3 ms·

Well the libertarian position is the "Bad" or Exploitive Monopolies, (True Monopolies not "monopolies" like when people say Apple or Amazon are monopolies) on

Well the libertarian position is the "Bad" or Exploitive Monopolies, (True Monopolies not "monopolies" like when people say Apple or Amazon are monopolies) only really happen when government protects them, or "regulates" the market to where no competition is possible.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
They say that, but they're wrong. Monopolies happen when one company has enough money to buy out the competition, when one company has enough leverage to lock out the competition, or when it's a "natural monopoly" (and maybe some other situations). None of those requires government protection to create; all require government intervention to avoid and/or control.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  All of that requires government. Show me a "natural" monopoly that was not instituted by government regulation. The most common examples today are utilities which are all 100% government created monopolies. Other examples are Standard Oil, or Bell Telephone, both where also highly protected by government regulations and other laws that prevented competition in those markets
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    No, utilities are not government created monopolies. Take natural gas. Let's say there's a first company that has laid pipes to all the houses in town. Currently, they're a monopoly, just because they were there first. No government involved. They may be pretty profitable, too, in the absence of competition. And they're remain a monopoly until some other company lays pipes to at least some of the houses in town. But no company will do so, because they know that if they do, the first company (who has years of profits to build up their financial reserves) will lower prices to the point that neither company makes money. The new company will go out of business, and the established company can then raise rates back to what they were. It takes government intervention to stop this dynamic. And, with electricity and gas, it usually takes one of two forms - either a public service commission that prevents the monopoly from making too much money, or a requirement to allow competitors to use the existing pipes/wires. But neither of those created the monopoly. They just responded to the fact that natural monopolies are what naturally happen in things like electricity and gas. Your claim was broader than natural monopolies. You said "All of that requires government". How does one company buying out their competitors require government (beyond having money and a legal system)? (And if the claim is "money and a legal system require having government", that's true, but it's true for all companies in general, not just monopolies, so that's pretty much not the topic under discussion.) How does one company using leverage to monopolize a market require government? For a concrete example, when Microsoft was using Windows as leverage to try to monopolize the browser market, how did that take government? It took government (an antitrust court case) to stop them.
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      this is 100% False in the US anyway, you are barred by law from laying new Pipes or Electric lines, etc. There are complex regulations and laws governing access to easements, internet is the one thing that has been allowed to have competitive access to these utility easements and I have access to multiple physical communications lines to my property. The idea that no company would consider running additional electric lines if granted the opportunity is non-sense.
      - notahacker 3y ago
        Granted the opportunity to run additional electric wires everywhere by whom? Something's got to compel landowners to give unfettered access to their property to run wires and pipes to other properties and that something isn't market forces. (It isn't market forces that means the monopoly provider of wired telephony in my area has to permit multiple ISPs to use their wire either...) Or abolish land as property as an evil state construct, I guess, but I haven't heard of any right-libertarians that want to do that (or seen anywhere with limited property rights that has an abundance of utilities to choose from...)
        phpisthebest 3y ago
        >> I guess, but I haven't heard of any right-libertarians that want to do that Well this is conversation is about libertarians, not "right-libertarians", I am more of Geo-Libertarian >>Something's got to compel landowners to give unfettered access to their property to run wires and pipes to other properties Yes it is called a voluntary agreement built into the title of the property (aka convents) normally when a subdivision of land is created, where by utility paths laid out by the developer. Subsequent purchasers of the land must agree to these convents, including utility easements, when they buy the property. government is not required for that.
        notahacker 3y ago
        If you're building your own power and sewerage stations, you're going to have to build across a lot more than just residential subdivisions with handy built in covenants... Oh, and covenants are entirely unenforceable without government anyway.
7thaccount 3y ago
Yep. I understand their view, but I don't think it always holds. Once an entity like Apple becomes Apple, it can't really be competed with in the traditional sense. The whole European Union likely couldn't create a new Apple if they wanted to due to inertia and the insane capital costs. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's more of a factor here. I agree with the Libertarian view that a lot of firms don't want to compete, so they lobby for special protections that come out of the tax layers in a somewhat coercive manner. In some cases (national defense) I think it's acceptable, but probably not for all cases.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>Once an entity like Apple becomes Apple, it can't really be competed with in the traditional sense That is odd be cause I have never used, and never will use an Apple product and I have access to all the same things that an Apple user does? Apple is in no way a monopoly

