest, with no independent and impartial entity to provide checks and balances, there is nothing to stop the society running out of control. What's to stop monopolies forming as well? A big company can grind its competitors into the dust by lowering prices, and then once the competition has gone it can charge whatever the hell it wants, fair or not.

That sounds a lot like how things operate under state control. An anarchist society doesn't promise utopia but one of the fallacies behind saying things like "it would just be anarchy" as opposed to what exists now, is that any potential criticism you can level against anarchy is already a problem under the current social order. So it's no real argument. E.g. if you're worried about monopolies forming, take a good long look at how government operates. Government is a monopoly by definition. Another one commonly used by people: If there were no government, warlords would take over!  ... do I even need to go there?? 

[styca]

Cartels only exist because goverments make things illegal and eliminate 95% of the competition allowing crooks to use coercion to inflate artificial prices and control the black market.

Collusion and cartels to start with. [...]

That sounds a lot like how things operate under state control. An anarchist society doesn't promise utopia but one of the fallacies behind saying things like "it would just be anarchy" as opposed to what exists now, is that any potential criticism you can level against anarchy is already a problem under the current social order. So it's no real argument. E.g. if you're worried about monopolies forming, take a good long look at how government operates. Government is a monopoly by definition. Another one commonly used by people: If there were no government, warlords would take over!  ... do I even need to go there??  

Thanks both, you are making valid points and challenging my perceptions. Just wanted to let you know you are having an effect.
I suppose my ideal state is one where the government is absolutely impartial and acts with no self-interest, where it is there only to serve the population, to ensure equality of opportunity. Is that possible? Who knows, maybe it's an impossible dream.

I do still think that governments are important in preventing monopolies and cartels. Not in all cases, sure, but there are many instances of governments stepping in to ensure at least a degree of fairness. You can't deny that it's easier to acheive a monopoly or form a cartel if there is no government to interfere.

[iluvbitcoins]

\
Do you think a centralized 5G tower can exist and that it would be less harmful? lol

Are you talking about the alleged safety of 5G?

I'm unsure what you are talking about. You think decentralization of the 5G network would be harmful because the 5G technology is harmful itself? So I don't see how a centralized network would not be harmful.,

I suppose my ideal state is one where the government is absolutely impartial and acts with no self-interest, where it is there only to serve the population, to ensure equality of opportunity. Is that possible? Who knows, maybe it's an impossible dream.

It's an impossible dream.

I do still think that governments are important in preventing monopolies and cartels. Not in all cases, sure, but there are many instances of governments stepping in to ensure at least a degree of fairness. You can't deny that it's easier to acheive a monopoly or form a cartel if there is no government to interfere.

Monopolies and cartels form only because of the goverment.

Where are the alcohol gangs today?
Did they exist during the prohibition era? Al Capone etc.?

Cartels only exist because of prohibition. The world is too big to be able to use coercion against everyone in order to maintain a monopoly. Free trade eliminates those possibilities.

[DaftAjax]

Monopolies and cartels form only because of the goverment.

That I would agree on. It's no secret that governments tend to intentionally form a monopoly not because they didn't want their citizens to be harm or any hocus pocus reasons of the sorts, but instead, they wanted to take control--not that they are not doing it as we speak but also they intended on doing so thru the market. I've seen this kind of "operation" many times over in my country, they'd even controlled one of the media (tv broadcast, newspaper) so that they would hide an alleged massacre (I'm not gonna go into details).

The world is too big to be able to use coercion against everyone in order to maintain a monopoly. Free trade eliminates those possibilities.

Sure the world is too big for that, but that said, this so-called "free trade" doesn't entirely eliminates the possibilities. Why? E.g. America is having a conflict with China, IIRC, the trade between countries is way off. So what Trump is doing right now is aligned to his principle, "America is only for Americans", that statement alone "monopolizes" the possibilities of "free trade". I don't know what's his real intentions are, aside from banning some people from Mediterranean countries, I think he's planning on isolating America from the rest if I say so myself.

[iluvbitcoins]

Monopolies and cartels form only because of the goverment.

That I would agree on. It's no secret that governments tend to intentionally form a monopoly not because they didn't want their citizens to be harm or any hocus pocus reasons of the sorts, but instead, they wanted to take control--not that they are not doing it as we speak but also they intended on doing so thru the market. I've seen this kind of "operation" many times over in my country, they'd even controlled one of the media (tv broadcast, newspaper) so that they would hide an alleged massacre (I'm not gonna go into details).

The world is too big to be able to use coercion against everyone in order to maintain a monopoly. Free trade eliminates those possibilities.

