Libertarianism' greatest failure:

[Simon_Jester]

Okay,

apparently people still don't understand what in the hell a Corporation is even today. Without a State, what entity is there that could charter a Corporation? There is no one that can grant it limited liability or personhood.

Without a state, there's no such thing as liability at all, limited or unlimited; the closest you get to legal liability in the absence of a state is "a mob will tar and feather you for doing this" or "the local thug association would like to have some words with you, your front window, and your dog." So of course there can be no limited liability without the state, because liability is defined in terms of what penalties the state can lawfully impose on you. Without the state there's nothing to limit in the first place.

Something similar goes for "personhood." What does personhood even mean in a society where there is no law defining the rights of a person? There are no legal benefits to 'personhood-' you don't have an enforceable right to freedom of speech, or to own property, or to do anything else. You just happen to do those things, until someone stops you. It's not the same.

So blaming Anarchism (I'm assuming Free Market) and/or most Libertarianism strains for the failings of Corporatism is rather shallow at best considering its a problem with Fascism. That's what Corporatism is often defined as: Soft (or Economic) Fascism.

Again, the unfortunate problem is that corporatism is joined at the roots to modern Western libertarianism, just as Stalinism and Maoism are joined to Marxism.

It takes a special, dedicated effort to explain why you shouldn't have all-powerful corporations in a nominally free market where the government does the bare minimum necessary to provide military security and protect property rights. Empirically, that's what we get in such an environment, after all, because the government will step in to protect a rich magnates' property more quickly than they'll step in to protect a peasant's right to not starve.

It's not about government picking winners or losers. It's that libertarianism is fundamentally opposed to the idea of taking a winner, removing some of their winnings, and giving them to a loser. You get winners and losers in any economy, and you have to significantly modify 'simple' libertarianism* to explain how to avoid letting those winners rule the roost.

Which is why people talking about libertarianism usually get shouted at about problems that are 'really' associated with corporatism, just as people talking about communism usually get shouted at about problems that are 'really' associated with proletarian dictatorship, which is something that Marx himself never thought to be a serious problem.
_______________

*That is, the basic form which can be easily distilled down to a few precepts like "market good, property rights good, government should not manage economy or dictate behavior to the people, et cetera."

You can add a boatload of stuff to it, and there's nothing saying you shouldn't, but you still need to do it if you want a way to address "but what happens if one clique of would-be merchant princes makes a ton of money using perfectly legal property transactions by mutual consent, then starts screwing people over?"

The only real critique I suppose that can be offered, based on history, is that Minarchistic societies (limited government) only stay 'limited' for short periods of time. The Articles of Confederation was the most "Libertarian" government charter (that I am aware of, please correct me if I am wrong) produced on the North American continent and they couldn't stave off the power grab by the Mercantilists (proto-Corporatists) like Hamilton in the form of the US Constitution.

They also left the nation practically unable to defend itself against defeat by piecemeal tactics, created major barriers to internal trade, and had basically no means to prevent individual states from becoming tyrannical towards their citizens.

[Lord Zentei]

So how precisely would a government be able to prevent things like the Battle of the Overpass from occurring if it is not an active economic agent? What means would it have to prevent strikebreaking through scabs? How, in other words, can a libertarian society protect the rights of labor without relying on pixie dust?

The Battle of the Overpass would be presumably be prevented through prevention of violence against citizens by other citizens, i.e. not through intervening in the actual economic dispute, but by intervening in the violence that was sparked by it. The dispute itself would be resolved through courts, as based on contracts and enshrined rights. With regards to the violence, most likely the Ford company would not have come out on top in that particular case, since their particular thugs were the aggressors. With regards to the labour dispute itself, the Ford company might have come out on top, unless United Auto Workers had enough economic clout to pull its workers from the production lines without having a protected monopoly. Keep in mind that there's a difference between preventing violence and intervening in the dispute that sparks the violence, except by settlement by lawsuit (or possibly by arbitration).

