4 ms·

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

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.

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.