An honest question for libertarians.

[Citizen James]

No snark or anything intended, I am just trying to understand your philosophy better.

Assuming that you believe in some minimal government (to enforce just laws protecting persons and property from harm - that is things like murder and theft would remain illegal) what means would you have to pay for it?   Would there be some sort of minimal taxation for these purposes, governmental charges for certain services, or some other means of revenue? 

Also, what roles do you see the government (federal or local providing) - I would presume (correct me if I am wrong) national defense, the minting of currency, and the enforcement of laws protecting individuals and property from harm perpetuated by another would be among them.  Any other roles you can think of?

If you happen to be an anarchist (opposed to any government at all) how do you think society should react to crimes against persons and property?  Also, what means of exchange would you recommend in absence of a universal currency?

[Mint]

No snark or anything intended, I am just trying to understand your philosophy better.

Assuming that you believe in some minimal government (to enforce just laws protecting persons and property from harm - that is things like murder and theft would remain illegal) what means would you have to pay for it?   Would there be some sort of minimal taxation for these purposes, governmental charges for certain services, or some other means of revenue? 

I'm sympathetic to the idea of a flat income tax, at least at the national level. Locally that really depends on circumstances but I would hope Rhode Island would adopt policies similar to Texas or New Hampshire. Although I'm not really a 'minarchist,' at least not by the typically accepted definition. I'm more of a small l Libertarian.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can accept certain regulations in regards to food safety, environment (e.g. air pollution, fishing, etc.), workplace (e.g. discrimination, working conditions), things of that nature. I can also accept provision of services to certain people like the disabled and some government involvement in education (albeit nowhere near the extent it does now). It's not that I think government should be strictly limited in size so much as drastically smaller than it is now.

[SPC]

Quite simply, monopoly stifles innovation. If all services were provided voluntary (via the invisible hand), then services currently provided by government would simply be cheaper and highly quality. Sorry if my answer is too short. The Market for Liberty by the Tannehills goes more in depth about libertarianism.

[dead0man]

No snark or anything intended, I am just trying to understand your philosophy better.

Thank you for the thought and thank you for not actually going ahead and adding snark or heavily loaded questions.  I mean that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A small flat income tax could work as Mint suggested, I'd prefer a small federal sales tax.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There will still be quite a bit the govt will be doing.  Prisons certainly wouldn't be any smaller in my version of Libertarian Land as pedo's and the repeatedly violent would be spending a lot more time there and replacing the recently free'd drug addicts and a lot of the non-violents.  Parks and such would still need to be kept safe, clean and modern (and plentiful).  I'd, oddly enough, be pretty big on nailing large companies that pollute the environment so hippie lawyers would be on the payrolls.  Fire departments aint free.  Although I'm not against private fire departments either..obviously, only an idiot would be.  The cops and military as you mentioned.  I'm sure I'm forgetting/have no knowledge of quite a bit of things, feel free to ask specifics.

[k-onmmunist]

Monopolies do not stifle innovation, they aid it.

[Scam of God]

Monopolies do not stifle innovation, they aid it.

Hardly. Monopolies only exist because the government passes legislation that aids in their creation.

[k-onmmunist]

Monopolies do not stifle innovation, they aid it.

Hardly. Monopolies only exist because the government passes legislation that aids in their creation.

Usually true actually. I would prefer competition, but I don't believe in breaking up monopolies.

[Scam of God]

Monopolies do not stifle innovation, they aid it.

Hardly. Monopolies only exist because the government passes legislation that aids in their creation.

Usually true actually. I would prefer competition, but I don't believe in breaking up monopolies.

I'm in favor of repealing the legislation that exists to prop them up. That's trust-busting in reverse.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Monopolies do not stifle innovation, they aid it.

ROTFLMAO!

You're getting to sound more and more like Opebo.

[k-onmmunist]

Monopolies do not stifle innovation, they aid it.

ROTFLMAO!

You're getting to sound more and more like Opebo.

Why's that so funny? It's true.

[Scam of God]

Monopolies do not stifle innovation, they aid it.

ROTFLMAO!

You're getting to sound more and more like Opebo.

Why's that so funny? It's true.

But it's not true. The fewer start-ups that enter a given market, the less pressure placed on that market to innovate in response to the demands of increased competition: for many years Microsoft has never had the need to significantly improve on its basic Windows 95 programming, because it had a corner on the market and no small businesses could enter it to compete (that, however, is about to change). And the only reason it was able to attain such a place is because the government gave it break after break, even selling its offices in California to it for pennies on the dollar.