That's where minimal government comes in, and independent courts, etc. Not zero government. Libertarians hold that the government is supposed to be effective at providing a court system and defense of basic rights, not as an activist economic agent in its own right. In other words, that progressivism (i.e. that activist government policies can and should be used to ensure improvement in overall social conditions) is net-negative.

In order to prevent price dumping, strongarming suppliers, smear campaigns, headhunting staff etc the "minimal government" would require prerogatives which make it an active economic agent by definition, and definitely open to the sort of special interest abuse you say libertarians want to prevent by reducing government.

Um, no? Price dumping isn't something libertarians would oppose, strongarming suppliers is an act of violence and can be treated as such, smear campaigns fall under libelous slander (depending on the nature of it). Headhunting staff - I'm not sure what you mean by that. In any case, none of this requires the government to be active in managing the economy. See previous point.

[PeZook]

Um, no? Price dumping isn't something libertarians would oppose, strongarming suppliers is an act of violence and can be treated as such, smear campaigns fall under libelous slander (depending on the nature of it). Headhunting staff - I'm not sure what you mean by that. In any case, none of this requires the government to be active in managing the economy. See previous point.

Well, if the libertarian government cannot oppose price dumping, then it pretty much hands the economy to the biggest players, since they can just eat the losses and raise prices after the competitor is ruined. It would also be enough to keep a cartel relatively stable: a traitor would have to be prepared to fight a price war with the entire cartel, while only having a fraction of the cartel's ability to absorb losses, so he'd only leave if he could take a bunch of allies with him.

Strongarming suppliers doesn't have to use violence or threats of same, either. For example, if the cartel was about distribution, and the traitor took a bunch of stores with him, the rest of the cartel could contact the suppliers and say "If you do business with the traitor, your products won't be sold in the rest of our affiliate stores."

That's why anti-trust laws were introduced in the first place ; If you could use existing bog-standard regulations against trusts and cartels, nobody would have bothered to pass special laws.

[Bakustra]

So how precisely would a government be able to prevent things like the Battle of the Overpass from occurring if it is not an active economic agent? What means would it have to prevent strikebreaking through scabs? How, in other words, can a libertarian society protect the rights of labor without relying on pixie dust?

The Battle of the Overpass would be presumably be prevented through prevention of violence against citizens by other citizens, i.e. not through intervening in the actual economic dispute, but by intervening in the violence that was sparked by it. The dispute itself would be resolved through courts, as based on contracts and enshrined rights. With regards to the violence, most likely the Ford company would not have come out on top in that particular case, since their particular thugs were the aggressors. With regards to the labour dispute itself, the Ford company might have come out on top, unless United Auto Workers had enough economic clout to pull its workers from the production lines without having a protected monopoly. Keep in mind that there's a difference between preventing violence and intervening in the dispute that sparks the violence, except by settlement by lawsuit (or possibly by arbitration).

Uh, clearly Ford security was working to break up a monopoly. They were just honest citizens!

So what you're saying is that bringing in scabs is A-OK under libertarianism. That makes it impossible for laborers to negotiate for wages at all unless their particular specialty is rare enough that they cannot be easily replaced. The UAW was striking for an hourly wage that, if it were paid today, would be less than half of what the living wage in Michigan is for a typical family. Half!

[Lord Zentei]

Uh, clearly Ford security was working to break up a monopoly. They were just honest citizens!

WTF? No, Ford security were violently attacking the workers on the bridge. That's not OK. Review what I said again.

So what you're saying is that bringing in scabs is A-OK under libertarianism. That makes it impossible for laborers to negotiate for wages at all unless their particular specialty is rare enough that they cannot be easily replaced. The UAW was striking for an hourly wage that, if it were paid today, would be less than half of what the living wage in Michigan is for a typical family. Half!

Yes. Though that was also quite a long time ago. Since then, the unions no longer have that kind of power, and yet wages did not fall by half.

