A few additional thoughts.

> > > 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 tenet.

> > > 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.

Absolutely. Under that philosophy, they would be prevented
(or forced to make restitution for afterwards) from violations
against person and property, such as dangerously faulty
products or fraud, and also would be held to their
agreements and contracts.

>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.
>
> 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.

Ten percent left? That's a *huge* amount of a utility, and
far more than what is necessary for new competitors to
emerge. If Standard Oil had driven prices up hugely, then
suddenly they would have created a vast new market--my
chemistry teacher claims that engines would need only a
little modification to run on alcohol. Or, in more modern
situations, gas prices must rise as supply runs out, and if
this is unhindered by the government, it will be a huge
encouragement (read: profit incentive) and boon for whoever
gets out the first alternative, such as fuel cell or eletric
cars, or something new.

> 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.

Gray Davis's office recently admitted that, even while he
villified the private companies for price gouging, they were
charging less than the public utilities. Throughout the entire
"crisis," the private companies charged an average of $100
less per megawatt-hour than the public utilities. This is just
more of the same long string of evidence showing how
public utilities are unnecessary and inefficient, but it was
particularly amusing since Davis and other politicians lied
through their teeth about it to make political points.

> > 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).

This practice is, of course, wonderful for the consumer and
usually wrecks any business which attempts it. Just like in
any market, if the price gets too high, entrepreneurs will
figure out an alternative. My home area doesn't get any
supplies by train anymore; everything comes in by truck.

>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).

Vertical integration deals like this have the interesting
quality of being two-way. If Train Company A requires the
manufacturers to deal only with A, then suddenly those
manufacturers have enormous clout with A: ship for our
prices or we'll organize and go to someone else. It works
remarkably well. See below.

> 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).

If the consumers cared enough about dual-boot machines,
then OEMs would care too, as their business is cutthroat,
and the OEMs would then find it suddenly to be powerfully in
their interest to renegotiate with Microsoft, which, if it
wanted to continue to sell so many products, would be more
than willing to accommodate them.

> 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?

Catholics are especially well known for establishing
charitable hospitals, but they are certainly not the only
ones. The not-quite-completed government takeover of
hospitals has done nothing but raise prices, especially at
these institutions. Profit-seeking hospitals will naturally be
more high-end quality for those not in emergencies and who
can pay. As a last resort, insurance is readily available to
help pay for emergencies.

Environmental quality is the most difficult area to explain
simply, because it is the one major thing which is naturally
community-owned. One can't have my air and your air. But
it is also true that government has the worst record of
environmental abuse of all institutions, much worse than
private groups and business. Here's a typical libertarian
solution: let consumer groups do the reporting. If a
reputable environmental watchdog group said Business A is
spewing harmful materials into the environment, then a
whole lot of environment-conscious people would choose
Business B until A was up to snuff. Another solution is to
attach pollution rights to the contract/deed for a parcel of
land, and, if the company or individual pollutes too much,
they violate the contract and lose the property.

gab"No economic justification for regulating monopolies"by