3 ms·
You're assuming it's only the government which is interested in providing me the information about services I use and the environment that I live in. An implici
by snitko 14y ago
You're assuming it's only the government which is interested in providing me the information about services I use and the environment that I live in. An implicit monopoly of information.
But I want to ask you this question: can you come up with at least one monopoly that existed naturally for a substantial period of time without any government support for it and without anyone being able to challenge it?
- astrodust 14y agoThe government performs the function of a referee, and without it the players are free to make up their own rules. You can only "vote" for a company with your dollars if you have choices, not if they assume a de-facto monopoly. At least in theory you can vote for your government and effect change that way. This is why they serve a critical function. Corporations are profit driven. Governments are election driven. These two dynamics can work together to create a reasonably good outcome. Libertarianism promotes corporate interest in isolation of regulation, leading to a run-away system of chaos and virtual anarchy.
- snitko 14y agoSo you still haven't come up with a monopoly example. Can you prove that monopolies would exist in a completely free market?
- mkr-hn 14y agoIt's hard to create examples of something in a system that has never existed.
- CamperBob2 14y agoHe rephrased his question, and he shouldn't have, because his original one works pretty well. Can you name a single instance of a harmful monopoly that didn't either form or persist because of government backing? No goalpost-moving this time.
- Steko 14y agoAre you claiming that no one has ever possessed a local monopoly on a resource that produced negative consumer effects? Pretty laughable claim and clearly false on hundreds of thousands of counts. Or are you ready to turn your back on basic property rights as an evil cooked up by the big bad gubmint?
- CamperBob2 14y agoAre you claiming that no one has ever possessed a local monopoly on a resource that produced negative consumer effects? Such monopolies either (a) aren't really monopolies, despite people whining that they are; (b) don't last; or (c) have to be backed with collective force of some sort. Pretty laughable claim and clearly false on hundreds of thousands of counts. Then I'm sure you'll have no problem naming a few, in between the guffaws.
- mkr-hn 14y agoWindows And who's moving goalposts? That seems like a random, out of nowhere comment.
- praxeologist 14y agoWindows' monopoly relies upon state-granted monopoly powers (patent/copyright). http://archive.mises.org/17366/apple-vs-microsoft-which-benefits-more-from-intellectual-property/ http://archive.mises.org/17366/apple-vs-microsoft-which-bene...
- mkr-hn 14y agoThe entire PC compatible movement would have been crushed by IBM mercenaries going garage-to-garage in a free market fantasy land. Bill Gates, coming from a wealthy family, would be the only one who could afford his own mercenaries.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
- joelhaus 14y agoThink infrastructure. Consider utilities, internet, interstate highways or any similar circumstance. On a practical level, I don't see how these exist without government. The risk would be astronomical for a private entity to undertake such a massive investment that relies on negotiations with thousands of individual private property owners. However, if a private entity could pull it off, they would have extraordinary pricing power. Not my idea of utopia.
- mkr-hn 14y agoA good way to get a free marketeer to stop talking is to ask them to come up with a free market system that doesn't end up hopelessly stratified. I don't know whether they shut down, like a killer AI given an unsolvable problem, or start reevaluating their views.
- snitko 14y agoYour argument comes down to "but who's gonna build roads?" which is somewhat of a statist meme among libertarians. In short, it's this: roads are built by private contractors hired by the government, those contractors are paid by taxpayers money. Government acts as a middle man, which, indeed, may be necessary to coordinate the project, however it holds an ultimate monopoly for the middle man. There's no reason why one middle man should exist to coordinate building all roads. When you talk about risks in undertaking an investment, it means there might not be enough demand for something that the government does and so taxpayers in fact are investing in things not enough people actually need to justify the investment. Which simply means that the government is an irresponsible fund manager.