[Lord Zentei]

Um, no? Price dumping isn't something libertarians would oppose, strongarming suppliers is an act of violence and can be treated as such, smear campaigns fall under libelous slander (depending on the nature of it). Headhunting staff - I'm not sure what you mean by that. In any case, none of this requires the government to be active in managing the economy. See previous point.

Well, if the libertarian government cannot oppose price dumping, then it pretty much hands the economy to the biggest players, since they can just eat the losses and raise prices after the competitor is ruined. It would also be enough to keep a cartel relatively stable: a traitor would have to be prepared to fight a price war with the entire cartel, while only having a fraction of the cartel's ability to absorb losses, so he'd only leave if he could take a bunch of allies with him.

Waging a price war between members of a cartel basically destroys the cartel. As I pointed out earlier, Libartarians tend to downplay the importance of economic entry barriers. If the industry is one where starting up a business is relatively easy, then tactics like the ones you're describing aren't exactly going to be particularly effective in the long run.

Strongarming suppliers doesn't have to use violence or threats of same, either. For example, if the cartel was about distribution, and the traitor took a bunch of stores with him, the rest of the cartel could contact the suppliers and say "If you do business with the traitor, your products won't be sold in the rest of our affiliate stores."

I did actually cover that point earlier.

And I'm well aware of why anti-trust laws were passed. Libertarians hold that these laws are counter-productive, and can actually promote monopolies.

[Bakustra]

Uh, clearly Ford security was working to break up a monopoly. They were just honest citizens!

WTF? No, Ford security were violently attacking the workers on the bridge. That's not OK. Review what I said again.

I was being sarcastic over the idea of unions being a monopoly of force that needs to be fought, and the idea that such monopolies would be brought down by citizen action in a libertarian society.

So what you're saying is that bringing in scabs is A-OK under libertarianism. That makes it impossible for laborers to negotiate for wages at all unless their particular specialty is rare enough that they cannot be easily replaced. The UAW was striking for an hourly wage that, if it were paid today, would be less than half of what the living wage in Michigan is for a typical family. Half!

Yes. Though that was also quite a long time ago. Since then, the unions no longer have that kind of power, and yet wages did not fall by half.

I was actually miscalculating. It was instead about two-thirds of the living wage.

Average hourly wages have remained essentially stagnant since 1980, while more and more households have become two-income, and the average share of debt has increased massively, going from roughly 30% of disposable income to 130% over that same time period. You still don't have a living wage if you work in manufacturing and have more than one dependent, on average. To put it bluntly, wages have failed to keep up with living standards. The wage the UAW was striking for has not yet been achieved for manufacturing workers overall, and was recently removed from the UAW itself. The unions no longer have that kind of power, and as a result, we see that wages have not increased even though productivity has increased significantly and the cost of living has increased beyond inflation.

[Lord Zentei]

I was being sarcastic over the idea of unions being a monopoly of force that needs to be fought, and the idea that such monopolies would be brought down by citizen action in a libertarian society.

Ah, well that's perfectly reasonable. Sarcasm is a bit difficult to detect with text only.

I was actually miscalculating. It was instead about two-thirds of the living wage.

Average hourly wages have remained essentially stagnant since 1980, while more and more households have become two-income, and the average share of debt has increased massively, going from roughly 30% of disposable income to 130% over that same time period. You still don't have a living wage if you work in manufacturing and have more than one dependent, on average. To put it bluntly, wages have failed to keep up with living standards. The wage the UAW was striking for has not yet been achieved for manufacturing workers overall, and was recently removed from the UAW itself. The unions no longer have that kind of power, and as a result, we see that wages have not increased even though productivity has increased significantly and the cost of living has increased beyond inflation.

I'm well aware of the fact that wages haven't kept up with production. Libertarians tend to blame corporatism, i.e. the cushy relationship between government and corporations. In other words the presence of support for companies, not the absence of support for labour.

[Simon_Jester]

How much support do corporations need, in the absence of support for labor? They have a lot of advantages even when the state does absolutely nothing. And a few state regulations like "right to work" laws can easily weaken unions to the point of making them irrelevant, while still being "fair" in a libertarian frame of reference.

