As I understand it (and have seen said in other threads), examples of a libertarian “utopia” would be pre-Federal Bank-ization America, and pre-FDR America.
I find these both to be rather confusing examples, given the absolute trainwrecks of disasters that both resulted in. Straight Dope, please?
Another example given of libertarianism in action is the general freedom enjoyed in the field of computers (which I don’t see translating very well and which also resulted in fiscal disaster, but whatever).
Of all these examples, the general case is for general chaos between many small companies until they eventually merge and become monopolies, usually resulting in the Federal Government (or another body) either establishing standards (as in the case with the Federal Reserve and rail networks) or breaking up monopolies.
What is more, these top-heavy structures eventually tumble down with disastrous effect once the rug is pulled from under their feet; when an industry crashes, the entire market goes with it, and those little people (the worker-bee types) get pretty well screwed.
Pre-FDB, pre-Federal Reserve America was far from libertarian (though it was much closer to a libertarian society than we have today). The federal government enacted very high tariffs throughout this time, many companies were succesful in obtaining special concessions from the federal government, there were fewer civil liberties, and many things were outlawed that wouldn’t be in a libertarian society (porn, sodomy, etc.). So I think your premise is flawed.
Your premise is also flawed regarding how companies work. There is not a general trend towards small companies merging and becoming a monopoly. In fact, there have been very few true monopolies in U.S. history that weren’t created as a result of government action. Even Standard Oil, usually given as the example of the worst monopoly in U.S. history, was not a true monopoly. It once had an overwhelming percentage of the oil market, but that didn’t last long. The historical scenario you sketch is not supported by history.
Of course, that first sentence should begin "Pre-FDR. . . " and I should have said that many companies also obtained special concessions from state governments, not just the federal government.
I think “fiscal disaster” is a bit of an exagerration. I think you’re referring to the 2001 recession. It was a pretty short and mild recession by any standards I’ve heard of. Throughout it millions of people worldwide were employed in the computer industry. I got to speak to many Indians who had work teaching non-techies like me how to use a mouse and what things like “boot up” mean. While we’re at it, computer prices kept falling. Sounds like win/win if you ask me. And all of this was done without any significant government intervention, except for All Gore’s litle invention.
Cite please on those monopolies. IIRC Milton Friedman points out there hasn’t really been a monopoly in the US with the possible exception of Alcoa,and they had to lower their prices anyway. The only monopolies I worry about are those the government sets up. For example, the cable industry or the educational establishment. Also I’m not sure about that chaos you refer to. Free markets are extremely orderly in terms of allocation of resources. When the government intervenes via price fixing, then we have chaos.
If you are able to state some clear and functional plan for privatized education to meet standards and not be horribly abused, by all means, please do. But as far as I know, there are plenty of private schools at both lower and higher education.
I’m not going to go over every anti-trust case. Much of the time, monopolies actually work out pretty nicely insofar as making industry standards and such, the main drawback being lack of oversight (which could be corrected in democratic gov’t controlled monopolies).