[Junrlaeh]

I'm not a Libertarian, but monopolies are definitely the way for the economy to truly grow in the modern era. Interfering in the economy to increase competition can slow the progression of industries and therefore economic growth. Your Libertarian friend is right when he talks about the way change can make the competition/monopoly argument irrelevent in this day in age.

[Opislossy]

A super huge company with lots of money could pulverize their competition, why must the state get involved to impede that? In the past, pulverizing the competition included threats, violence, bribing politicians and even murder. Huge companies weren't only seen as threat to market, but also as threat to the very political system. I think that is the main reason.

[QQ9ktYrV]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm not a Libertarian, but monopolies are definitely the way for the economy to truly grow in the modern era. Interfering in the economy to increase competition can slow the progression of industries and therefore economic growth. Your Libertarian friend is right when he talks about the way change can make the competition/monopoly argument irrelevent in this day in age. wtf Kid?

[flnastyax]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Poor, plucky ickle Netscape needed protecting against the big bad MS - until Netscape got bought by mighty AOL-Time-Warner. So not-so-ickle Netscape. By then the damage had been done. The case really wasn't about browsers. Netscape had been giving its product away free for years. The real issue was servers, and whomever controlled the browser market controlled the server market. So MS violated its consent decree with the government by using it's predominant OS position to bundle its browser, thus leading to more companies making the decision to purchase MS servers to serve those pages.

[feqlmwtuqx]

In the past, pulverizing the competition included threats, violence, bribing politicians and even murder. Huge companies weren't only seen as threat to market, but also as threat to the very political system. I think that is the main reason. Yup, many "capitalists" dont really believe in capitalism or markets. Introduce the "monopoly" of power or the legal use of force by government and many businesses will try to use the system to gain advantage or outlaw competetitors - thats how industrial hemp was removed from the economy. William Randolph Hearst, Dupont, etc., didn't want to compete with hemp farming so they got it banned with a prohibitive tax. Early on the SCOTUS said Congress cannot use a constitutional power to create unconstitutional powers. A tax designed to eliminate hemp is unconstitutional because hemp was both interstate and intrastate commerce... Ironically Congress used the tax because the courts were not yet sympathetic to letting Congress control intrastate commerce, much less intrastate non-commerce, but the courts might ignore using a tax. Same result...

Libertarians are opposed to any interference by the state in the market. Views vary, the court system plays a bigger role since this is where disputes are settled, not the legislature. Environmental regulation and pollution obviously present room for government to regulate given the transitory nature of waste. Btw, Kurdistan has a free market economy.

Anti-monopoly laws are out. A libertarian would tell you that if a monopoly restricted free trade, some enterprising entrepreneur would figure out a way to bring a similar product to the market for less or with better quality. It aint restricting free trade to win more consumers than the competition, but monopolies that do develop still need to satisfy the consumer or face not only competition but the wrath of consumers eager to support alternatives.

[Beragagnu]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Yup, many "capitalists" dont really believe in capitalism or markets. Small surprise there, really.