What can a libertarian say against a law that 'prevents coercion' by allowing workers to agree not to join the union while free-riding on its efforts to negotiate on behalf of its membership? And, unable to speak against it, how does a libertarian judge the predictable consequences that the union becomes marginalized?

[Lord Zentei]

The libertarian response to this is that regulations reduce the number of jobs, and thus create an artificial surplus of labour. Since price is a function of supply and demand, excess supply of labour forces the average worker's wages down. In other words, the unintended consequences of regulations harm workers more than the direct effects of regulations help them. Corporations help craft the regulations through their lobbyists.

[Surlethe]

As far as unions, the libertarian would point out that a union's business model is essentially extortive. The libertarian would also point out that unions create diffuse costs for consumers by raising prices and decreasing production, and they create unemployment by forcing cheaper workers out of the labor market (coercively, by keeping the wage high and erecting barriers to entry). So the libertarian would have no problem with marginalization of unions.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Okay, I just got home from 2 days of hotter-than-Asmodeus's jockstrap working security at USF vs. UTEP and Bucs vs. Falcons games. I'm dead on my feet, but I have not been ignoring this topic. Its going to take far more brain power than I can muster at the moment to slog through it. I will say that, I can really only speak as a Free Market Anarchist (Radical Libertarian). I know plenty of people who are not opposed to voluntary unionization of workers. Note, I said voluntary. There is nothing that say such organizations wouldn't exist in a purely Free Market system. However, I am opposed to coercive/non-voluntary guilds as they are anti-competitive to say the least.

[Simon_Jester]

The libertarian response to this is that regulations reduce the number of jobs, and thus create an artificial surplus of labour. Since price is a function of supply and demand, excess supply of labour forces the average worker's wages down. In other words, the unintended consequences of regulations harm workers more than the direct effects of regulations help them. Corporations help craft the regulations through their lobbyists.

And I'm a bit reluctant to accept this as an assertion.

We've had low unemployment and labor regulations in place at the same time; we've had all manner of regulations which have very obvious positive effects on the worker's well being and happiness. Such as "you can't expect people to work 60 hour weeks if you aren't willing to pay overtime," which in some working environments is common for employers who know their workers can't find a better offer from anyone else.

If we compare the condition of workers today to that of the 1950s and 1960s, and that to the 1920s, and that to the Gilded Age, I find it very hard to believe that the unintended consequences of regulation reliably cause net harm to workers. Would we really be better off without, say, OSHA?

Unintended consequences are something that have to be calculated; you can't merely wave your hands and declare them to exist by fiat.

As far as unions, the libertarian would point out that a union's business model is essentially extortive. The libertarian would also point out that unions create diffuse costs for consumers by raising prices and decreasing production, and they create unemployment by forcing cheaper workers out of the labor market (coercively, by keeping the wage high and erecting barriers to entry). So the libertarian would have no problem with marginalization of unions.

Fine, but to have no problem with the marginalization of unions, when bearing the consequences in mind... I'd argue that requires a very rosy view of the natural conditions employees can establish when negotiating alone against powerful employers who have an incentive to cut labor costs.

It's one thing to say "unions impose diffuse costs on the economy and create barriers to entry and are therefore bad" as an argument from pure political theory. To make the same argument stand up on an empirical basis is far more difficult.

[Surlethe]

As far as unions, the libertarian would point out that a union's business model is essentially extortive. The libertarian would also point out that unions create diffuse costs for consumers by raising prices and decreasing production, and they create unemployment by forcing cheaper workers out of the labor market (coercively, by keeping the wage high and erecting barriers to entry). So the libertarian would have no problem with marginalization of unions.

Fine, but to have no problem with the marginalization of unions, when bearing the consequences in mind... I'd argue that requires a very rosy view of the natural conditions employees can establish when negotiating alone against powerful employers who have an incentive to cut labor costs.

