5 ms·

> should be split up It may be weird that no one is arguing that (maybe it's just no one you're listening to, or being allowed to listen to, though?), but it's

> should be split up It may be weird that no one is arguing that (maybe it's just no one you're listening to, or being allowed to listen to, though?), but it's not weird that it's not libertarians. The notion that some people shouldn't be allowed to form voluntary associations with others because they got "too large" is anti-libertarian. That said, "libertarianism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are becoming too synonymous. As a libertarian (but not an ancap) I have no love lost for big corporations; I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments that monopolistic corporations are bad for society in general. However, because we must stand on principles instead of feels, the relevant principle here is that we have no right to interfere with others' affairs simply because they've chosen to pool their resources into free association, massive or otherwise (assuming they are not interfering with others' liberties, and I don't think there's a genuine argument now that they are). All hope is not lost, however: there is reason to believe that these monopolies derive much of their monopolistic power through the state (e.g., via regulatory capture) and thus by reducing the power of the state we will actually achieve the desired benefit (breaking up monopolies) without infringing on anyone's liberties.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>All hope is not lost, however: there is reason to believe that these monopolies derive much of their monopolistic power through the state How has google derived monopolistic power through the state?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- belovedeagle 9y ago
  I have been assured by innumerable statists that the government invented the internet. But I'm not sure in what market exactly Google is a monopoly? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of advertising and big data companies doing just fine.
  - andrepd 9y ago
    You're not sure in what market is Google a monopoly? Searches, for one, internet video as well... If the trend continues, web browsers as well (Chrome is fast approaching the level of usage share as IE at its peak).
    - belovedeagle 9y ago
      Those aren't products. Google's main products are advertising and user data. They can't be monopolists in markets they're not even participating in.
      - andrepd 9y ago
        Google doesn't participate in the search engine market. Got it. Makes perfect sense.
    - interstitial 9y ago
      Forget it Jake, it's SV. All is well that exits well. And google did that.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  Google can afford to break the law, small businesses can't. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/27/googles-1-billion-fine-what-you-need-to-know.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/27/googles-1-billion-fine-what-... Google broke the law because it was profitable to do so and I'd wager that google came out ahead even after the fine. To the extent that we make it lucrative to break the law, we favor those who can afford the punishment over those who can't.
- jgmjgm 9y ago
  Anti-trust laws are about leveraging your monopoly in one area of the economy in order to gain an advantage in another. There is nothing wrong with having a monopoly per se as long as it was gained and maintained fairly.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    And by "fairly" you mean literally any business tactic which does not rely on the government?
mikeash 9y ago
Why must we stand on principles?
hwillis 9y ago
>It may be weird that no one is arguing that (maybe it's just no one you're listening to, or being allowed to listen to, though?), but it's not weird that it's not libertarians. The notion that some people shouldn't be allowed to form voluntary associations with others because they got "too large" is anti-libertarian. Libertarianism as a moral structure is a belief in economic freedom for it's own ends. Like you said that really describes ancaps better. 99% of the time that's not what people mean when they talk about libertarianism, they mean libertarianism as an economic structure. That's still essentially a belief structure, but it's the very specific belief that economic freedom is the best way to create economic efficiency. The anti-authoritarianism comes from the fact that the government has special privileges (derived from enforced unionization of citizens) and is overwhelmingly powerful (derived from police power + spending comprising 21% of GDP). ANY large corporation will have that power- including Walmart (if its revenue was 10x higher), Apple (20x) and google (50x). Even a small corporation can, in a company town. Any libertarian should be against those things just on the principle that the rights available to any corporation should be equal. Having more money shouldn't "unlock" rights any more than having very little (welfare, progressive taxation, etc). I think the primary reason this is ignored is just ignorance of the methods and power wielded. Anarcho-capitalism is significantly less popular than libertarianism exactly because the moral beliefs are significantly less palatable. Very few people think that the poor should starve- I believe that most libertarians do honestly think that in an ideal world, livable work would be available for anybody with anything to contribute. >However, because we must stand on principles instead of feels, the relevant principle here is that we have no right to interfere with others' affairs simply because they've chosen to pool their resources into free association, massive or otherwise (assuming they are not interfering with others' liberties, and I don't think there's a genuine argument now that they are). That's... not admissible in any libertarian philosophy I'm aware of. That definition admits governments in their entirety, or close to. >All hope is not lost, however: there is reason to believe that these monopolies derive much of their monopolistic power through the state (e.g., via regulatory capture) and thus by reducing the power of the state we will actually achieve the desired benefit (breaking up monopolies) without infringing on anyone's liberties. That statement is in opposition to history (monopolies were larger when there was less government involvement), economic theory (noncompetitive practices are econ 101 and happen without any government), evidence (increasing amounts of money pretty clearly give a disproportionate amount of power) and common sense.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

