# How Does a Libertarian Society Deal with Monopolies and Trusts? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 1, 2006, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-libertarian-society-deal-with-monopolies-and-trusts/346627 "2006-03-01T16:50:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-libertarian-society-deal-with-monopolies-and-trusts/346627/41 "2006-03-02T14:08:44Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Right! Government has never colluded with business, and when businesses are even more powerful than they are now, I’m sure government will be even less influenced by business. Since the title of this thread stipulates how a libertarian society would deal with monopolies and trusts, it’s fairly clear that in this scenario government will have a strict policy against colluding with business. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-libertarian-society-deal-with-monopolies-and-trusts/346627/42 "2006-03-02T14:16:46Z")
Just wanted to check in and thank everyone for the input so far - I can’t say I’m at all comforted yet, but I do appreciate the input. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-libertarian-society-deal-with-monopolies-and-trusts/346627/43 "2006-03-02T15:27:41Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > Since the title of this thread stipulates how a libertarian society would deal with monopolies and trusts, it’s fairly clear that in this scenario government will have a strict policy against colluding with business. The two clauses of your sentence are not mutual exclusive. The policy of the libertarian government would strictly forbid collusion between government and business. The practise would have government in business’s back pocket due to its overwhelming power. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-libertarian-society-deal-with-monopolies-and-trusts/346627/44 "2006-03-02T16:05:11Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > The two clauses of your sentence are not mutual exclusive. > > The policy of the libertarian government would strictly forbid collusion between government and business. The practise would have government in business’s back pocket due to its overwhelming power. No, it wouldn’t. If that happened, then the government would no longer be “libertarian.” If we are going to participate in this little make-believe mental exercise that **CandidGamera** has asked us to do, then we need to abide by the terms of his original post. He asked what would happen in a libertarian society in the case of monopolies. Since monopolies are only a result of government action, in a libertarian society they would not exist. Any help government would give to business would invalidate the claim that that society is “libertarian.” ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-libertarian-society-deal-with-monopolies-and-trusts/346627/45 "2006-03-02T16:10:06Z")
Ahhhhh, only 44 posts till we hit the No True Scotsman. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-libertarian-society-deal-with-monopolies-and-trusts/346627/46 "2006-03-02T16:14:00Z")
We are, of course, talking hypotheticals here. The paramaters of hypothetical is that the society we are discussing is libertarian. The word “libertarian” has a pretty specific meaning. Your assertions, **Ludovic** , of how a libertarian government would work is completely outside the accepted definition and therefore outside the scope of our discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-libertarian-society-deal-with-monopolies-and-trusts/346627/47 "2006-03-02T16:32:06Z")
I’m not disagreeing with you on the accepted definition, just the time frame under which the accepted definition would hold. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-libertarian-society-deal-with-monopolies-and-trusts/346627/48 "2006-03-02T16:32:59Z")
A completely unfettered, unregulated business/industry will lead to government regulation. By allowing companies to participate in the political system, they sponsor legislators who in turn sponsor legislation that gives said company a competative advantage. ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-libertarian-society-deal-with-monopolies-and-trusts/346627/49 "2006-03-02T19:10:21Z")
Rather than asking how a Libertarian Society would deal with monopolies wouldn’t it be more appropriate to ask how a Libertarian Society would deal with **unethical business practices**? I think **Liberal** has said earlier that cheating and false advertising is coercion and that, therefore, a Libertarian Society would prosecute it vigorously. I was also happy to learn that pollution should be considered coercion. I imagine that, say, as recently as 100 years ago a libertarian might have argued that pollution is not coercion. So what if I dump mercury waste into your creek? It doesn’t prevent you from swimming in it, drinking the water, eating the fish… You can wash out the metallic taste with beer… What do you mean poisonous? There is no unbiased scientific research I know of, yada yada yada… So in a libertarian society it all depends on the progress of morals and ethical standards. If it becomes universally accepted that predatory pricing, unfair contract terms (in the legal meaning), anti-competitive action, suppressing of innovation, etc., are harmful and unethical, then society would deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-libertarian-society-deal-with-monopolies-and-trusts/346627/50 "2006-03-02T19:20:01Z")