Oh sure. The libertarian would point out, however, that there are usually many employers in a market and they are as subject to market pressures as their employees. Libertarians are also not usually naive; most will admit, for instance, that a company mining town is hardly the same situation as the unskilled labor market in a big city.

It's one thing to say "unions impose diffuse costs on the economy and create barriers to entry and are therefore bad" as an argument from pure political theory. To make the same argument stand up on an empirical basis is far more difficult.

I'm not making it But I do know people who make that empirical argument. They would cite the crippling effect Roosevelt's pro-union stance had on the recovery from the Great Depression, for example, or the way the UAW drove the Big Three into the ground, etc.

[Simon_Jester]

I understand.

What bothers me is, of course, the 'human misery' aspect.

For example, from the point of view of the average person who wants to buy lunch, McDonalds is... pretty good. It's cheap, it's fast, it's warm and reasonably tasty if only because of the artificial flavorings. From the point of view of the workers, McDonalds is... pretty bad. It doesn't necessarily pay a living wage, conditions are hectic, the environment is often unmotivating, you are easily replaced, and so on.

Multiply this by the entire economy and we see a trend that has spread throughout this massive 'post-industrial' service economy that now dominates the United States. Working conditions for the general public decline in the name of cheap goods and services, which creates a self-reinforcing cycle of underpaid people who need the cheap services, who crowd together into housing because they can't afford to live independently, who take out second jobs because they can't live on one, who work long hours instead of spending time raising their children, who wind up politically uninvolved in part because they're economically and psychologically beaten down...

GDP goes up, or can go up, this way. Companies do well, the stock market does well, "growth" can be high. And yet people are increasingly miserable, and much of this misery can be attributed to the relationship between their working conditions, their salary, and the cost of living. Life expectancy, education, the average citizen's burden of debt and ability to save for retirement, all these indicators get worse.

Lowering the cost of living by 'improving' the economy hasn't undone the problem. People still wind up living on less, with fewer prospects for themselves and their children than their fathers' generation had.

Libertarianism, in any form I've ever seen, has trouble weighing the cost of this kind of thing into its assessment of the economy.

So at some point we may have to turn around and say "yes, paying this diffuse cost may in fact be necessary, because it's insurance against other diffuse costs and social malaises that hurt us in other ways."

[PeZook]

Waging a price war between members of a cartel basically destroys the cartel. As I pointed out earlier, Libartarians tend to downplay the importance of economic entry barriers. If the industry is one where starting up a business is relatively easy, then tactics like the ones you're describing aren't exactly going to be particularly effective in the long run.

Well, obviously not every industry is going to be the same - there are businesses where a single guy with an idea can butt into the market and take it by storm with minimal resources. However, the industries where trusts can form and where the entrenched companies dominate also happen to be the ones where trusts and carterla and monopolies are the most likely to form.

Also, I still don't see how waging a price war is going to destroy the cartel. They need to do this long enough to quash the traitor and buy him out, and then jack the prices back up: by the virtue of being a cartel, they have inherently more ability to take losses. Won't work if the traitor takes a significant portion of the cartel's resources with him (or a crucial piece of the supply chain), but it will work very well if he doesn't.

Strongarming suppliers doesn't have to use violence or threats of same, either. For example, if the cartel was about distribution, and the traitor took a bunch of stores with him, the rest of the cartel could contact the suppliers and say "If you do business with the traitor, your products won't be sold in the rest of our affiliate stores."

I did actually cover that point earlier.

And I'm well aware of why anti-trust laws were passed. Libertarians hold that these laws are counter-productive, and can actually promote monopolies.

Okay, so...trusts cannot effectively be attacked with common laws that the government should have according to minimalist government folk, like those against slander, violence and fraud, but introducing anti-trust laws...somehow promotes cartels and monopolies?

[K. A. Pital]

Also, I still don't see how waging a price war is going to destroy the cartel.

