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.
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.
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.”
Ahhhhh, only 44 posts till we hit the No True Scotsman.
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.
I’m not disagreeing with you on the accepted definition, just the time frame under which the accepted definition would hold.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nope.
No. If you can prove that these are forced upon you, then you have a cause of action.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not a concrete cite but, from here