Justin, I'm not a pure-bred libertarian, and I think Ayn Rand was one of the worst writers I've ever read, The Fountainhead excepted. Far be it for me to make the definitive pronouncement on what Libertarianism or "Objectivism" (which I guess is a strand of Libertarianism) is.
Rand believed in just and fair competition in the marketplace. You can't honestly say that MSFT engages in fair and just competition.
I would submit that "fair and just competition" is, according to the Libertarian creed, impossible when the government has its finger on the scales. If Microsoft is guilty of unfair trade practices or fraud, we don't need antitrust law to get at those practices. Antitrust law deals with "monopolization," an offense whose parameters vary according to how one defines "monopoly power," which, in turn, is very much a function of one's ideological world view.
Merely to say that a monetarily successful business/businessman is above reproach when it comes to an analysis of their methods of production goes against everything Ayn stood for and believed in. If this were not so, I'd chuck my party (with a capital L) membership card right now.
I don't know what Ayn Rand would say about the Microsoft case, but I think the appropriate response for a Libertarian is to ask whether Microsoft's actions amount to theft or fraud. If, so, I think a Libertarian would say Microsoft should be punished. If not, then the market should be left alone.
One thing Libertarians do believe is that the market is a very complex organism, which can get really screwed up in unexpected ways if the government is allowed to interfere in its natural workings (the exception for fraud and theft being the exceptions that define the limits of what constitutes a market's "natural" workings). Furthermore, in a marketplace truly free of government interference, it would be very difficult for any business to maintain a lasting monopoly position because the monopoly profits themselves would induce others to enter.
The second thing Libertarians believe is that government is subject to political pressures which, unlike private actors, are not subject to market discipline, and that belief would extend, I believe, to antitrust enforcement. True, most people who believe in Antitrust (including the vast majority of Antitrust lawyers) believe they are fighting the good fight, for turth and justice. But, what amazes me is the extent to which politics on all levels is little more than a game of paying off your own voting constituency, with some methods of payment being more subtle than others. Whether it's some new government regulation or government granted monopoly, or use of fiscal or monetary policy to heat up or slow down the economy to the benefit of one interest group or another, or using litigation to pick on and divide your adversaries, it is all part of the means elected politicians use to pay off their constituents.
Given this set of assumptions, I think a Libertarian would approach the whole topic of the antitrust laws, including the current action(s) against Microsoft, with a certain degree of skepticism. That Cato article I linked to a while back gives, I believe, an accurate summary of what I would expect a Libertarian to believe.
So, assuming the "L" stands for Libertarian, are you going to chuck your membership card? |
