3 ms·
Is it really a mainstream position of modern libertarians that state-owned corporations competing against private interest is better than passing a law against
by stickyricky 5y ago
Is it really a mainstream position of modern libertarians that state-owned corporations competing against private interest is better than passing a law against some externality? This reads like a Chinese Communist Party press-release and not a non-aggression-pact, individualist libertarian.
- CryptoPunk 5y agoI can't speak for the mainstream libertarian position, only my own beliefs on what is consistent with human rights and what ruleset would likely be conducive to economic evolution towards greater functionality. There is nothing wrong with state-owned corporations in principle. They need not violate any one's rights. How they are funded, and what laws are created to assist them, can of course be problematic, as can the general inefficiency of the state sector. But if the funding sources for the state subsidies are not based on violating private property or contracting rights, there are no laws enacted to give the state-sponsored enterprise a monopoly over a market, and the subsidies address an externality to produce significant positive economic returns, then it would be fine. This approach to government intervention is less risky, as failure of government administration will only waste the resources expended on the state-sponsored enterprise, while leaving private citizens with the private sector alternatives. Regimenting an entire sector with top-down rules risks destroying that entire sector if the government chooses the wrong set of rules.