Monopolies are not a natural phenomenon of the free-market, and anyone who defends their existence is a corporatist, not a libertarian.

[John Dibble]

Monopolies are not a natural phenomenon of the free-market,

I'd put one caveat on that - natural monopolies occur for a number of industries even in a free market, though usually at a local level. Utility companies would be the most common example. For instance, I only have one choice each for my gas and electricity providers.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Monopolies are not a natural phenomenon of the free-market,

I'd put one caveat on that - natural monopolies occur for a number of industries even in a free market, though usually at a local level. Utility companies would be the most common example. For instance, I only have one choice each for my gas and electricity providers.

Utility companies are typically legal monopolies NOT natural monopolies.

Let me give you a few examples:

First, it used to be maintained that more than one telephone company could not operate in an area since it was a natural monopoly.  We have seen that is untrue.

Second, cable companies were supposed to be natural monopolies, but where allowed, there are competing companies, and competition is coming from satellite companies.

Third, competition is emerging in the electical area (where not strangled by regulators).  Technology is allowing this.

Suggest you read some analysis of the 'natural monopoly' theory frome FEE and some other organizations.   

[John Dibble]

Monopolies are not a natural phenomenon of the free-market,

I'd put one caveat on that - natural monopolies occur for a number of industries even in a free market, though usually at a local level. Utility companies would be the most common example. For instance, I only have one choice each for my gas and electricity providers.

Utility companies are typically legal monopolies NOT natural monopolies.

Let me give you a few examples:

First, it used to be maintained that more than one telephone company could not operate in an area since it was a natural monopoly.  We have seen that is untrue.

Second, cable companies were supposed to be natural monopolies, but where allowed, there are competing companies, and competition is coming from satellite companies.

Third, competition is emerging in the electical area (where not strangled by regulators).  Technology is allowing this.

Suggest you read some analysis of the 'natural monopoly' theory frome FEE and some other organizations.   

Which is all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that there are natural monopolies. Technology is fortunately leading to a decrease as you've stated, but it doesn't change the fact that some still exist.

[Vepres]

No snark or anything intended, I am just trying to understand your philosophy better.

Well, I straddle the line between moderate freedom-lover and small 'l' Libertarian, so I may be more moderate than the others.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Flat income tax, though I don't necessarily mind a progressive system as long as the poor to upper middle class brackets are fairly even, only taxing the very rich more.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Public transit, road building, environmental protection, education (though through charter schools), health care for the very poor, getting rid of the nasty recreational drugs, traffic laws, regulation of businesses to ensure competition and efficiency are beneficial to the companies, public awareness on certain issues, research funding (though not running it, usually), NASA, libraries, fire protection, are all reasonable in my opinion (what I mean is, they don't have negative effects, in fact they are possibly better than private versions).

As you can tell, I'm far more moderate than say Mint or SPC, but as you can tell from my PM score, I'm still comfortably in the libertarian quadrant. I think there are many people like myself, they just aren't very vocal (many of the "swing voters" belong to this moderate libertarian group IMO).

[CARLHAYDEN]

Monopolies are not a natural phenomenon of the free-market,

I'd put one caveat on that - natural monopolies occur for a number of industries even in a free market, though usually at a local level. Utility companies would be the most common example. For instance, I only have one choice each for my gas and electricity providers.

Utility companies are typically legal monopolies NOT natural monopolies.

Let me give you a few examples:

First, it used to be maintained that more than one telephone company could not operate in an area since it was a natural monopoly.  We have seen that is untrue.

Second, cable companies were supposed to be natural monopolies, but where allowed, there are competing companies, and competition is coming from satellite companies.

Third, competition is emerging in the electical area (where not strangled by regulators).  Technology is allowing this.

Suggest you read some analysis of the 'natural monopoly' theory frome FEE and some other organizations.   

Which is all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that there are natural monopolies. Technology is fortunately leading to a decrease as you've stated, but it doesn't change the fact that some still exist.

Well, I have given several examples, but lets look at another of you so-called 'natural monopies' that you listed, i.e. natural gas.

Now, what is natural gas used for in the residential context?  Answer: (1) space heating, (2) heating water and (3) cooking. 

Now, electricity can and is extensibely used for all three purposes.  So, electricity is in competition with natural gas, and can perform functions which natural gas cannot perform.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, I have given several examples, but lets look at another of you so-called 'natural monopolies' that you listed, i.e. natural gas.

Now, what is natural gas used for in the residential context?  Answer: (1) space heating, (2) heating water and (3) cooking. 

