Comments Elsewhere

Matt McIntosh:

Has anyone else noticed that the larger and more diverse a firm gets, the more it starts to resemble a state in some ways?

Yes.

The answer can be obtained by referring to chapter 9, pp. 612ff above, where we saw that the free market placed definite limits on the size of the firm, i.e., the limits of calculability on the market. In order to calculate the profits and losses of each branch, a firm must be able to refer its internal operations to external markets for each of the various factors and intermediate products. When any of these external markets disappears, because all are absorbed within the province of a single firm, calculability disappears, and there is no way for the firm rationally to allocate factors to that specific area. The more these limits are encroached upon, the greater and greater will be the sphere of irrationality, and the more difficult it will be to avoid losses. One big cartel would not be able rationally to allocate producers’ goods at all and hence could not avoid severe losses. Consequently, it could never really be established, and, if tried, would quickly break asunder.

In the production sphere, socialism is equivalent to One Big Cartel, compulsorily organized and controlled by the State. Those who advocate socialist “central planning” as the more efficient method of production for consumer wants must answer the question: If this central planning is really more efficient, why has it not been established by profit-seeking individuals on the free market? The fact that One Big Cartel has never been formed voluntarily and that it needs the coercive might of the State to be formed demonstrates that it could not possibly be the most efficient method of satisfying consumer desires.

— Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State Chapter 10, section 2-F

Part of the point here being that calculational chaos is not limited to states; it’s just that the organized force of the state is the only way in which calculational chaos above a certain level can reliably be sustained.

Of course Sony, as a beneficiary of government-granted and government-enforced monopolies on its gargantuan copyright and patent portfolio, is as good an example as any.

Brandon Berg:

Wal-Mart and Microsoft aren’t angels by libertarian standards, but government has arguably hindered their growth as much as helped it, unless you count copyright enforcement in the case of Microsoft.

And extensive use of “eminent domain” theft in the case of Wal-Mart. I’m not sure I understand the “unless” in regard to Microsoft, though; I mean, unless you count an annual budget appropriated out of tax funds, the government has arguably hindered Amtrak more than they’ve supported it. But why wouldn’t you count that?