The whole idea that a price war is destructive hinges upon the relative equality of the warring parties and loss absorption capacity being more or less equal; for example, a price war between Philip Morris and BAT. We've been over it before with Zentei and he conceded that unequal bargaining is an inherent feature of the system, because rarely two agents will have equal power, and this means deals that are more detrimental to one than to the other will be common and not the exception. He offered no ideas on how to rectify it, neither even accepted a need to do so, merely that with government, you get capture and that is worse than simple price war exclusion from the market. We also concluded that the LRAC curve optimum position tends to form oligopolies, not pure monopolies, out of markets, which means at some point diseconomies of scale actually start working against the all-acquiring corporation. However, no argument has been raised against the oligopoly itself, because no libertarian argument against it even exists in pricinple: if free and unfettered market conditions cause an oligopoly to form, that means it is the most efficient production organization and nothing even should be done about it. Just like nothing needs to be done against natural monopolies. In essence, anything that is a natural market outcome is preferrable, regardless of any moral considerations. Such is the position of libertarianism.

[Purple]

Also, I still don't see how waging a price war is going to destroy the cartel.

The whole idea that a price war is destructive hinges upon the relative equality of the warring parties and loss absorption capacity being more or less equal; for example, a price war between Philip Morris and BAT. We've been over it before with Zentei and he conceded that unequal bargaining is an inherent feature of the system, because rarely two agents will have equal power, and this means deals that are more detrimental to one than to the other will be common and not the exception. He offered no ideas on how to rectify it, neither even accepted a need to do so, merely that with government, you get capture and that is worse than simple price war exclusion from the market. We also concluded that the LRAC curve optimum position tends to form oligopolies, not pure monopolies, out of markets, which means at some point diseconomies of scale actually start working against the all-acquiring corporation. However, no argument has been raised against the oligopoly itself, because no libertarian argument against it even exists in pricinple: if free and unfettered market conditions cause an oligopoly to form, that means it is the most efficient production organization and nothing even should be done about it. Just like nothing needs to be done against natural monopolies. In essence, anything that is a natural market outcome is preferrable, regardless of any moral considerations. Such is the position of libertarianism.

Reading this, it reminds me of the argument some people make against taking medicine. It's the natural way to develop cancer and god dam it if nature wants them to grow cancerous and die than it has to be a good thing and they won't fight it...

/metaphor

[Lord Zentei]

The whole idea that a price war is destructive hinges upon the relative equality of the warring parties and loss absorption capacity being more or less equal; for example, a price war between Philip Morris and BAT. We've been over it before with Zentei and he conceded that unequal bargaining is an inherent feature of the system, because rarely two agents will have equal power, and this means deals that are more detrimental to one than to the other will be common and not the exception. He offered no ideas on how to rectify it, neither even accepted a need to do so, merely that with government, you get capture and that is worse than simple price war exclusion from the market.

Way to summarize in a smarmy way, buddy. I didn't "concede" shit, since I never held the opposing view.

Incidentally, it's a perfectly valid position to say that capture is more likely to cause problems than natural oligopolies, except when entry barriers are high. It's more a recognition that the world is imperfect and likely to remain so, not a statement to the effect that such-and-such an arrangement is an ideal one.

We also concluded that the LRAC curve optimum position tends to form oligopolies, not pure monopolies, out of markets, which means at some point diseconomies of scale actually start working against the all-acquiring corporation. However, no argument has been raised against the oligopoly itself, because no libertarian argument against it even exists in pricinple: if free and unfettered market conditions cause an oligopoly to form, that means it is the most efficient production organization and nothing even should be done about it. Just like nothing needs to be done against natural monopolies. In essence, anything that is a natural market outcome is preferrable, regardless of any moral considerations. Such is the position of libertarianism.

No. This is a blatant strawman. They hold that the outcome of the market is more moral, not that moral considerations don't count.

[Lord Zentei]

Well, obviously not every industry is going to be the same - there are businesses where a single guy with an idea can butt into the market and take it by storm with minimal resources. However, the industries where trusts can form and where the entrenched companies dominate also happen to be the ones where trusts and carterla and monopolies are the most likely to form.

