a question on libertarianism

[Gustaf]

"Real" libertarianism is not included among your options, but is basically a form of liberalism in which inherent inequalities in society are denied or thought to not matter. Most libertarians of this brand tend to moderate over time (like Nozick). Many libertarians however are not really of this brand, but are rather a modern form of conservatism, dropping many of its classic components, most notably the notion of society and the belief in God and Nation. Whether this latter can be thought of as its own ideology is debatable, perhaps it should.

[Gustaf]

don't worry, these are people who make assumptions based on what they think they know, not by what's real.
Anarcho-capitalism is in no way authoritarian as it is against force.  Force is what makes something authoritarian.
It also isn't pro-corporation above individual rights.  When the red avatars learn that individual rights and business rights are aligned together against government.  Not government and individual against business, they could then undertand that it is government that elevates business to the level where they could become monopolies.  The only way a monopoly can exist is by means of government.

I think you're making an assumption based on what you think you know...you seriously don't think monopolies can exist on a free market? Do you have any idea whatsoever about the functioning of markets?

[Gustaf]

don't worry, these are people who make assumptions based on what they think they know, not by what's real.
Anarcho-capitalism is in no way authoritarian as it is against force.  Force is what makes something authoritarian.
It also isn't pro-corporation above individual rights.  When the red avatars learn that individual rights and business rights are aligned together against government.  Not government and individual against business, they could then undertand that it is government that elevates business to the level where they could become monopolies.  The only way a monopoly can exist is by means of government.

I think you're making an assumption based on what you think you know...you seriously don't think monopolies can exist on a free market? Do you have any idea whatsoever about the functioning of markets?

A monopoly isn't really a monopoly unless it can't be dislodge by legal means. A natural monopoly only occurs becuase one company is more efficient than all its cmpetitors.

So, let's assume that a company owns a subway system in a city. How am I to compete with this company exactly? Build my own subway? Where? Or say that someone owns the road outside my gate and makes me pay a very high toll. How do I compete with him? Do I build my own road on stilts above his and climb onto it?

Free markets work in an excellent manner as long as the cost of establshing a business is sufficiently low. When it becomes really, really high you get trouble. Infratruscture is the most obvious example here. Of course, yes, there is a difference between a legally protected monopoly and one that just exists, but the bad effects can be there. If the cost of establishing a competitor is too high a company can keep and acquire a monopoly without being the most efficient player on the market.

[Gustaf]

And Opebo charges in with another non sequitor

It is non sequitur, and I answered the question posed at the beginning of the thread.

Go spam somewhere else.

How can it possibly be 'spamming', you fool, to succinctly answer a question posed by another member?  The man was soliciting answers to the question 'is liberarianism a branch of conservatism or an independent political philosophy'.  I think it is the former.  Where is the spam in that?

Its not in THAT post but in most of your other posts.

To change the subject I think someone I still bitter about getting owned earlier. I wonder who that is... hm...