4 ms·

As a self-defined libertarian, I think one of the most critical functions a government is responsible for is anti-trust and Monopoly busting. This is one of the

As a self-defined libertarian, I think one of the most critical functions a government is responsible for is anti-trust and Monopoly busting. This is one of the critical issues of our time, but is only a symptom of the corruption of Congress, which is a deep topic in it's own right. Free markets are like any hierarchy, and if theres no regulation mechanism the powerful will dominate the less powerful. I think history and established economic and game theory is fairly universal on this point. I'd be interested to hear an argument that these international megacorporations without meaningful competition don't need to be broken up.

kevin_b_er 8y ago
This doesn't sound like a liberatarian, at least not in the US. The one with the strongest competitive greed who wins the most money/power is viewed as the end-goal and the most successful under the ideology. Thus, a monopoly is really the end-goal of US libertarianism for they had the highest wealth and are assumed to have the highest drive to have the most wealth. Libertarianism opposes that the will of the people should constrain avarice or rich and powerful. Greed is always good under libertarianism. The philosophy is particular popular for the rich because it is a tool to prevent the will of the people from constraining their power through wealth. So, Libertarianism blames regulation itself as the cause of monopolies because they look mainly at regulatory capture, which is done through greed-based corruption of government. Libertarian philosophy would view reducing the regulation, and thus any constraint on Facebook's avarice, as the solution to Facebook's monopoly. So, you shouldn't, as a libertarian, propose trust-busting regulation for Facebook, as this is the opposite of libertarian.
- feanaro 8y ago
  There is plenty left in the libertarian philosophy even if you take away the concept of idly sitting by, watching perverse, runaway growth. For example, ideas like bounding government power and reducing it to a few minimum functions and letting the market handle most things by itself. This does not necessarily imply letting the market go completely unchecked and requiring it to serve every need. I think that decentralization of power is one of those profoundly libertarian ideas that is not often explicitly recognized as one.After all, a corporation in which power is extremely centralized is hard to differentiate from a government. Furthermore, if there is no one keeping it in any kind of check, what is preventing it from becoming a totalitarian government? Markets work best when there is at least some level of decentralization. In other words, when you don't let any entity acquire a significant portion of total power.
- kryogen1c 8y ago
  > Thus, a monopoly is really the end-goal of US libertarianism > Libertarianism opposes that the will of the people should constrain avarice or rich and powerful. Greed is always good under libertarianism. > So, you shouldn't, as a libertarian, propose trust-busting regulation for Facebook, as this is the opposite of libertarian. I agree that what you described is the opposite of what I described, but I don't think what you described is in any way representative of Libertarianism. Money is thought to be a good motivator because it's inherent and other people's desire will counterbalance and propel everyone forward. What you're describing sounds more like sound bites from the 1%\99% movement than any political or economic philosophy I've heard or read.
colemannugent 8y ago
The libertarian argument against government breaking up monopolies is pretty simple, we believe that most monopolies were created by the government in the first place. Here are some pretty standard arguments: https://mises.org/wire/many-ways-governments-create-monopolies https://mises.org/wire/many-ways-governments-create-monopoli... https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly I'm curious, is there a particular sect of libertarianism that you identify with? I don't think I've heard any of the mainstream branches make the argument you did, and I would like to see how your line of thinking fits into the larger libertarian cannon.
- int_19h 8y ago
  As a former libertarian, you're speaking for one particular subset of libertarians, not all of them. There are some that believe that in a pure unregulated market, monopolies would simply not arise in most cases, yes. There are others who believe that they will naturally arise, but it's okay, because that just indicates that the market has reached peak efficiency. And there are yet others who believe that the important part about markets is their freedom (as defined by Smith originally, i.e. free competition), and lack of regulation can hamper that.
- kryogen1c 8y ago
  > The libertarian argument against government breaking up monopolies is pretty simple, we believe that most monopolies were created by the government in the first place. > Here are some pretty standard arguments: >https://mises.org/wire/many-ways-governments-create-monopoli.. https://mises.org/wire/many-ways-governments-create-monopoli.... >https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly These seem like they can be summarized as regulatory capture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture I definitely agree this exists. However, totally free markets can be dominated by monopolies through different mechanisms. new technology is monopolistic in nature because it often starts from a single/few place(s). Incumbent corporations can amass orders of magnitude of wealth making it functionally impossible to compete. This has become less prolific in the last 2-3 decades, but has been painfully true at every other point in human history when physical resistance (violent or nonviolent) was the only way to affect change. This, by the way, assumes no purposeful anti-competitive behavior. Current anti-trust law requires houses where I live to be serviced by mutiple ISPs, so me (and almost everyone I've ever met, residence or corporate) have a huge menu of choices from company A, or a 56Kbps line from company B. What a coincidence -.- > I'm curious, is there a particular sect of libertarianism that you identify with? Not particularly. > I don't think I've heard any of the mainstream branches make the argument you did, and I would like to see how your line of thinking fits into the larger libertarian cannon. I think most Libertarianism has become a refugee camp for people recognizing and fighting government corruption rather than a conscientious political philosophy on it's own.
simplecomplex 8y ago
There's absolutely nothing stopping competition. Switching from Facebook or Google to a competing service is as simple as typing a URL into the web browser. They maintain their business position by providing an excellent product, not by preventing other people from creating competing products.
- thosakwe 8y ago
  Well, that’s not 100% true. Competitors (specifically talking about FB in this case) are often copied outright if they reject an acquisition offer. I see that as stopping competition.
  - simplecomplex 8y ago
    Isn’t that just business competing? If I open a burger stand, and the sandwich shop next door starts selling burgers, they’re competing for the same customers. The government stopping the sandwich shop from selling burgers would be anti-competitive. I’m assuming you’re referring to Facebook implementing stories? Preventing them from implementing them would be anti-competitive.

