Libertarians of Reddit

[doodle]

I find the left view that the right are fascists ironic (see 'Antifa'). You don't see the right telling anyone what is acceptable to think. That is the hallmark of fascism.

I would disagree with that. There are a lot of people on the "right" telling people what is acceptable or not to think, say, and do; what is right and wrong, what is moral and immortal; etc. They believe the government should force these ideals on all of society whether the other side likes it or not. Now not every person on the right is like this, but this sub-sect which used to be rather small and out of the limelight does seem to be growing and getting more and more visibility.

Are there things that are absolutely right or wrong?

Yes, moral relativism beyond a certain degree no longer hold water.

[doodle]

I know nothing about QAnon, however I'm certain they haven't been rioting, looting and causing violent mayhem. So sorry, not the same.

As far as anthem kneeling, most of the people disgusted by it simply stopped watching sports.

The FBI has declared QAnon a potential domestic terrorist threat. And there has been violence linked to group...except not reported as vociferously as antifa in media on the right.

As far as anthem, pledge, flag burning, abortion...how is what is happening regarding those issues on the right any different than on the left? I'm not happy with either side on this...people on the left usually employ shutting down speech with people like Richard Spencer. I disagree with that. They often extend it even further to voices like Charles Murray or the latest victim Bret Weinstein aiberal himself whose views based on evolutionary biology are deemed offensive. It's a recognized problem and many liberals do not condone it.

What we saw in the streets, the rioting and looting etc is not so much an organized movement in my mind. It's a bunch of pissed of people. What they did was wrong and a setback for advancing solutions. I'm my mind, we are going to be seeing a lot more of that however unless we address what I think is going to be an increasingly stratified society when AI really starts replacing jobs in earnest

[pmward]

I find the left view that the right are fascists ironic (see 'Antifa'). You don't see the right telling anyone what is acceptable to think. That is the hallmark of fascism.

I would disagree with that. There are a lot of people on the "right" telling people what is acceptable or not to think, say, and do; what is right and wrong, what is moral and immortal; etc. They believe the government should force these ideals on all of society whether the other side likes it or not. Now not every person on the right is like this, but this sub-sect which used to be rather small and out of the limelight does seem to be growing and getting more and more visibility.

Are there things that are absolutely right or wrong?

My belief here doesn't matter. What does matter is what plays out in society. And in society everything is relative. We may say murder of all kinds is bad, but then when we dropped multiple nuclear bombs on innocent civilians in Japan it was justified away. Really, any war is justified away. So there is a double standard in society for everything as for what is right or wrong.

[glennds]

I find the left view that the right are fascists ironic (see 'Antifa'). You don't see the right telling anyone what is acceptable to think. That is the hallmark of fascism.

I would disagree with that. There are a lot of people on the "right" telling people what is acceptable or not to think, say, and do; what is right and wrong, what is moral and immortal; etc. They believe the government should force these ideals on all of society whether the other side likes it or not. Now not every person on the right is like this, but this sub-sect which used to be rather small and out of the limelight does seem to be growing and getting more and more visibility.

Aside from abortion, can you give me some examples?

Sure, scroll up this very discussion thread and take a look at what Maddy had to say.

[pmward]

I find the left view that the right are fascists ironic (see 'Antifa'). You don't see the right telling anyone what is acceptable to think. That is the hallmark of fascism.

I would disagree with that. There are a lot of people on the "right" telling people what is acceptable or not to think, say, and do; what is right and wrong, what is moral and immortal; etc. They believe the government should force these ideals on all of society whether the other side likes it or not. Now not every person on the right is like this, but this sub-sect which used to be rather small and out of the limelight does seem to be growing and getting more and more visibility.

Aside from abortion, can you give me some examples?

1) The "right" pushing for Trump to deploy the military to shut down protests when the local governments of those places did not want it because their values were "right" while the protestors are "wrong".
2) The whole debate on transgender rights, bathrooms, etc. The right is very forceful in trying to shut down the other side.
3) Gay rights in general. A lot of people on the right label all these people as evil sinners.
4) The view of the role of females in society.
5) Pushing the view by SOME extremist sects that whites are superior to other races.
6) Pushing the view that Christianity is the only religion that matters, and that the government should align itself with Christianity and Christian views.
7) The wholesale condemnation of the Muslim religion as a whole, where every Muslim is viewed as an evil terrorist, that we should not let them in our country, and the attempt to discredit any Muslim that is here.

I could keep going. Either way in all these cases the "right" is asking for an authoritarian response to make things they don't like (or don't benefit them) illegal and to punish all of those that think, act, or believe differently. This is fascism.

[Maddy]

You have theories that if we just eliminated government and turned everything over to privately led 'authoritarian' corporations that the world would blossom into this capitalist utopia.

I'm having a hard time understanding why you would describe a political philosophy that "turns everything over to privately led 'authoritarian' corporations" as libertarian. How do the monopolistic corporations that run virtually everything today acquire their unique status but for the protection and assistance of government? How do you explain that the very same players rotate seamlessly between government, NGOs, and multi-national corporations--but to acknowledge that they are part of the same hydra-headed beast? Why, given that reality, do liberals consistently side with the parasitic class, believing that they'll somehow come to the rescue of the little guy this time? But more to the point, why would anyone who would enable this loathsome trio in the interest of affording the "common man" some scraps from the table regard himself as libertarian?