Now, electricity can and is extensively used for all three purposes.  So, electricity is in competition with natural gas, and can perform functions which natural gas cannot perform.

You're conflating the two separate products that a natural gas utility provides, which is understandable, since in most areas, the two are bundled together.
1) The gas itself.
2) The delivery of the gas through pipes.

The natural utility here is the delivery system and the infrastructure required, and while for a long time it was usual to bundle the two, it is possible to decouple the two.  The same can be done with electricity and most other utilities. Indeed that is exactly what utility deregulation has done, even in the telecommunication field.  If you have conventional landline telephone service, most assuredly if you switch from one telephone company to another company, you do not get new wires strung to your house to replace the ones you previously had. Nor does that happen if you switch electric companies or natural gas companies.

That said, telecommunication is currently in a fluid state because the delivery system that for decades had been adequate and well established for voice communication, and thus suitable for consideration as a natural monopoly faced competition from new delivery technologies and an increased demand for telecommunications that could not have been met with the existing infrastructure.  New pipes (both wired and wireless) had to be laid to meet the demand for non-voice traffic and it was not essential that they be provided by the original utility.  Indeed, Ma Bell was barred from entering into many markets where it could have leveraged its existing network of wires and the technology used to maintain it before it was broken up.  Imagine if you will a world in which it wasn't the IBM PC that ruled the roost, but the AT&T PC.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, I have given several examples, but lets look at another of you so-called 'natural monopolies' that you listed, i.e. natural gas.

Now, what is natural gas used for in the residential context?  Answer: (1) space heating, (2) heating water and (3) cooking. 

Now, electricity can and is extensively used for all three purposes.  So, electricity is in competition with natural gas, and can perform functions which natural gas cannot perform.

You're conflating the two separate products that a natural gas utility provides, which is understandable, since in most areas, the two are bundled together.
1) The gas itself.
2) The delivery of the gas through pipes.

The natural utility here is the delivery system and the infrastructure required, and while for a long time it was usual to bundle the two, it is possible to decouple the two.  The same can be done with electricity and most other utilities. Indeed that is exactly what utility deregulation has done, even in the telecommunication field.  If you have conventional landline telephone service, most assuredly if you switch from one telephone company to another company, you do not get new wires strung to your house to replace the ones you previously had. Nor does that happen if you switch electric companies or natural gas companies.

That said, telecommunication is currently in a fluid state because the delivery system that for decades had been adequate and well established for voice communication, and thus suitable for consideration as a natural monopoly faced competition from new delivery technologies and an increased demand for telecommunications that could not have been met with the existing infrastructure.  New pipes (both wired and wireless) had to be laid to meet the demand for non-voice traffic and it was not essential that they be provided by the original utility.  Indeed, Ma Bell was barred from entering into many markets where it could have leveraged its existing network of wires and the technology used to maintain it before it was broken up.  Imagine if you will a world in which it wasn't the IBM PC that ruled the roost, but the AT&T PC.

Sorry, but you are making a false assumption.

I am not 'conflating' the two factors, but rather was illustrating in my previous posts the nature of competition vis a vis supposed natural monopolies.

In many are there are no "pipes," instead CNG is delivered (by truck).

Also, in some areas fuel oil is used (to cite one more example).

I know more about the price/effectiveness of natural gas than I want to know.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sorry, but you are making a false assumption.

I am not 'conflating' the two factors, but rather was illustrating in my previous posts the nature of competition vis a vis supposed natural monopolies.

In many are there are no "pipes," instead CNG is delivered (by truck).

Also, in some areas fuel oil is used (to cite one more example).

I know more about the price/effectiveness of natural gas than I want to know.

No, you're sill making assumptions.  In the field of natural gas, it is not supplying natural gas that is the natural monopoly, nor even the delivery of natural gas, but as I stated in my last post it is the delivery of natural gas via pipes.  That in certain markets natural gas delivered by pipe is not the most cost-efficient means of achieving the goal of having energy supplied to the home only demonstrates that natural monopolies like any other good or service can be substituted with other goods or services, which may or may not be cheaper.

Suppose in Market A the market conditions are such that pipe-based delivery is the cheapest option and there are two suppliers offering delivery of natural gas via pipes to everyone in the market  There would be two sets of pipes to lay and maintain, which would cost about twice as much as a single combined monopoly system could offer (Costs of trench digging and pipe laying in the combined system would ideally be half that of the separate systems, but the pipe costs would be around the same.  In the real world, the cost of threading the two systems together would be an additional cost for the non-monopoly position.)

