> > This is an interesting facet of Libertarianism that I don't entirely get. If I understand the basic tenant of the Libertarian philosophy, it is, "Everyone should be free to do what they like so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others." The government's job is essentially to stop those who would violate this tenant.
> > I would assume that this would hold true for corporations as well as individuals. As such, there needs to be some governmental control on corporations to ensure that they don't violate my rights. I believe it is my right to compete fairly in a free market, so abusing monopolistic powers or something like this would be wrong (and as such would require the government to take action against any corporation doing this). I also feel it is my right to breathe clean air; this would then imply that it is the government's job to enforce some environmental regulations.

> I doubt I'm speaking for all libertarians, but I believe the government does have a legitimate role in the economy, protecting against abuses of monopoly power, and trusts. Even Adam Smith, the model capitalist, would have gone that far.

>
> A couple things to keep in mind though- very few monopolies have been able to survive without government protection or support. Misuse of patent law, and high tax rates upon new business have done more to preserve monopolies then the best attempts of corporations.

Any business that is able to corner the market on a scarce good is capable of setting up a self sustaining monopoly. The most classic example is Standard Oil, which if memory serves controlled about 90% of the world's oil. Competition can't spring up because oil is a scarce resource and if somebody already controls it all... well, you can't just hope that if you work really hard they'll share.

This is the basis for utilities, which are essentially government regulated monopolies. Since, in certain instances, competition in a market is impractical, we realize that the government *must* control that market. As we have learned rather quickly here in California, these exist for a very good reason.

> If in a sector of the economy, a company is selling far above cost because of lack of competition, in a free market, competition will soon spring up. The same applies to trusts. On the contrary, government prosecution of a monopoly or antitrust case can take years, and in many cases turn out to be irrelevant by the time they are resolved. (Nintendo, IBM, and possibly even Microsoft if Linux keeps growing)

Let me give you a classic example of how this isn't true. In the latter part of the 19th century, the railroads in this country all got together. They realized that it would simply be easier for them to work together and standardize pricing and cargo shipments than to compete. This was, of course, extremely profitable, though bad for the consumer. The free market was no longer setting the price.

Now, let's say you're an upstart and decide to start your own railroad. If you don't play ball with the other railroads, they'll drive you out of business. They have a number of ways to drive you out of business... They can lower their prices to a dollar a ticket, losing money temporarily until you go broke, and then raise them back up once you're off the market (as a bonus they get to buy up your lines after you're gone). They can say that any customer who ships cargo with you will be denied service on their lines, which could be devastating to a company (since you're new, chances are you don't go everywhere that the big railroads do).

These are all games that were played, and they are deadly to competition. Microsoft did essentially the giving away for free thing in order to absolutely crush Netscape. You may look and say, "Hey, Linux is on the horizon," but if MS wasn't locked in an antitrust battle, they would undoubtedly not allow OEMs to sell computers with Linux already on them (as it is no MS licensed OEM can sell a machine that dual-boots).

The problem is that MS controls such a huge portion of the market that nobody who sells computers can afford to *not* sell MS products. Compaq or Dell or somebody would go broke if they had to sell just Linux machines starting tomorrow. How do you propose that the free market work out such problems?

> I do believe there is a role to be played there. Without any government protections, the situation might be far worse the other way.

This is my point. But it's certainly a different matter than "the government needs to stay out of the market." The real irony about the free market is that, without governmental controls, it quickly becomes a non-free market.

>
> As for the environment-yes, to an extent. I do think the EPA's gone too far on some things-demanding a standard of Arsenic at 10 parts per billion, as a recent example.

[snipped examples about why the EPA is too over protective]

Well, we agree on the fundamental issue that there is a role for the government to play in regulating business in yet another way. As for the specific example of the EPA, I'm not justifying all their actions, but I would rather err on the side of caution in this instance.

> Absolutely. And of course, those issues that I was raising come up in law enforcement as well, and that doesn't mean the government should just get out of that. I just think it needs to be done a lot more sparingly, and better.

Heh. I think everyone would agree that the government needs to govern better in any possible instance. I agree with the principle "the best government is that which governs least." My question, then, with Libertarianism is this: what exactly do you people believe? What, precisely, should the government do?

> I don't believe that those "rights" include a right to health care, a right to avoid criticism/mockery/verbal rape, or in the spirit of brave new world, a right to be free from pain.

Health care is an interesting subject to me. Are you against something like county hospitals? If I get shot on the street, should I only be admitted to the ER if I can afford it? If you do believe that the government has *some* role in health care, exactly how far does it extend?

> Mark"Justice, Freedom, and Equality-in that order."N

I had a history professor who once defined liberty as the balance between freedom and equality. Basically, if everyone is free to do anything, we could do something like own slaves, which would mean that others wouldn't be equal. But if everyone was equal, then nobody would have the freedom to do anything. Liberty, then, is the balance somewhere to acheive an optimal state. According to my prof. this is what Locke (and maybe more importantly, Jefferson) meant when he wrote "Life, Liberty and Property [Pursuit of Happiness]." I always liked that.

Stephen