> 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.

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)

In my opinion, government management of trust and monopoly cases has so far been less efficient than the free market in recent years, but I do believe there is a role to be played there. Without any government protections, the situation might be far worse the other way.

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. There hasn't been genuine evidence of harmful effects at a concentration of that level, the arsenic that is there comes from natural sources, and it's significantly lower than what you could get from well water.

If businesses are left entirely to themselves, they'll pollute the environment without concern about the public welfare of others. But government decisions on the environment have been more motivated by politics than common sense, and the EPA has continued to try to expand its restrictions beyond reasonable levels. (incidentally, the level of some chemicals in bottled water is higher than that of what the EPA requires for water for public use, and the amount of radiation wanted for nuclear reactors is less than what you'd get from being near the jefferson memorial)

Either way it's going to be imperfect, and I guess going for some government control there is the only way to have some kind of a check and balance.

> There are many situations in which it would be in the best interest of a corporation to kill all competition and/or throw the environment to the wind while manufacturing a product. However, a corporation should not have the right to do either because it infringes upon the rights of others.

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.

> My point is that these are certainly instances in which the government *should* be "be interfering and making those choices" (to use Mark's phrasing), even when viewed from a Libertarian perspective. Thoughts?

Yes, but I believe that's consistent with a libertarian ideology. (mine anyway) The government has responsibility to protect the rights of others.

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.

I'm basically more concerned about abuse of government power than I am of government "not meeting everyone's needs". Government is a necessary evil, but I'd like to see it play as little of a role in our lives as possible.

I'm tired, and this probably isn't making a whole lot of sense. If you have any other questions though, feel free to ask away.

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