> [@Frankenstein Monster](#): > > Rather than asking how a Libertarian Society would deal with monopolies wouldn’t it be more appropriate to ask how a Libertarian Society would deal with **unethical business practices**? > > I think **Liberal** has said earlier that cheating and false advertising is coercion and that, therefore, a Libertarian Society would prosecute it vigorously. I was also happy to learn that pollution should be considered coercion. Not coercion, necessarily, but pollution does harm to one’s property or health, and thus is actionable. Or if your waste is coming onto my land, harmful or not, I have a right to say that I do not want it there. > [@](#): > > I imagine that, say, as recently as 100 years ago a libertarian might have argued that pollution is not coercion. It’s not as asbstract as you make it sound. If your material is being put on my land without my consent, then you are breaking the law. > [@](#): > > So what if I dump mercury waste into your creek? It doesn’t prevent you from swimming in it, drinking the water, eating the fish… You can wash out the metallic taste with beer… What do you mean poisonous? There is no unbiased scientific research I know of, yada yada yada… You are dumping in my creek? That’s trespassing right there. > [@](#): > > So in a libertarian society it all depends on the progress of morals and ethical standards. Nope. > [@](#): > > If it becomes universally accepted that predatory pricing, unfair contract terms (in the legal meaning), anti-competitive action, suppressing of innovation, etc., are harmful and unethical, then society would deal with it. No. If you can prove that these are forced upon you, then you have a cause of action. ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-libertarian-society-deal-with-monopolies-and-trusts/346627/51 "2006-03-02T19:33:53Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > It’s not as asbstract as you make it sound. If your material is being put on my land without my consent, then you are breaking the law. > > You are dumping in my creek? That’s trespassing right there. I was imagining a creek that runs through both our properties. I am sure that our awareness of what is harmful has changed over the centuries. Maybe my example was poorly thought out but I am sure it can be argued that the standards for coercion can change over time. > [@](#): > > No. If you can prove that these are forced upon you, then you have a cause of action. Well, this is exactly what I am targeting at. Do you believe people’s and societies’ ideas and interpretations of how things are “forced upon people” are completely rigid and unchanging over centuries? I would disagree with that. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-libertarian-society-deal-with-monopolies-and-trusts/346627/52 "2006-03-02T22:03:09Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Just wanted to check in and thank everyone for the input so far - I can’t say I’m at all comforted yet, but I do appreciate the input. You’re not supposed to be comforted. Libertaria isn’t for the faint of heart. Your life is literally in your hands at every moment. A small decision, choosing the wrong health plan for example, may ruin you. There is no safety net. That’s intentional. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-libertarian-society-deal-with-monopolies-and-trusts/346627/53 "2006-03-02T22:37:38Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > You’re not supposed to be comforted. Libertaria isn’t for the faint of heart. Your life is literally in your hands at every moment. A small decision, choosing the wrong health plan for example, may ruin you. There is no safety net. That’s intentional. > > Enjoy, > Steven Well said. It might be a good time, once again, to remind the authoritarians that nothing in libertarianism prevents them from forming their own collectives burdened by as many laws, nannies, and safety nets as they wish. Why this does not satisfy them on the whole is a great mystery. Almost like religioius fundamentalists and puritans, they are unhappy unless they are imposing their misery on everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-libertarian-society-deal-with-monopolies-and-trusts/346627/54 "2006-03-02T22:45:54Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > That, I submit, is exactly the sort of unrealistic ideality I’m talking about. That kind of theoretical scenario just isn’t a meaningful basis of comparison for the real-life failures and abuses of **actual** non-libertarian societies. There’s a difference between “enforced” and “actualized”. It is disingenuous to the extreme to claim that I propose a society in which peace and honesty will reign supreme. It simply means that the focus of government is the suppression of coercion, that laws are based on that principle rather than on expediency. I realize there will be bad guys doing bad things. That is exactly why I support libertarianism instead of anarchy. At least it is the bad guys, and not the politically weak, who are targeted. I don’t envision prisons, for example, being upwards of 90 percent black and hispanic. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-libertarian-society-deal-with-monopolies-and-trusts/346627/55 "2006-03-02T23:10:11Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > Proof, please. Sure, I don’t expect you to produce documents from these companies saying, “we’d like to merge and rule the world but the government won’t let us,” but you could show me where in history where a similar situation has ever happened. Not a concrete cite but, from [here](http://www.digital-daily.com/editorial/amd-history/index.htm) > [@](#): > > A few words on licensing technologies of Intel. There are some people out there who wonder why Intel doesn’t refuse to extend licenses for its products to get rid of its importunate competitor. **First, FTC will never let it because of the antimonopoly law** (Intel can’t help extending its licenses as the state obliges to do it); moreover, there is such a concept as a strategic product. Intel will have to produce Alpha for God knows how long, irregardless of whether it likes it or not, because the American military need it. And Intel will give licenses for x86 to AMD, because the Tomohavks the USA used to fire at Serbia and Afghanistan were based on the embedded 80386 processors from AMD, and **the military want that the strategic components be produced by several companies** , just to feel confident. The Shuttles which stand idle at the moment (not because of AMD) contain quite a lot of its chips. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-libertarian-society-deal-with-monopolies-and-trusts/346627.md?page=2)