About two weeks ago, we had quite a spirited debate here about the question of monopolies in a free market system, and specifically the question of whether Microsoft, or any other supposed monopoly was a problem that libertarians and classical libera…

That is precisely my point. If a so-called monopoly (and I still think we haven’t defined that properly) arises as a result of a purely free market, then there is nothing wrong with it. If it arises because of government action, then there is.

I guess what I don’t understand is what you propose be done, within the confines of a free market system if a “monopoly” or business capable of creating “resource scarcity” arises ?

It’s easy to argue that the consumer can simply choose not to purchase the monopolized resource. Unfortunately, that is not always a reasonable position. What if the monopoly is on heating oil and you live in Albany, for example?

The market is better, by far, than any other means we have found, in practice, for efficient allocation of resources and decision-making. But it is neither perfectly efficient nor perfectly ethical. “Natural monopolies”, which represent concentrations of power, lack of efficiency and artificial resource scarcity are not good for the market.

Maybe that’s true, but so what ?

If its indeed going to be a free market, then they are going to be free to do whatever they want.

Additionally, isn’t it the very definition of capitalism that I have something to sell that you want to buy. The classic example is the sale of real property. As between a buyer and seller, there is a “resource scarcity” because each piece of property is unique. That’s just the way things are.

On top of that, like the laws that enforce the union’s ability to create resource scarcity, there are laws that enforce and support a corporation’s ability to do the same. Look at the issues that Coyote details in trying to do business in Colorado as an example. And his experience is not unique to Colorado at all.

In other words, what you say may be true but does it really matter ? Labor unions only truly became a menace when they got the power of the state behind them in the form of closed shop laws which required mandatory membership in the union. Leaving that out of the picture, if the workers at a particular factory all want to band together for the purpose of bargaining as a group with their employer, I don’t see anything wrong with that from a libertarian perspective.

I know you’re not suggesting that people should be forbidden by law from entering into these types of arrangements, but given that I am not sure what the significance of this point really is.

As they exist, I think that labor unions served a purpose at one time. I certainly have no objection to workers voluntarily joining together in a union, the problem comes when membership in the union is made mandatory.

From an economic point of view, though, I think its pretty clear that today unions are doing more harm than good.

There is a distinct difference between concentrations of power in the public and private sector, and that difference is that the public sector has the power to infringe liberty to a far greater extent than the private sector does.

I still haven’t seen any argument that convinces me that Microsoft, or any other company similar to it, has violated my rights as an individual as they are understood from a classical liberal/libertarian point of view.

Guys, to say otherwise is to contradict yourself. You can’t claim that MS may do as they please with their products but then claim that someone else cannot do as they please with their product. Ultimately, all wealth is the result of intellectual creativity. That creativity is my property and no one else’s. I may choose to hoard it away or share it freely. This has nothing to do with the laws that Disney and Sony have worked so hard to get passed to enable their monopolies (oh yeah, I forgot, Microsoft was part of that effort).

The thing that is frustrating to me is that I really see no distinction between a concentration of power just because it is elected or created by some other means. Concentrations of power are dangerous, are used to maintain and increase power and lead to abuse of power. The entire point of the American Constitution was to break apart and set against each other concentrations of power in order to try and avoid the abuses while still allowing sufficient power to exist to accomplish something. Now folks who believe in that philosophy are saying that inordinate power concentrated in one group’s hands is okay and the abuses that stem from it are okay so long as they aren’t “the government”. What’s the difference?

Yeah that. I’ve been struggling with the intellectual property thing for quite a while as well – frankly, I have a *little* talent in a few things, but I also have very little ego – believing that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I have friends and acquaintances who are much more talented – some who are very willing to help and share, and others who are very closed with their works and don’t want anyone to copy them at all. I can see both sides of those issues – but tend to come down on the side of the idea that there is truly nothing new under the sun – and while you may have a unique and original idea in your realm, somewhere, somebody outside your sphere of influence has done something *exactly* like what you’re trying so hard to protect. Whew. Did that make any sense?

I used to think about intellectual property the same way you do, but now I’m not so sure. The copyright laws, for example, give arists far more control over the disposition of their work than they would ever be able to enforce via private contracts.

Additionally, patents are the ultimate government-sanctioned monopoly. If you believe in the free market, I think its hard to justify a law that gives someone the exclusive right to produce a product for 17 years.

Do you know that MS blatantly stole another company’s compression technology, put it in MS-DOS and pretended that it was their own? In the course of that, they destroyed that other company. Or that they modified Sun’s Java VM technology, in violation of their contract with Sun? Did you know that there is ample evidence that Microsoft threatened to use similar tactics against Dell when Dell began offering PC’s without Windows pre-loaded? Not just said they would pull their contract, but threatened them with attacks against their property and ability to compete.

I still cannot understand how you can justify supporting a company that is, and has been for decades, willing to steal someone else’s property to improve their market position.