[maxstep]

I feel as if my question is still being avoided.

Libertarians take control and a monopoly already exists. There is no more water supply in state X. Is the only Libertarian solution that people move out of the state?

Most monopolies can only survive off of the regulations that force consumers to feed it. Lets say there is no water supply in state X. People will find effecient ways to transport water across from other states, and if there is any money in it, others will want in on the action and create competition. Different businesses may create alliances and may create a monopoly, but if prices become unfair, there will always be another aspiring entreprenuer who can easily create a better business model to compete with the monopoly due to lack of regulation. This is based on a personal gain motive that ends up helping everbody involved.

[grassroots1]

How can a start up ever hope to out compete a monopoly? It's not just about competition, at that stage the monopoly actively prevents smaller companies from becoming large enough to compete. The 'free market' alone simply can't deal with this problem. That's why there are anti-trust suits and that's why companies need to get permission between going through with a merger. Monopolies b definition are extremely difficult to supplant.

[maxstep]

How can a start up ever hope to out compete a monopoly? It's not just about competition, at that stage the monopoly actively prevents smaller companies from becoming large enough to compete. The 'free market' alone simply can't deal with this problem. That's why there are anti-trust suits and that's why companies need to get permission between going through with a merger. Monopolies b definition are extremely difficult to supplant.

Assuming there is no violence, fraud, or intimidation involved on the monopoly's part, a startup company with enough capital through partnering, borrowing, or saving may be able to compete. But money isnt everything. Embracing a different technology could undersell a monopoly and maybe even offer services the monopoly doesn't. Maybe the startup company does business differently in a fashion that consumers like. Human capital makes a huge difference between companys. Basically, a company that addresses a consumers needs the best will always do well. Government in itself is a monopoly and we give it too much power and credit.

[Rainbow Crow]

Building water pipes across a whole state is a pretty funny image. If a company really was powerful enough to monopolize a water supply, how are you going to keep them from blocking off or destroying sections of pipe that go on for that long?

I could see myself being a Geo-Libertarian, but even simple hypothetical questions like mine end up leading to ridiculous answers when you try to answer them with the standard Libertarian theory. Which is unfortunate, since I admire the strength of conviction that Libertarians often seem to have, but the world often requires complex solutions.

[maxstep]

Building water pipes across a whole state is a pretty funny image. If a company really was powerful enough to monopolize a water supply, how are you going to keep them from blocking off or destroying sections of pipe that go on for that long?

I could see myself being a Geo-Libertarian, but even simple hypothetical questions like mine end up leading to ridiculous answers when you try to answer them with the standard Libertarian theory. Which is unfortunate, since I admire the strength of conviction that Libertarians often seem to have, but the world often requires complex solutions.

We have water pipes going across the whole country already, most of them are underground. Water does not magically come from the faucet in your home. As for companies sabotaging pipelines, that would fall under the responsibility of the government to stop and punish.

[Nunt]

I agree with Decky, the only beneficial monopoly is one that's run by the state and for the benefit of the majority. A private firm is a profit making institution, thus profit will be its final goal, not the well-being of the nation.

Comon, this is just too naive...

Government are all well-meaning, compentent do-gooders, who deliver the best service for the lowest cost for the benefit of the entire nation... Right....

[Decky]

when was the last time the state ran anything for the benefit of the majority

When was the last time a fat capitalist in his mansion ran anything for the benefit of the majority?

Also, the NHS

You can have fun dying in pain in a ditch because you doing have enough little bits of paper with the queens/ some colonial rebels head on them I am happy here.

Comon, this is just too naive...

Government are all well-meaning, compentent do-gooders, who deliver the best service for the lowest cost for the benefit of the entire nation... Right....

Here is the main issue. The state can be, and often is a tool to advance the interests of the rich at the expense of the people. That is why we need a nice big revolution so a party of and for the proletariat takes control and runs a state in the peoples interests.

[Nunt]

Here is the main issue. The state can be, and often is a tool to advance the interests of the rich at the expense of the people. That is why we need a nice big revolution the a party of and for the proletariat takes control and runs a state in the peoples interests.

You could also create a voluntary movement or organization to provide for the things you deem necessary.

