> 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.

I'm not familiar with all the facts of that situation, but I would agree that in such an instance intervention would be needed. But I believe that the free market has been far more effective than the government in resolving monopoly cases, and the government has done more harm than good in the marketplace. Many monopolies are able to exist only because the government artificially rations resources. That applies to even today, where oil exploration is severely limited by the government, making us dependent on foreign sources for oil. Because in most cities, the government limits the number of taxis allowed, prices are able to stay artificially higher than they would be if new businesses or individuals were able to run taxi services and compete.

Additionally, most of the largest monopolies today are goverment run. Public Schools are able to achieve an extremely large market share because they are free, although many private schools have consistently produced higher test scores, with lower per-pupil spending in most all cases. In the case of the American Postal Service, competition is OUTLAWED for most services. Not only do they have tax dollars with which to conceivably undercut competitors, but they have absolute power in controlling the existence of competition.

Because of the bureaucratic regulations that control their industry, they are unable to lay off enough of their workforce to the level of current demand and allow prices to drop. If they operated under the normal constraints of the free-market, they'd be unable to maintain their current level of inefficiency. As it is, they've had to hire out private businesses for shipping.
New Zealand, Sweden, The Netherlands, Finland, Australia are currently privatizing their money-losing government run postal services. I think that America could stand to do the same.

I basically believe that government's monopoly and anti-trust powers should be restricted to the more extreme cases, such as the railroads were. In overextending their authority, the government prosecuted the A&P grocery chain for "controlling" a 20% share of the nation's groceries... they succesfully prosecuted Morton Salt for offering discounts for bulk orders, on the basis that it hurt competitors...

Pure monopolies have been extremely rare-and the justice department has overextended its authority in finding excuse to prosecute all sorts of businesses with very little market control.

> 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.

Whenever I hear people talk about the California Energy Crisis, it's always about prices, not the shortages. Even our hometown paper changed its headlines from discussing the shortages in power, to the high cost of power. California didn't build any power plants in 10 years, and thanks to extraneous regulation, it can take over 2 years to build a plant and get it running. The shortage existed thanks to artificial controls on supply. The shortages only began to stop after people were forced by the price spikes to cut usage of electricity. If they had stayed at the legislated low levels, usage would have continued at the same level.

Regulators once thought that due to the extremely high prices of airplanes, and the cost of running them (I have a friend in the airline industry who said that if southwest lost 4 planes, they'd have to declare bankruptcy. They're THAT expensive), a monopoly was inevitable, and they decided they needed to control airline prices, landing fees, you name it. 24 years after removing regulation, the industry is definately better off. The average price is down 40 percent, and efficiency in boarding, and scheduling greatly improved. Many airlines went out of business, jobs were lost and gained, and new companies started out of nowhere. Even in an industry where all its assets are as extremely costly as they are, competition proved better than regulation.

> Let me give you a classic example of how this isn't true.

All right, I'm with you for that. But out of all the antitrust cases that have been prosecuted, only a handful fit that description. I just think that we'd be much better off with a much smaller role for the government in the marketplace.

> 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).

Practically every product and website on the internet fits the netscape/IE description. Because competition is virtually unlimited online, most things turn out to be free. And IE hasn't devastated Netscape-it's currently the official browser at the nation's #1 engineering school, and was chosen by AOL to be their official browser.

Microsoft is in the situation now IBM was a while back. They had practical "control" over the market, in that most people bought from them. What's to be done about Microsoft depends on what your definition of a monopoly is. Producing Windows as a low cost, easy to use product and dramatically outselling competition is not inherently monopolistic. Not allowing software developers to compete fairly on their operating system, and preventing suppliers from selling other os's could be a monopolistic practice if true, but it's a problem that could be solved by better sharing of the source code, and restricting of monopoly controls, without a whole breakup.

> 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?

First off-how is that a problem? Because consumers prefer one product over another is not inherently a problem. There is competition in every area in which Microsoft sells software. 20 years ago, when Nintendo controlled the console market, they were prosecuted because of the lack of competition they faced, and suggestions were made as to how their "monopoly" might be controlled. However, before long, a rival game system sprang up, and consumers simply began making different choices. Just because they had a market share, that didn't equate to market control.

I don't think Microsoft is going to dominate OS's forever, anymore than IBM did. The government can't do a whole lot to create or encourage competition, but it can do a lot to discourage it.

> 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.

They aren't just two options though. No controls will probably eventually lead to unfair monopolies. But excessive controls are more the problem today. There needs to be a balance, and I think it lies with less government interference than we have now.

> 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.

I would rather err on the side of too little than too much. Spending billions nationwide to eliminate minute traces of chemicals less than what you can find from natural sources is just ridiculous. NOTHING will ever be 100% safe, 100% pure, or 100% natural. I think erring on the side of more controls, in the absence of research supporting your claims, is unwise. Stringent regulations such as I mentioned MIGHT benefit the environment a tiny bit, but they do a lot to hurt American industry.

> 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?

The pure libertarian response would be: nothing, have everything be decided by end user fees. You pay for the police, the roads you drive on yourself, and only if you use them. Personally, I think that would just turn the government into a hired gun, and eliminate a chance at legal equality.

I find it easier to talk about where we should be in relation to where we are now. I'm not sure I have the ideal government figured out, but I'm sure there's a lot of ways in which ours could be better.

The government should protect people's rights, try to protect a free market, provide for national defense, and enforce the law. I don't think it should be a giant involuntary charity, or a provider for market goods and services.

> 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?

Well, I'm against government health insurance for everyone. For people making very small wages, the money they'd pay for insurance represents a substantial cost, and they may prefer to use their money differently, to try to better their financial standing. Not allowing them to make that choice, and forcing society to cover the debt of everyone's insurance costs, is an abuse of power, in my opinion.

Should you only get medical care if you can afford it? As Clinton said, is health care a privilege, or a right? Neither-it's something you have to work to get, like anything else in a market economy.

If you get shot on the street, I think that you should get care, and that it should be paid by the person who shot you, and that the government should FORCE that person to cover the cost. (My idea of criminal punishment is more about repayment than incarceration incidentally... eye for an eye anyone?) If someone hits your car and injures you, that person should be legally culpable, and the government should get the money out of that person. If you get drunk and hit a street light however, I'm not sure I could say anyone else is legally responsible to provide you treatment without pay.

From a pragmatic standpoint, it's not feasible, and maybe not even desirable to repeal laws requiring care for emergency payments. I'd settle for being able to keep the government from controlling the system, and having a system of socialized medicine.

> 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.

Guess I'll have to think about that one some more. Incidentally, what I meant by those terms, was that the government should enforce justice, protecting the rights of individuals, give people the freedom to make choices so long as those choices do not harm other people, and should maintain equality of all people before the law.

Mark"Rant-o-matic"N