Sure the world is too big for that, but that said, this so-called "free trade" doesn't entirely eliminates the possibilities. Why? E.g. America is having a conflict with China, IIRC, the trade between countries is way off. So what Trump is doing right now is aligned to his principle, "America is only for Americans", that statement alone "monopolizes" the possibilities of "free trade". I don't know what's his real intentions are, aside from banning some people from Mediterranean countries, I think he's planning on isolating America from the rest if I say so myself.

Limiting the market isn't 'free-trade' it's quite the opposite.
Free trade would mean freedom to trade without goverment interference.
Import fees are not free trade.

[topshelfcrypto]

I'm unsure what you are talking about. You think decentralization of the 5G network would be harmful because the 5G technology is harmful itself? So I don't see how a centralized network would not be harmful.,

Sorry, let me clarify. In the original post I referred to 5G only tangentially as an example of how the information I was gathering for the article I wrote was very dispersed rather than in one or a few centrally located places. I think commenters already did a good job in dissecting how my thinking about information in terms of it being centralized vs decentralized was incomplete.

But in looking back I noticed in your initial comment you said "alleged dangers" and I realized that those words framed the discussion in a misleading way, whereas in fact it is more accurate to say "alleged safety". So my last comment was meant to re-establish the right frame. 

[BADecker]

^^^ Such playful wording.     

[topshelfcrypto]

Thanks both, you are making valid points and challenging my perceptions. Just wanted to let you know you are having an effect.
I suppose my ideal state is one where the government is absolutely impartial and acts with no self-interest, where it is there only to serve the population, to ensure equality of opportunity. Is that possible? Who knows, maybe it's an impossible dream.

To be clear, I wouldn't wish to deny you the freedom to associate with and self-organize whatever type of governance model you prefer, so long as it's voluntary and not compulsorily forced upon me or anyone for that matter. And likewise I wouldn't seek to force my own political will upon you or anyone else. At the heart of it, that is really where everything goes south. If you want to experiment with your own thinking about this, try replacing the word 'government' with the word 'coercion' and see whether or to what extent that impacts your values and opinions.

Usually when people say things like, "What we really need is ..." I'm thinking to myself, what do you mean we, kemosabe?

[styca]

Thanks both, you are making valid points and challenging my perceptions. Just wanted to let you know you are having an effect.
I suppose my ideal state is one where the government is absolutely impartial and acts with no self-interest, where it is there only to serve the population, to ensure equality of opportunity. Is that possible? Who knows, maybe it's an impossible dream.

To be clear, I wouldn't wish to deny you the freedom to associate with and self-organize whatever type of governance model you prefer, so long as it's voluntary and not compulsorily forced upon me or anyone for that matter. And likewise I wouldn't seek to force my own political will upon you or anyone else. At the heart of it, that is really where everything goes south. If you want to experiment with your own thinking about this, try replacing the word 'government' with the word 'coercion' and see whether or to what extent that impacts your values and opinions.

Usually when people say things like, "What we really need is ..." I'm thinking to myself, what do you mean we, kemosabe?

I don't really have a preferred model, I'm open to considering anything. What I want most of all is equality of opportunity, and a system that supports that. Capitalist and communist governments so far have just been an experiment in finding the 'least bad' model. There's got to be something better. I'm just not convinced (yet) that anarchism doesn't bring its own problems.

[Mometaskers]

Funny that since a few days ago I've been receiving notifications on vids talking about the economy of Habbo though I've never played the game. Basically everyone was allowed to run their "businesses" the way they wanted to and every one was ripping off everyone.

I think there may be some place for a centralized authority but personally I believe its main purpose should be providing security, building infrastructures private companies can't build on their own and making sure those companies remain competitive.

In the case of Bitcoin I think decentralization is fine enough for it.

[BADecker]

Can There Ever Be Too Much Decentralization?

Of course there can. It's called divide and conquer.

[styca]

I think there may be some place for a centralized authority but personally I believe its main purpose should be providing security, building infrastructures private companies can't build on their own and making sure those companies remain competitive.

I agree. The purpose of a government should be to rein in the most egregious excesses of inequality, and to provide universal services. There should be no self-interest beyond the common good. The question I suppose is which (if any) form of government does this the best?

[topshelfcrypto]

There should be no self-interest beyond the common good.

FEE (Foundation for Economic Education) had a great piece about that based on the film 'Hot Fuzz'

The Dangerous Idea of the Greater Good
https://fee.org/resources/the-dangerous-idea-of-the-greater-good/

Edgar Wright's Hot Fuzz is one the greatest comedy films ever made.

Not only is it a brilliant send-up of classic action movies like Point Break and Bad Boys II, and a masterwork of writing, editing, and visual humor, it is also an incredible satirical look at what happens when some people decide they know what's best for everyone and justify their actions in the name of the “greater good."

[Lance203sin]

Real centralization is a really hard thing. And i dont think that we really need it in every industry.
Some things should be managable