The most sane (albeit not against a very high standard) of a number libertarian (or, at any rate, very pro-market) bloggers in Britain that I read, admits that network effects mean that many markets tend to “collapse” into monopolies. I would add that many more markets tend to become oligopolies or cartels. In the face of this, why does he still believe that leaving everything to the markets is the best way to run an economy?
As far as I can see, his position implies that he prefers private monopolies (which he admits arise) to public monopolies. I fail to see why they are better.
The argument for leaving things to the private sector is that competition forces firms to act in a way that delivers an optimal results. This is not true without competition, so what is so good about unfettered capitalism without competition. At least socialism in a democracy gives us some mechanisms to promote the public interest â€” and that is not even the best of the alternatives.
So, why leave everything the market?