The monopoly of violence is not removed it is just spread to local areas

depends

You are just moving the monopoly around, You are not actually removing it

they may also have had nobles under their control who ALSO had privileges the Lord could not infringe upon

how is it a monopoly if no single body can do everything?

Not to mention you had ecclesiastical Lords

who were also responsible before the Pope

a foreign entity

It is a monopoly in their local area, Its a different type sure, But the result is the same, The government body whether they be many or few having the right to inflict violence

one body might have the right to inflict violence on person a in a given region, but not on person b

So your plan is just to split up the monopoly into local areas?

no, I'm asking you why isn't it your plan is you dislike monopolies and think that competition is a good thing

this clearly encourages competition and is less of a monopoly

(I'm also meming as HARD as I can, if you haven't noticed)

(I tend to do that to lolbertarians)

Monopolies damage the economy, Just look at Fascist Italy for example which is a good example, Mussolini wanted one company to be responsible for one thing which led to their being no innovation since the companies had no competition

Again, regurgitated talking point, not addressing my very serious idea

What is your main idea then?

I'm asking you why are you not ok with decentralizing the state if you dislike monopolies

I am to an extent, I would prefer for the economy to just run itself however there would be times when the government should intervene and the government is better suited to do that if it is not completely decentralised

I support some Decentralisation however the State should still have the power to stop monopolies

why couldn't the intervention be done on a local level, by the local authority so that there can be competing models within the country itself. Surely you are for competition?

Because local areas don't have the power to prevent a National Monopoly like Google for example

why not/

just ban it

Because they simply don't have the influence, A group of largely decentralised counties will not have the same influence as a largely centralised state

what do you mean by influence?

there is lots of counties today that ban FB

you don need to be ultra powerful to just ban something

They can't influence the economy enough if they can just effect it in their local area

well, but there is a lot of local aread

areas

if 30% of them decide to ban something, surely it's gonna have an impact

and if the ban was a good idea

then those areas are gonna see positive change

Your assuming that they would all agree to stop the monopoly

they don't have to

as I said

banning something is extremely ez

If 30% decided to ban it would have an effect sure, but the monopoly would still have substantial power

but not on their territory