"Ordoliberal theory holds that the state must create a proper legal environment for the economy and maintain a healthy level of competition (rather than just "exchange") through measures that adhere to market principles." "The concern is that, if the state does not take active measures to foster competition, firms with monopoly (or oligopoly) power will emerge, which will not only subvert the advantages offered by the market economy, but also possibly undermine good government, since strong economic power can be transformed into political power"
Based on my understanding of Kevin Carson and company's writings, this argument seems wrong. How could a company obtain monopoly power without it's ability to use the *state* legal system to enforce its monopoly? Minus onerous (and unenforceable) patents and copyrights, it seems that a genuine free market of highly diverse and decentralized players would all be playing economic games with each other. Without patents or copyrights being enforced through force (by the state or nakedly by wanna-be oligarchs or neofedualists), cooperative peer production would (ironically) out-compete mere "competition". I can see no way that any state, no matter how well intentioned, can't be captured at some point. The result is a modified legal code that favors certain players over others, eventually reaching the end-state of a unified corpocracy. -Paul (~*~)