The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

[n_huffhines]

Originally Posted by dreVol

are libertarians against monopolies per se or monopolies that create barriers to entry? I'm not sure they're the same thing.

If a firm establishes monopoly power through natural market operations, libertarians are fine with it. Monopolies like that are extremely rare, and short-lived.

The monopolies that create barriers to entry use government as a tool to secure their monopolies. Those are the type of monopolies that are commonplace, and long-lasting.

[therealUT]

Originally Posted by PKT_VOL

Interesting that you brought up John Stuart Mill's position on slavery. Most find his utilitarianism to be morally corrupt because it advocates the ends instead the means. Most arguements for slavery were telos in nature.

Speaking of slavery, I am always struck by Aristotle's argument for slavery. He basically said that they didn't deserve to be free because the were of intellectually inferior to their master. (To me) It was a fallacious argument for physical slavery. However if applied to modern political slavery, the argument becomes rather intriguing.

Are you asserting that there are no 'natural slaves'? Or, are you simply asserting that Aristotle's criteria for deciding the question of who are these slaves are faulty?

I think there are probably individuals who are born as natural slaves; I just think we do not have the resources to know, without a doubt, who they are. There are certainly individuals who would much rather be told exactly what to do throughout their entire lives than have to deal with making any critical decisions. I would say that these individuals are natural slaves.

[n_huffhines]

[Weezy]

I've been thinking about how the government's hand in college education has been messing everything up. If it was purely free market forces, we wouldn't be struggling with college debt or filling the needs of the job market (i.e. competing with Asia). I think 30 years of misallocation of human resources at the onset of people's professional development has really slowed us down. And we don't have to do anything to fix it but remove government.

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by RespectTradition

Monopolies can only exist with government collusion. Absent government interference, there can be no monopoly. True libertarians are against government interference in the economy.

You sure about that? Let's say I own the only navigable shoreline on an island. If I build a port and any one that wants to use the port must go through mine given the geographic constraints don't I have a monopoly on this particular trade?

[n_huffhines]

Originally Posted by Weezy

I've been thinking about how the government's hand in college education has been messing everything up. If it was purely free market forces, we wouldn't be struggling with college debt or filling the needs of the job market (i.e. competing with Asia). I think 30 years of misallocation of human resources at the onset of people's professional development has really slowed us down. And we don't have to do anything to fix it but remove government.

Totally agree. We would've already made a huge switch to e-learning/web certifications if there weren't for so much government subsidization of traditional university education.

[n_huffhines]

Originally Posted by volinbham

You sure about that? Let's say I own the only navigable shoreline on an island. If I build a port and any one that wants to use the port must go through mine given the geographic constraints don't I have a monopoly on this particular trade?

I have a monopoly on the specific property I own, too. The point is you don't have a monopoly on ports.

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by n_huffhines

I have a monopoly on the specific property I own, too. The point is you don't have a monopoly on ports.

I could certainly have a de facto monopoly if no other land was suitable to a port on this hypothetical island.

I'm simply suggesting that having a monopoly isn't entirely dependent on the government as was suggested earlier.

It has more to do with having exclusive supply.

[milohimself]

Monopolies most certainly can exist naturally, under certain circumstances

[dreVol]

Originally Posted by milohimself

Monopolies most certainly can exist naturally, under certain circumstances

are monopolies antithetical to libertarianism?

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by dreVol

are monopolies antithetical to libertarianism?

I don't see why they would be.

[n_huffhines]

Originally Posted by volinbham

I could certainly have a de facto monopoly if no other land was suitable to a port on this hypothetical island.

I'm simply suggesting that having a monopoly isn't entirely dependent on the government as was suggested earlier.

It has more to do with having exclusive supply.

I agree, but for practical purposes, this almost never happens without government. The only monopolies that are commonplace without government are new inventions that are first to market. The firm will enjoy monopoly power for about a month.

[milohimself]

Originally Posted by dreVol

are monopolies antithetical to libertarianism?

I think they deal with different things.

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by n_huffhines

I agree, but for practical purposes, this almost never happens without government. The only monopolies that are commonplace without government are new inventions that are first to market. The firm will enjoy monopoly power for about a month.

Monopolies are almost always geographic. Land right of ways, natural resources, local expertise can all serve to create monopolies in specific geographic areas.

In a fully libertarian world I could see bridges, ferries, tunnels, roads, etc. being monopolies with staying power considerably longer than a month.

[dreVol]

would monopolies be dealt with via incentives? so, if VBH owns th entire coast, we can say that he has a monopoly on the coastal land and any potential trade or recreational use that may be derived from that land.

if its valuable to VBH to allow trade or recreational use on the land, then he will set a price that he believes appropriately compensates him for its use. if the price is too high, no one will use his land.

conversely, if VBH decides not to allow anyone to use his land, then it is his prerogative to do so. human innovation will likely lead to alternative means to transport commercial goods and discover alternative recreational locales. VBH isnt forced to open his land and no one is forced to use vbh's ports, etc.

is that how the argument goes?