Now suppose that in Market B the conditions are such that truck-based delivery is the cheapest option.  In that case, if you had two competing delivery companies, there would be no operational economies that could be obtained via a merger.  Indeed, there might even be added costs if more bureaucracy were needed to run the combined operation than the two separate operations.

Of course, we don't actually have uniformly distributed customers, so in most states you have urban concentrations for which piped gas makes sense and rural areas where truck delivery does.  Obviously over time the costs of the two types of services and the distribution of customers will vary.  There also will be a fringe area where the costs are such that the two delivery modes are competitive with each other.  In those fringe areas, a company that delivers gas via pipe will be in a competitive market for the "delivery of gas" with companies that deliver by truck, but they will still be in a monopoly market for the "delivery of gas by pipe".  Such a company won't be in a position to gain advantage from its monopoly price, since in a monopoly market, the maximum advantage that can be extracted is at the price level at which a substitute service becomes competitive with the monopoly service.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sorry, but you are making a false assumption.

I am not 'conflating' the two factors, but rather was illustrating in my previous posts the nature of competition vis a vis supposed natural monopolies.

In many are there are no "pipes," instead CNG is delivered (by truck).

Also, in some areas fuel oil is used (to cite one more example).

I know more about the price/effectiveness of natural gas than I want to know.

No, you're sill making assumptions.  In the field of natural gas, it is not supplying natural gas that is the natural monopoly, nor even the delivery of natural gas, but as I stated in my last post it is the delivery of natural gas via pipes.  That in certain markets natural gas delivered by pipe is not the most cost-efficient means of achieving the goal of having energy supplied to the home only demonstrates that natural monopolies like any other good or service can be substituted with other goods or services, which may or may not be cheaper.

Suppose in Market A the market conditions are such that pipe-based delivery is the cheapest option and there are two suppliers offering delivery of natural gas via pipes to everyone in the market  There would be two sets of pipes to lay and maintain, which would cost about twice as much as a single combined monopoly system could offer (Costs of trench digging and pipe laying in the combined system would ideally be half that of the separate systems, but the pipe costs would be around the same.  In the real world, the cost of threading the two systems together would be an additional cost for the non-monopoly position.)

Now suppose that in Market B the conditions are such that truck-based delivery is the cheapest option.  In that case, if you had two competing delivery companies, there would be no operational economies that could be obtained via a merger.  Indeed, there might even be added costs if more bureaucracy were needed to run the combined operation than the two separate operations.

Of course, we don't actually have uniformly distributed customers, so in most states you have urban concentrations for which piped gas makes sense and rural areas where truck delivery does.  Obviously over time the costs of the two types of services and the distribution of customers will vary.  There also will be a fringe area where the costs are such that the two delivery modes are competitive with each other.  In those fringe areas, a company that delivers gas via pipe will be in a competitive market for the "delivery of gas" with companies that deliver by truck, but they will still be in a monopoly market for the "delivery of gas by pipe".  Such a company won't be in a position to gain advantage from its monopoly price, since in a monopoly market, the maximum advantage that can be extracted is at the price level at which a substitute service becomes competitive with the monopoly service.

Now, let me see if I understand your point.

If in a community I own ALL the means of getting a beer on tap, but there are plenty of retailers that see beers in bottles and cans, then I have a monopoly on a particular delivery system?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Now, let me see if I understand your point.

If in a community I own ALL the means of getting a beer on tap, but there are plenty of retailers that sell beers in bottles and cans, then I have a monopoly on a particular delivery system?

Yes.  Of course, having that monopoly won't do you any good unless the cost of selling beer by tap is less than that of selling beer in bottles or cans.  (Or on tap beer is perceived by the consumer as better than bottled or canned beer.)

However, since selling beer on tap is not a service that has considerably higher infrastructure costs if the market is split among multiple vendors, it would not be a natural monopoly.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Now, let me see if I understand your point.

If in a community I own ALL the means of getting a beer on tap, but there are plenty of retailers that sell beers in bottles and cans, then I have a monopoly on a particular delivery system?

Yes.  Of course, having that monopoly won't do you any good unless the cost of selling beer by tap is less than that of selling beer in bottles or cans.  (Or on tap beer is perceived by the consumer as better than bottled or canned beer.)

Uh, that is excactly the point I made earlier (referring to natural gas rather than beer)!

There has been considerable academic work done on the theory of monopolies, and the studies have found that most monopolies are NOT natural, but rather legal (competitors are not permitted by law).

Also, most 'natural' monopolies have competition from other products.