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

They say that, but they're wrong. Monopolies happen when one company has enough money to buy out the competition, when one company has enough leverage to lock out the competition, or when it's a "natural monopoly" (and maybe some other situations). None of those requires government protection to create; all require government intervention to avoid and/or control.

phpisthebest 3y ago
All of that requires government. Show me a "natural" monopoly that was not instituted by government regulation. The most common examples today are utilities which are all 100% government created monopolies. Other examples are Standard Oil, or Bell Telephone, both where also highly protected by government regulations and other laws that prevented competition in those markets
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  No, utilities are not government created monopolies. Take natural gas. Let's say there's a first company that has laid pipes to all the houses in town. Currently, they're a monopoly, just because they were there first. No government involved. They may be pretty profitable, too, in the absence of competition. And they're remain a monopoly until some other company lays pipes to at least some of the houses in town. But no company will do so, because they know that if they do, the first company (who has years of profits to build up their financial reserves) will lower prices to the point that neither company makes money. The new company will go out of business, and the established company can then raise rates back to what they were. It takes government intervention to stop this dynamic. And, with electricity and gas, it usually takes one of two forms - either a public service commission that prevents the monopoly from making too much money, or a requirement to allow competitors to use the existing pipes/wires. But neither of those created the monopoly. They just responded to the fact that natural monopolies are what naturally happen in things like electricity and gas. Your claim was broader than natural monopolies. You said "All of that requires government". How does one company buying out their competitors require government (beyond having money and a legal system)? (And if the claim is "money and a legal system require having government", that's true, but it's true for all companies in general, not just monopolies, so that's pretty much not the topic under discussion.) How does one company using leverage to monopolize a market require government? For a concrete example, when Microsoft was using Windows as leverage to try to monopolize the browser market, how did that take government? It took government (an antitrust court case) to stop them.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    this is 100% False in the US anyway, you are barred by law from laying new Pipes or Electric lines, etc. There are complex regulations and laws governing access to easements, internet is the one thing that has been allowed to have competitive access to these utility easements and I have access to multiple physical communications lines to my property. The idea that no company would consider running additional electric lines if granted the opportunity is non-sense.
    - notahacker 3y ago
      Granted the opportunity to run additional electric wires everywhere by whom? Something's got to compel landowners to give unfettered access to their property to run wires and pipes to other properties and that something isn't market forces. (It isn't market forces that means the monopoly provider of wired telephony in my area has to permit multiple ISPs to use their wire either...) Or abolish land as property as an evil state construct, I guess, but I haven't heard of any right-libertarians that want to do that (or seen anywhere with limited property rights that has an abundance of utilities to choose from...)
      - phpisthebest 3y ago
        >> I guess, but I haven't heard of any right-libertarians that want to do that Well this is conversation is about libertarians, not "right-libertarians", I am more of Geo-Libertarian >>Something's got to compel landowners to give unfettered access to their property to run wires and pipes to other properties Yes it is called a voluntary agreement built into the title of the property (aka convents) normally when a subdivision of land is created, where by utility paths laid out by the developer. Subsequent purchasers of the land must agree to these convents, including utility easements, when they buy the property. government is not required for that.
        notahacker 3y ago
        If you're building your own power and sewerage stations, you're going to have to build across a lot more than just residential subdivisions with handy built in covenants... Oh, and covenants are entirely unenforceable without government anyway.

7thaccount 3y ago

Yep. I understand their view, but I don't think it always holds. Once an entity like Apple becomes Apple, it can't really be competed with in the traditional sense. The whole European Union likely couldn't create a new Apple if they wanted to due to inertia and the insane capital costs. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's more of a factor here. I agree with the Libertarian view that a lot of firms don't want to compete, so they lobby for special protections that come out of the tax layers in a somewhat coercive manner. In some cases (national defense) I think it's acceptable, but probably not for all cases.

phpisthebest 3y ago
>>Once an entity like Apple becomes Apple, it can't really be competed with in the traditional sense That is odd be cause I have never used, and never will use an Apple product and I have access to all the same things that an Apple user does? Apple is in no way a monopoly