- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Do libertarians believe in regulating monopolies?
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:08 am
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:08 am
And what is the philosophy behind said belief?
For the record I consider myself mostly libertarian and I do think that monopolies should be regulated, but philosophically I'm not sure how a libertarian gets there.
For the record I consider myself mostly libertarian and I do think that monopolies should be regulated, but philosophically I'm not sure how a libertarian gets there.
7
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:10 am to gorillacoco
Most monopolies can't exist w/o gov't cronynism.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:10 am to RollTide4Ever
quote:
Most monopolies can't exist w/o gov't cronynism.
This.
True monopolies only can exist with government action in this current system.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:13 am to MagicCityBlazer
For example, the river pilots.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:18 am to MagicCityBlazer
quote:
This.
True monopolies only can exist with government action in this current system.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:20 am to MagicCityBlazer
quote:
True monopolies only can exist with government action in this current system
pardon my ignorance, but is there something to back this up? it was my understanding that monopolies have been in existence since ancient greece or possibly before then.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:20 am to RollTide4Ever
Beat me to it. Under a true Libertarian system, there are no monopolies.
If there were a transition from the current system to a Libertarian system, there would likely not be regulation, but without the arm of government assisting in the barring of entry into the market of new participants, monopolies would quickly dissappear.
If there were a transition from the current system to a Libertarian system, there would likely not be regulation, but without the arm of government assisting in the barring of entry into the market of new participants, monopolies would quickly dissappear.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:23 am to olgoi khorkhoi
Right, the government can be viewed as an enabler of monopolies in certain instances.
Take the electric utility, for example. Heavily regulated and nearly all are geographic monopolies.
Take the electric utility, for example. Heavily regulated and nearly all are geographic monopolies.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:36 am to gorillacoco
quote:
pardon my ignorance, but is there something to back this up? it was my understanding that monopolies have been in existence since ancient greece or possibly before then.
What the Greeks had no government back then? The Romans? Probably a lot easier to get a monopoly going after you convinced one dude (the emperor) to grant you one.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 10:41 am to gorillacoco
A good illustration is licensing. Take the florists in La. They give money to politicians. In return the politicians pass a law requiring that you must have a license to sell flowers. It keeps competitors out. But it requires govt intervention to put up the roadblocks to competitors.
That was a pretty well known case but here's one that I recall from 20 years ago.
La. bus drivers have a union. Besides their regular route they make a lot of money driving the football team to away games.
The football coach decides to save his athletic dept some money. He gets a chauffer's license enabling him to drive a school bus. He drives his team to away games for free.
The bus drivers union gives money to the politicians. They pass a law that you cannot drive a team on a bus unless you go to a long seminar/training camp on bus safety during the summer. Coach says 'to hell with that' and gives up driving for free. Goes back to hiring union drivers.
That was a pretty well known case but here's one that I recall from 20 years ago.
La. bus drivers have a union. Besides their regular route they make a lot of money driving the football team to away games.
The football coach decides to save his athletic dept some money. He gets a chauffer's license enabling him to drive a school bus. He drives his team to away games for free.
The bus drivers union gives money to the politicians. They pass a law that you cannot drive a team on a bus unless you go to a long seminar/training camp on bus safety during the summer. Coach says 'to hell with that' and gives up driving for free. Goes back to hiring union drivers.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 11:27 am to gorillacoco
The Fanjul family and the sugar trade comes to mind.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 11:29 am to gorillacoco
quote:
pardon my ignorance, but is there something to back this up? it was my understanding that monopolies have been in existence since ancient greece or possibly before then.
The OP needs to find us a monopoly that exists without government interference in the USA.
Then we can talk. Burden of proof is backwards.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 11:34 am to gorillacoco
Aside from the above wrangling about monopolies being a product of government, you will find your answer in the definition of liberty. So if something is a detriment to the general liberty of the populace, you could philosophically oppose it as a libertarian. One could argue that monopolies, or certain kinds anyway are a detriment to liberty in that they can exert undue power over people.
Eg if someone has control over all water, the liberty of the people would be in serious jeopardy. (Very simple I know)
Eg if someone has control over all water, the liberty of the people would be in serious jeopardy. (Very simple I know)
This post was edited on 2/6/14 at 11:41 am
Posted on 2/6/14 at 11:47 am to MagicCityBlazer
quote:
This.
True monopolies only can exist with government action in this current system.
Yep.
The only cure for crony capitalism is less gov't and making it as small as possible. When you have a gov't with the power the USA has, businesses will always invest accordingly to influence politicians to draft and pass legislation that will benefit their profit margin.
For example, see general electric and the incandescent light bulb ban.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 3:29 pm to gorillacoco
As has already been posted, government is the root of monopolies. However, for the sake of argument, if a monopoly would arise, the populace could then boycott said monopoly.
Could that be painful? Absolutely. Sometimes protecting your liberty can be an inconvenience. Forfeiting liberty to save yourself the effort is a sad state of affairs.
Could that be painful? Absolutely. Sometimes protecting your liberty can be an inconvenience. Forfeiting liberty to save yourself the effort is a sad state of affairs.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 4:04 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Forfeiting liberty to save yourself the effort is the current state of affairs.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 5:39 pm to gorillacoco
Okay, I get that government intervention fosters some monopolies. But everybody in here believes that in a stateless society (that originates as stateless) no corporation of smart, lucky, and hardworking people would be able to achieve a monopoly?
I think that sounds like a bunch of malarkey. It's almost religious-sounding. It is bad, government is bad, therefore government caused it.
I think that sounds like a bunch of malarkey. It's almost religious-sounding. It is bad, government is bad, therefore government caused it.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 5:40 pm to gorillacoco
Government regulation of monopolies is like hiring an arsonist to put out fires.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 5:55 pm to gorillacoco
Yes, I believe in regulating the State out of existence.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News