Doesn't their existing infrastructure, and social dependency on that infrastructure, give them a somewhat legitimate need for a bailout? If other, smaller, more efficient companies can replace everything the telecom behemoths do, then let the big boys suffer, but is that the case? Can smaller tech savvy companies do everything the large telecoms do or are we talking strictly about broadband internet?
It is far more profitable to either kill or join with your competitors, than to compete with them by offering better products at lower prices. This is why a strong government is needed to ensure a working market, based a continues struggle to provide better goods at lower prices than your compatitors.
Without such a strong government, producents will join force in guilds, who keep the market closed to outsiders, by force if necessary. This was the situation until the development of nation states with a strong King as the leader.
Unfortunately, this violates the foundation for the Libertarian belief, namely that all evil is created by government and all good come from the market. And as always when belief and reality slashes, the believers are unable to see the reality.
Of course, this isn't an excuse for the government to take up other tasks than ensuring that players on the market follow the rules.
I have to heartily agree that while the free market is the most efficient way we know of to allocate scarce resources, it's the civilising influence of government that ensures that everyone behaves themselves, and preserves social conditions necessary to ensure social stability and thus, the existence and smooth functioning of the free market at large.
The old Eastern Bloc happens to be an excellent example of what happens when governments are not strong enough to enforce the rule of law and make everybody play fair.
You cannot have a free market and foreign investment without a certain degree of government intervention. Otherwise you see the situation prevalent in the more-backwards parts of the world where businessmen find it cheaper and more convenient to use unethical means to dispose of the competition than follow the rules.
Russia is an excellent example. Quite a few people have been rubbed out by their business competitors because the government is either unable or unwilling to impose a sufficent level of rule-of-law. I believe that just the other day,
a regional governer got shot in the back of the head in broad daylight, apparently an organised hit by disgruntled businessmen. Check out the photo [moscowtimes.ru].
You seem to be confusing libertarianism with anarchy. Libertarians are more than happy to pay taxes to provide military and police force--protecting people from physical harm is what the government's job is.
But are libertarians willing to have the governent break up monopolies and "guilds" of producers that band together to drive everyone else out. Like a certain software maker?
Of course, due to the way our "just" court system works the big corporations are very difficult to actually stop with legal means, but the goverment is at least trying.
Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:0, Flamebait)
This is why we should seriously consider abolishing the government and leaving everything to the market forces.
People like Friedman and Hayek have proved that markets are the ultimate source of truth, at least in this world.
Though it is always funny to read how commie CEO's beg for state subsidies to help their mismanaged companies.
The market economy answer is of course: sell it if it doesn't work.
The market economy depends on a strong government. (Score:5, Insightful)
Without such a strong government, producents will join force in guilds, who keep the market closed to outsiders, by force if necessary. This was the situation until the development of nation states with a strong King as the leader.
Unfortunately, this violates the foundation for the Libertarian belief, namely that all evil is created by government and all good come from the market. And as always when belief and reality slashes, the believers are unable to see the reality.
Of course, this isn't an excuse for the government to take up other tasks than ensuring that players on the market follow the rules.
Re:The market economy depends on a strong governme (Score:1)
The old Eastern Bloc happens to be an excellent example of what happens when governments are not strong enough to enforce the rule of law and make everybody play fair.
You cannot have a free market and foreign investment without a certain degree of government intervention. Otherwise you see the situation prevalent in the more-backwards parts of the world where businessmen find it cheaper and more convenient to use unethical means to dispose of the competition than follow the rules.
Russia is an excellent example. Quite a few people have been rubbed out by their business competitors because the government is either unable or unwilling to impose a sufficent level of rule-of-law. I believe that just the other day, a regional governer got shot in the back of the head in broad daylight, apparently an organised hit by disgruntled businessmen. Check out the photo [moscowtimes.ru].
Re:The market economy depends on a strong governme (Score:1)
Re:The market economy depends on a strong governme (Score:2)
Re:The market economy depends on a strong governme (Score:1)