Jerry -
I would submit that "fair and just competition" is, according to the Libertarian creed, impossible when the government has its finger on the scales.
Not so, Jerry. fair and just is violated when coercion occurs. IMO, MSFT is guilty of coercion, and if force of law is needed to make them play fairly and justly, so be it ... according to libertarians worldwide, the only just use of government is to protect from coercion.
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.
Not so. The appropriate response for a libertarian is to ask whether MSFT's actions amount to coercion. If so, they're guilty of immoral action, and need to be checked.
... the exception for fraud and theft being the exceptions that define the limits of what constitutes a market's "natural" workings
Read the document that members are asked to sign. It expressly objects to coercion.
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.
Actually, IMO, government is subject to market discipline, it's just that the buyers (voters) are not sufficiently educated.
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.
If you vote for the politician that doesn't do the <tm>Right Thing</tm>, but still manages to fill the local pork barrel, isn't that a market system?
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.
That's a big given. Personally, I view the practices of MSFT on the whole as being largely unethical, especially from a libertarian viewpoint. My main objection isn't to the threat to my ability to earn a living, but to their predatory practices in the marketplace. Rest assured, I'll be able to earn a comfortable living writing Unix software for many years to come, but I strenuously object to MSFT stifling competition and true innovation (not dancing paperclips).
Read again : MSFT is a coercive company with coercive practices. As long as this is so, I will strenuously object to any attempt to place them on a libertarian pedestal.
So, assuming the "L" stands for Libertarian, are you going to chuck your membership card?
Not yet. As soon as the party takes a stand that violates what I view as the basic ethical tenets of the movement, I surely will, though.
-justinb |