Also, I still don't see how waging a price war is going to destroy the cartel. They need to do this long enough to quash the traitor and buy him out, and then jack the prices back up: by the virtue of being a cartel, they have inherently more ability to take losses. Won't work if the traitor takes a significant portion of the cartel's resources with him (or a crucial piece of the supply chain), but it will work very well if he doesn't.

It's the economic version of the prisoner's dilemma. Each is better off betraying the cartel, even after the traitor is crushed. Each will stand to make extra money if they don't jack up prices with the rest of them.

Okay, so...trusts cannot effectively be attacked with common laws that the government should have according to minimalist government folk, like those against slander, violence and fraud, but introducing anti-trust laws...somehow promotes cartels and monopolies?

Trusts can certainly be attacked, but the idea is that government is no less likely to cause such concentration of power, and breaking up natural monopolies doesn't make people better off.

Reading this, it reminds me of the argument some people make against taking medicine. It's the natural way to develop cancer and god dam it if nature wants them to grow cancerous and die than it has to be a good thing and they won't fight it...

/metaphor

Hoo, boy. Aren't you clever.

[PeZook]

It's the economic version of the prisoner's dilemma. Each is better off betraying the cartel, even after the traitor is crushed. Each will stand to make extra money if they don't jack up prices with the rest of them.

The obvious counter to this is, of course, that a prisoner's dilemma is an idealized situation which only occurs in a world where both players have perfect information and can perfectly evaluate the risks involved.

Real life shows some cartels breaking up, and others operating for more than a century without suffering from power grabs by members. Cartels are still occasionally detected and broken up by using antitrust laws - now, if I get this straight, a libertarian would argue the benefit of those actions is cancelled by the harm of governments getting "captured" by special interest groups, correct?

Now, why can't capture happen with a weak government as well? It would just take the form of looking the other way while large companies abuse their power, rather than regulating the shit out of the market to create barriers to entry.

Trusts can certainly be attacked, but the idea is that government is no less likely to cause such concentration of power, and breaking up natural monopolies doesn't make people better off.

But if you posit that a natural monopoly is the desirable state because the market deemed it so, then you cannot at the same time argue that the free market brings prices down and quality up via competition, correct? At least not across the board, since a natural monopoly is still a monopoly and can dictate prices at will.

[Lord Zentei]

The obvious counter to this is, of course, that a prisoner's dilemma is an idealized situation which only occurs in a world where both players have perfect information and can perfectly evaluate the risks involved.

The prisoner's dilemma doesn't go away if the players don't have perfect information. Moreover, companies are quite adept at calculating the costs and benefits of price changes of their own products.

Real life shows some cartels breaking up, and others operating for more than a century without suffering from power grabs by members. Cartels are still occasionally detected and broken up by using antitrust laws - now, if I get this straight, a libertarian would argue the benefit of those actions is cancelled by the harm of governments getting "captured" by special interest groups, correct?

Now, why can't capture happen with a weak government as well? It would just take the form of looking the other way while large companies abuse their power, rather than regulating the shit out of the market to create barriers to entry.

Yes, that would be correct. As for your question, while it's true that companies have the ability to abuse their power with a weak government, this becomes counter-beneficial to them given adequate competition.

But if you posit that a natural monopoly is the desirable state because the market deemed it so, then you cannot at the same time argue that the free market brings prices down and quality up via competition, correct? At least not across the board, since a natural monopoly is still a monopoly and can dictate prices at will.

I don't make that argument. The natural monopoly is not more desirable because the market deemed it so, but because it doesn't enable the monopolist to abuse his power in quite the same way as a legally sanctioned monopoly does. He only retains his monopoly as long as he doesn't raise prices so high that competitors might emerge to challenge him.

[K. A. Pital]

I didn't "concede" shit, since I never held the opposing view.