kevin_b_er 8y ago

This doesn't sound like a liberatarian, at least not in the US. The one with the strongest competitive greed who wins the most money/power is viewed as the end-goal and the most successful under the ideology. Thus, a monopoly is really the end-goal of US libertarianism for they had the highest wealth and are assumed to have the highest drive to have the most wealth. Libertarianism opposes that the will of the people should constrain avarice or rich and powerful. Greed is always good under libertarianism. The philosophy is particular popular for the rich because it is a tool to prevent the will of the people from constraining their power through wealth. So, Libertarianism blames regulation itself as the cause of monopolies because they look mainly at regulatory capture, which is done through greed-based corruption of government. Libertarian philosophy would view reducing the regulation, and thus any constraint on Facebook's avarice, as the solution to Facebook's monopoly. So, you shouldn't, as a libertarian, propose trust-busting regulation for Facebook, as this is the opposite of libertarian.

feanaro 8y ago
There is plenty left in the libertarian philosophy even if you take away the concept of idly sitting by, watching perverse, runaway growth. For example, ideas like bounding government power and reducing it to a few minimum functions and letting the market handle most things by itself. This does not necessarily imply letting the market go completely unchecked and requiring it to serve every need. I think that decentralization of power is one of those profoundly libertarian ideas that is not often explicitly recognized as one.After all, a corporation in which power is extremely centralized is hard to differentiate from a government. Furthermore, if there is no one keeping it in any kind of check, what is preventing it from becoming a totalitarian government? Markets work best when there is at least some level of decentralization. In other words, when you don't let any entity acquire a significant portion of total power.
kryogen1c 8y ago
> Thus, a monopoly is really the end-goal of US libertarianism > Libertarianism opposes that the will of the people should constrain avarice or rich and powerful. Greed is always good under libertarianism. > So, you shouldn't, as a libertarian, propose trust-busting regulation for Facebook, as this is the opposite of libertarian. I agree that what you described is the opposite of what I described, but I don't think what you described is in any way representative of Libertarianism. Money is thought to be a good motivator because it's inherent and other people's desire will counterbalance and propel everyone forward. What you're describing sounds more like sound bites from the 1%\99% movement than any political or economic philosophy I've heard or read.

colemannugent 8y ago

The libertarian argument against government breaking up monopolies is pretty simple, we believe that most monopolies were created by the government in the first place. Here are some pretty standard arguments: https://mises.org/wire/many-ways-governments-create-monopolies https://mises.org/wire/many-ways-governments-create-monopoli... https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly I'm curious, is there a particular sect of libertarianism that you identify with? I don't think I've heard any of the mainstream branches make the argument you did, and I would like to see how your line of thinking fits into the larger libertarian cannon.

int_19h 8y ago
As a former libertarian, you're speaking for one particular subset of libertarians, not all of them. There are some that believe that in a pure unregulated market, monopolies would simply not arise in most cases, yes. There are others who believe that they will naturally arise, but it's okay, because that just indicates that the market has reached peak efficiency. And there are yet others who believe that the important part about markets is their freedom (as defined by Smith originally, i.e. free competition), and lack of regulation can hamper that.
kryogen1c 8y ago
> The libertarian argument against government breaking up monopolies is pretty simple, we believe that most monopolies were created by the government in the first place. > Here are some pretty standard arguments: >https://mises.org/wire/many-ways-governments-create-monopoli.. https://mises.org/wire/many-ways-governments-create-monopoli.... >https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly These seem like they can be summarized as regulatory capture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture I definitely agree this exists. However, totally free markets can be dominated by monopolies through different mechanisms. new technology is monopolistic in nature because it often starts from a single/few place(s). Incumbent corporations can amass orders of magnitude of wealth making it functionally impossible to compete. This has become less prolific in the last 2-3 decades, but has been painfully true at every other point in human history when physical resistance (violent or nonviolent) was the only way to affect change. This, by the way, assumes no purposeful anti-competitive behavior. Current anti-trust law requires houses where I live to be serviced by mutiple ISPs, so me (and almost everyone I've ever met, residence or corporate) have a huge menu of choices from company A, or a 56Kbps line from company B. What a coincidence -.- > I'm curious, is there a particular sect of libertarianism that you identify with? Not particularly. > I don't think I've heard any of the mainstream branches make the argument you did, and I would like to see how your line of thinking fits into the larger libertarian cannon. I think most Libertarianism has become a refugee camp for people recognizing and fighting government corruption rather than a conscientious political philosophy on it's own.

simplecomplex 8y ago

There's absolutely nothing stopping competition. Switching from Facebook or Google to a competing service is as simple as typing a URL into the web browser. They maintain their business position by providing an excellent product, not by preventing other people from creating competing products.

thosakwe 8y ago
Well, that’s not 100% true. Competitors (specifically talking about FB in this case) are often copied outright if they reject an acquisition offer. I see that as stopping competition.
- simplecomplex 8y ago
  Isn’t that just business competing? If I open a burger stand, and the sandwich shop next door starts selling burgers, they’re competing for the same customers. The government stopping the sandwich shop from selling burgers would be anti-competitive. I’m assuming you’re referring to Facebook implementing stories? Preventing them from implementing them would be anti-competitive.