afsina

On Standard Oil: https://mises.org/library/100-years-myths-about-standard-oil

It already happens. That someone is called "State". History shows that without state support even big oligopolies crumbles sooner or later.

State creates monopolies by stopping free actors to enter the market by:

- IP rights

- Protectionism, tariffs, Quotas etc.

- Exclusive rights and laws generated by Lobbying

- Unnecessary Licenses and regulations (often with public health excuses)

- Uneven Taxation

- State ownership of production

Surely all capitalists desire to be a monopoly, but free markets is the only power to stop them.

On the actual subject, the game "Monopoly" implies Capitalism, but to me it is just a game.

Not really related with the article but curiously I have yet to see anybody calls himself a "neoliberal".

They should loose and government should not help. So that this culture of recklessness die. No "too big to fail" BS

Government grabs money by force. That is the difference I guess.

Actually academia is not necessary dependent on Government. Universities can be private or privately funded and still do basic scientific research.

You can read an old piece on the issue from Murray Rothbard:

https://mises.org/library/science-technology-and-government-...

Chinese yes, China? Seems not even close from the first link you posted.

There are anti-theses for the issue. Two criticizing the book mentioned:

https://mises.org/library/government-spending-innovation-tru...

and

http://pricesandmarkets.org/volume-3-issue-3-winter-2015/mar...

Below portrays a different picture to me:

https://medium.com/@karpathy/icml-accepted-papers-institutio...

Granted, many of those researcher may be Chinese but that is not the point.

Perhaps. However, it is also likely that technological advances will make the level of quality of life quite close whether you are wealthy or not.

He (and Fresco) is of course talking hypothetically but as he continues:

"If such a world really is technologically possible, we should cut the socialist dreamers some slack. Their fault lies not with their vision, but with their plans for achieving it."

From what I understand Murphy claim that if such a dream is technologically possible their's is not the correct way. I guess main point is that sooner or later Fresco's idea will require coercion and enter the pitfalls of central calculation issues, where as property rights approach does not.

I think this is the relevant piece:

https://mises.org/library/venus-needs-some-austrians

I think Murphy is quite right.

Yes, that is why I used the word "want" not "do".

To me this is like telling "Government will be right for everyone this time, if we tweak the parameters right". Applying rules of Empiricism to large scale governing will just make things worse as long as people have very different world views.

Besides, locality has inherent advantages such as familiarity, cultural similarity and accountability. So at least some local governments will be probably suitable for your liking.

If it comes to that, having a local warlord over a large state warlord is the better option.

If you ask me, situation with norther Ireland is not really solved. Same for Quebec or heck Belgium or Italy.

If one group have ethnic cleansing ambitions they will do it anyway. This whole "equal protection and human rights" rhetoric is laughable where on group seriously oppresses other. It is better off that all groups live in more autonomy and if one is not happy, moving to another place is better than living under threat. Of course, this is not the "liberty" people are longing for, but it is the preferable choice.

No, what they say is, failures will occur but markets can heal themselves better than government intervention.

Perhaps it is better to read some introductory literature on this. Rothbard - Hoppe, Rand or Nozick (All are different schools in libertarian thought AFAIK)

Are implying that, for example, if Catalonia, Bask or Scotland become a country situation will be ripe for killing Spanish or English man living there?

AFAIK, Libertarians are not Utopians. If there is a choice, they prefer decentralization and secession. Underlying reason is not important (Ethnic and religious, or ideological). Besides, from what I know, in large sovereign states and large democracies minority or ruled ethnic and religious groups always suffer. Because they will be imposed the ruling groups culture, language and curriculum. If they want, they should have at least a degree of self control and identity.

Oh that is such a stretch. Ethnic cleansing occurred in large, well established states already. "as small as possible" can go much smaller than what you have in mind.

What libertarians would probably want first in Iraq is to let ethnic and religious groups to have the control of their own territory and abolish or weaken the central government as much as possible. Honestly this approach would at least alleviate the current turmoil there. Consider Syria, Iraq and Yemen for this.

What many libertarians want is decentralization. As much as possible. They probably want to get rid of all powerful Federal Government but local governments (as small as possible) and confederations are usually fine.

There are a lot of literature about this. But to answer to your question, whole concept of "Market failure" is considered a myth. Just two articles among many:

https://mises.org/library/market-failure-myth https://mises.org/library/response-market-failure-drones

Thomas J. DiLorenzo's light book "Organized Crime" has some chapters about it as well. It is available there.

https://mises.org/library/organized-crime-unvarnished-truth-...

I don't see people flocking even after Trump won.

Yes it is. But they will tell you that you signed the social contract with your birth blood and need to pay up or go to jail if not. Harsh but that is the truth.

Sadly, many people who make those blanket statements (such as myself) also believe governments, especially big-centralized ones cannot be fixed. These kind of data is good, it may be an eye opener for some. But governments will find loop holes to make those spendings look like justified. Most people will be fine with it anyway. Look at the authors response: "Oh there are 10 million public school teachers, those are nice people!"

I strongly disagree with the author here:

"Suddenly, he explained, the faceless bureaucrats who are often pilloried as symbols of government waste suddenly start to look like the people in our neighborhood whom we’re very glad to have."