Taking violence out of transactions by simultaneously making the consequences of violence very expensive and the alternatives to violent dispute resolution relatively inexpensive is what makes non-violent markets work.
But I agree: a market in violence rather than a People controlled, pre-agreed upon rules-based government monopoly on violence would lead to and an explosion of cartel-like violence in many more arenas. I just think it is because we make it relatively cheap in that scenario rather than any kind of moral coupling.
I don't disagree here. My point was more along the lines of the power brokers coupling coercive force with economic gain, which a strict morality would (in my view) speak against. But yes, the argument against the nature of the cartels does not require moral arguments.
Taking violence out of transactions by simultaneously making the consequences of violence very expensive and the alternatives to violent dispute resolution relatively inexpensive is what makes non-violent markets work.
But I agree: a market in violence rather than a People controlled, pre-agreed upon rules-based government monopoly on violence would lead to and an explosion of cartel-like violence in many more arenas. I just think it is because we make it relatively cheap in that scenario rather than any kind of moral coupling.