>All hope is not lost, however: there is reason to believe that these monopolies derive much of their monopolistic power through the state How has google derived monopolistic power through the state?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
belovedeagle 9y ago
I have been assured by innumerable statists that the government invented the internet. But I'm not sure in what market exactly Google is a monopoly? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of advertising and big data companies doing just fine.
- andrepd 9y ago
  You're not sure in what market is Google a monopoly? Searches, for one, internet video as well... If the trend continues, web browsers as well (Chrome is fast approaching the level of usage share as IE at its peak).
  - belovedeagle 9y ago
    Those aren't products. Google's main products are advertising and user data. They can't be monopolists in markets they're not even participating in.
    - andrepd 9y ago
      Google doesn't participate in the search engine market. Got it. Makes perfect sense.
  - interstitial 9y ago
    Forget it Jake, it's SV. All is well that exits well. And google did that.
alexanderstears 9y ago
Google can afford to break the law, small businesses can't. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/27/googles-1-billion-fine-what-you-need-to-know.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/27/googles-1-billion-fine-what-... Google broke the law because it was profitable to do so and I'd wager that google came out ahead even after the fine. To the extent that we make it lucrative to break the law, we favor those who can afford the punishment over those who can't.
jgmjgm 9y ago
Anti-trust laws are about leveraging your monopoly in one area of the economy in order to gain an advantage in another. There is nothing wrong with having a monopoly per se as long as it was gained and maintained fairly.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  And by "fairly" you mean literally any business tactic which does not rely on the government?

mikeash 9y ago

Why must we stand on principles?

hwillis 9y ago

>It may be weird that no one is arguing that (maybe it's just no one you're listening to, or being allowed to listen to, though?), but it's not weird that it's not libertarians. The notion that some people shouldn't be allowed to form voluntary associations with others because they got "too large" is anti-libertarian. Libertarianism as a moral structure is a belief in economic freedom for it's own ends. Like you said that really describes ancaps better. 99% of the time that's not what people mean when they talk about libertarianism, they mean libertarianism as an economic structure. That's still essentially a belief structure, but it's the very specific belief that economic freedom is the best way to create economic efficiency. The anti-authoritarianism comes from the fact that the government has special privileges (derived from enforced unionization of citizens) and is overwhelmingly powerful (derived from police power + spending comprising 21% of GDP). ANY large corporation will have that power- including Walmart (if its revenue was 10x higher), Apple (20x) and google (50x). Even a small corporation can, in a company town. Any libertarian should be against those things just on the principle that the rights available to any corporation should be equal. Having more money shouldn't "unlock" rights any more than having very little (welfare, progressive taxation, etc). I think the primary reason this is ignored is just ignorance of the methods and power wielded. Anarcho-capitalism is significantly less popular than libertarianism exactly because the moral beliefs are significantly less palatable. Very few people think that the poor should starve- I believe that most libertarians do honestly think that in an ideal world, livable work would be available for anybody with anything to contribute. >However, because we must stand on principles instead of feels, the relevant principle here is that we have no right to interfere with others' affairs simply because they've chosen to pool their resources into free association, massive or otherwise (assuming they are not interfering with others' liberties, and I don't think there's a genuine argument now that they are). That's... not admissible in any libertarian philosophy I'm aware of. That definition admits governments in their entirety, or close to. >All hope is not lost, however: there is reason to believe that these monopolies derive much of their monopolistic power through the state (e.g., via regulatory capture) and thus by reducing the power of the state we will actually achieve the desired benefit (breaking up monopolies) without infringing on anyone's liberties. That statement is in opposition to history (monopolies were larger when there was less government involvement), economic theory (noncompetitive practices are econ 101 and happen without any government), evidence (increasing amounts of money pretty clearly give a disproportionate amount of power) and common sense.