[mikema63]

Building water pipes across a whole state is a pretty funny image. If a company really was powerful enough to monopolize a water supply, how are you going to keep them from blocking off or destroying sections of pipe that go on for that long?

why would new water companies start off across the entire state, they would start off close to where they begin like any other company. as for blocking or destroying pipe thats the other water companies property and is still illegal.

the problem you raise of established monopolies is i think a misunderstanding, the theory doesn't really say a monopoly cant be established if it is just by virtue of being that much of a better company, it does however say that if the company cannot rely on government coercion and cannot commit coercion on its own then the monopoly cannot keep competitors out.

to add to the argument about water companies and their pipes, when the railroads were still a more or less free market competing rail companies willingly standardized their rail gauges and connected their lines together because it was mutually beneficial to all companies involved, building rail like pipe is a high cost investment, by combining their lines they were able to spread the cost between them and they all made more money which is more important to a businessman than fighting the competition. water companies could easily come to the same agreement.

When was the last time a fat capitalist in his mansion ran anything for the benefit of the majority?

a company can only get peoples money if the people willingly give it to them, they cant force the money out of those peoples pockets (without government help of course). they can only get peoples money by doing what people want without the power of force they must please their customers, thus they must do something to the benefit of their customers.

You can have fun dying in pain in a ditch because you doing have enough little bits of paper with the queens/ some colonial rebels head on them I am happy here.

it doesn't happen, no matter how many times you claim it does, this never happens we have a system that doesn't deny treatments that extend peoples lives and doesn't have month long waiting lines for surgery, week long wait times for mri's, or 21 days for systematic urgent chemotherapy. people die waiting for drugs and surgery in the UK and your claim that people die in ditches in the US is completely false.

[Nunt]

to add to the argument about water companies and their pipes, when the railroads were still a more or less free market competing rail companies willingly standardized their rail gauges and connected their lines together because it was mutually beneficial to all companies involved, building rail like pipe is a high cost investment, by combining their lines they were able to spread the cost between them and they all made more money which is more important to a businessman than fighting the competition. water companies could easily come to the same agreement.

Indeed. Standardization happens all the time in a free market. There are hundreds of examples. VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, screw sizes, paper sheets, allowed voltages for electronic devises,...

it doesn't happen, no matter how many times you claim it does, this never happens we have a system that doesn't deny treatments that extend peoples lives and doesn't have month long waiting lines for surgery, week long wait times for mri's, or 21 days for systematic urgent chemotherapy. people die waiting for drugs and surgery in the UK and your claim that people die in ditches in the US is completely false.

Also, comparing US health services with UK health services isn't really a comparision between free market and government provision. Neither country has free market health services. Its just a comparision between two types of government run health care.

[mikema63]

^i know that but the poor dying in ditches meme annoys me because its just really bad rhetoric and factually untrue.

[grassroots1]

If you look at the history of unregulated markets it starts to seem really possible, believe me. I tend to take a less heavy handed approach than Decky but I agree with him that the question is who the government is serving. Of course it's not a totally benevolent entity, that would be ridiculous to imagine, but I do think that a more responsive democratic system is possible and given the alternative of tyranny or the tyranny of capital I don't think we really have another option.

[Decky]

You could also create a voluntary movement or organization to provide for the things you deem necessary.

You could, and it would collapse soon afterwards or have to adapt to survive in a capitalist market and become exactly the same as what it was created to fight.

The Co-Op in Britain is a good example. It started as a socialist alternative to participating in certain aspects of the bourgeois economy. What is it now? A fucking bank

[Rainbow Crow]

One Libertarian concept seems to be that if we empower government to break up monopolies, this will only create more monopolies. Has anyone ever elaborated, perhaps with examples, on why this is supposed to be a Sophie's choice?

Also, anyone know of any good books on Geo-Libertarianism?

[mikema63]

the anti-trust laws themselves dont really create more monopolies, it doesnt attack corporations that receive government privilege so it does damage that way, but there isn't anything about that program in particular that creates monopolies.

there aren't actually very many books on geolibertarianism, but as an FYI there are libertarians that think the government should have anti-trust power, if your main opposition to libertarianism is over monopoly anyway.

an amazon listing for geo-libertarian books

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&keywords=geolibertarianism&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Ageolibertarianism&page=1