You first called the deals voluntary. When I questioned the very concept of a voluntary non-equal deal (indeed, why would anyone voluntarily enter into a deal that detriments his interests moreso than those of the other party?), you just said that in your view it does not constitute coercion, if I remember correctly.

No. This is a blatant strawman. They hold that the outcome of the market is more moral, not that moral considerations don't count.

I'll raise the issue once again in very simple terms: is zero child malnutrition, but no iPhones since there's no market and an embargo to boot, a less moral outcome than non-zero child malnutrition, but with iPhones as there's a market? If so, explain why. What sort of moral system could justify that?

Is efficiency justifying extreme suffering and physical harm to humans in a moral sense? I find it really hard to imagine. *laughs*

Libertarians have a peculiar moral system where the well-being of a person is proportionally more important the more property he or she has. In essence, a marginal improvement in the well-being of a bourgeois can mean more than a non-marginal improvement in the lives of a thousand poor. This is a natural consequence of the market valuation of human lives, as opposed to all humans having equal worth simply as living sentient beings.

[Lord Zentei]

I didn't "concede" shit, since I never held the opposing view.

You first called the deals voluntary. When I questioned the very concept of a voluntary non-equal deal (indeed, why would anyone voluntarily enter into a deal that detriments his interests moreso than those of the other party?), you just said that in your view it does not constitute coercion, if I remember correctly.

Right. Because it isn't coercion. At least, not simply by dint of being made between non-equals. Neither is a deal between non-equals necessarily as you describe it, i.e. "one that detriments his interests more so than those of the other party".

No. This is a blatant strawman. They hold that the outcome of the market is more moral, not that moral considerations don't count.

I'll raise the issue once again in very simple terms: is zero child malnutrition, but no iPhones since there's no market and an embargo to boot, a less moral outcome than non-zero child malnutrition, but with iPhones as there's a market? If so, explain why. What sort of moral system could justify that?

Is efficiency justifying extreme suffering and physical harm to humans in a moral sense? I find it really hard to imagine. *laughs*

Libertarians have a peculiar moral system where the well-being of a person is proportionally more important the more property he or she has. In essence, a marginal improvement in the well-being of a bourgeois can mean more than a non-marginal improvement in the lives of a thousand poor. This is a natural consequence of the market valuation of human lives, as opposed to all humans having equal worth simply as living sentient beings.

The libertarian position is that there's a difference between living a moral life and forcing it on others, the latter of which is not moral. Other than that, you'd have to ask a libertarian.

[K. A. Pital]

Right. Because it isn't coercion. At least, not simply by dint of being made between non-equals. Neither is a deal between non-equals necessarily as you describe it, i.e. "one that detriments his interests more so than those of the other party".

I'll have to think over my argument again.

Of course, not every deal is coercive, only one where (a) parties have different capacity for loss absorption (which is, being non-equals) and (b) one party uses this advantage to make or persuade the other party enter the deal - via threats of losses, joblessness, or engineered bankruptcy. Being equal is not a complete necessity, if the losses of each party due to the deal falling apart don't exceed the matter of the deal. E.g. if a person already employed is asking for a job in another corporation which does not grant him that job, but he still keeps his prior job, parties are clearly not equal, but none of them can put pressure on the other party and threaten greater losses than just the subject of the deal: wage offered or services rendered in case of the person. Without (b) satisfied, a deal between non-equals cannot be called coercive, although they must be non-equals for such a situation to arise in the first place.

So it is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for a coercive deal.

The libertarian position is that there's a difference between living a moral life and forcing it on others, the latter of which is not moral.

For a humanist there is no difference. Reasonably enough one can conclude that no human desires biological suffering, and therefore if you force him to be fed and clothed, that is not going against his desires. One has to be pretty misantropic to presume that humans who are experiencing extreme privation desire to experience it and not desire to abolish it.

Other than that, you'd have to ask a libertarian.

I'm not sure I'll find any that wouldn't be a corporate stooge. You're not a typical libertarian that's for sure.