[SomeDude]

You have theories that if we just eliminated government and turned everything over to privately led 'authoritarian' corporations that the world would blossom into this capitalist utopia.

I'm having a hard time understanding why you would describe a political philosophy that "turns everything over to privately led 'authoritarian' corporations" as libertarian. How do the monopolistic corporations that run virtually everything today acquire their unique status but for the protection and assistance of government? How do you explain that the very same players rotate seamlessly between government, NGOs, and multi-national corporations--but to acknowledge that they are part of the same hydra-headed beast? Why, given that reality, do liberals consistently side with the parasitic class, believing that they'll somehow come to the rescue of the little guy this time? But more to the point, why would anyone who would enable this loathsome trio in the interest of affording the "common man" some scraps from the table regard himself as libertarian?

Lefties and commies think corporations are "free market" creations. They don't understand that they are legal fictions created by the government to provide "legal" liability protection to owners and such in exchange for pay offs (taxes, lobbying). They think by giving all power of life and death over to a small group of benevolent people it will protect them from some bogeyman that wants to sell them a product or service. They can't connect the dots that it's the the government power that actually creates the bogeyman they are scared of.

It's weird to me that adult men can fall for this. No offense to the ladies of course, but sheesh you would think testosterone and a chromosomal driven tendency to think more with logic than emotion (not saying one is superior) would prevent this. Lefty women I get. Men.......holy Moses.

[I Shrugged]

Never bet on people to be logical. And I’m a people, so....

[Tortoise]

political_compass.png (164.25 KiB) Viewed 3153 times

Some of the questions were worded in a misleading way, based on false or ambiguous assumptions and without a totally neutral answer option such as "Neither agree nor disagree". So I don't place too much weight on the result, other than the fact that it at least confirms my hunch that I was in the right-libertarian quadrant.

[vnatale]

snip.JPG

No surprise that our results are close to one another? Each BARELY on the left side? Which most likely means it's blend of us on some issues being on the left side and some on the right side but averaging out to where we end up?

Vinny

Capture.JPG (21.56 KiB) Viewed 3141 times

[vnatale]

[attachment=0]Screen Shot 2020-12-15 at 7.41.05 AM.png

This one has surprised me as I'd have guessed you'd have come out farther down the right direction. Instead you are only all as far into that territory as I am (mildly) in the left territory.

Vinny

[vnatale]

Maintaining that fairly narrow range of:
4.21 to 2.92
That MUST be the commonality that brought us all here!

That can't be inferred without seeing the wider population distribution.
(Extra Vinnyness elided for clarity)

Of course! So I invite you and all else to also show us the results of answering the questions. I'm fairly certain it took me less than 5 minutes to answer the questions.

Vinny

I mean, you need to know the distribution of all the test takers to understand what the clustering of the pp group means.

So far.... from what you have gathered about the personalities / leanings of any who have so far taken the test....how many have surprised you by the results?

Vinny

[vnatale]

Right. Like none of the "left" views you see from us here are "progressive" or "democratic socialist" or whatever. I think we seem "left" only in the context of the norm of this board. But in actuality Me, doodle, Vinny, glennds, Corto, etc are all more moderate than anything. My views piss far left "progressives" off just as much as they piss the far right off.

I think a "left libertarian" at least as it is defined on that graph is someone who does believe in capitalism and free markets. We don't want to kill capitalism, we don't want to go full on socialism. But we also are not looking to go back to the past. We are looking to move forward. We also value the whole, and believe that the chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so we want to find ways to help strengthen those weak links. We value equality and acceptance of all. We believe globalism is inevitable, and in the end the best for all as mutual economic dependence is the best guarantor of peace. We care about the environment and believe that it is in our best interest to take care of our planet for future generations. We want a world that truly is an equal slate for all. So we are willing to move forward and break the conventions of the past and build a better future, while at the same time maintaining free markets.

Really, I think I personally see forward movement as inevitable. The past is gone. So why fight it? Since both liberalism and conservatism are moving targets, conservatives always lose eventually. Liberals always win eventually. Todays conservatism is yesterdays liberalism, and todays liberalism is tomorrows conservatism. These things are inevitable.

Yes, agree!

I went from working in a CPA firm wherein I was one of the few who did not vote for all things Republican and, thus, was perceived, perhaps, as being a liberal to then working for a non-profit where I think I would be viewed as the most conservative as not one of my coworkers would ever think about voting for a Republican for anything and Bernie Sanders would be a prototypical favorite.

Vinny

[vnatale]

Not really surprising since I think everyone here is either a crazy liberal or conservative nut-job

I shudder at the idea of being stranded on an island with either.

Really, I think I personally see forward movement as inevitable. The past is gone. So why fight it? Since both liberalism and conservatism are moving targets, conservatives always lose eventually. Liberals always win eventually. Todays conservatism is yesterdays liberalism, and todays liberalism is tomorrows conservatism. These things are inevitable.

History indicates that it is more of a cycle than a straight line. Liberal society builds up-and-up until it violently crashes down. There are studies that reflect this. A liberal society is SUPPOSED to have everyone contributing maximum effort, then the sum of the effort is distributed equally in a fair manner. This is doomed to failure because obviously the most productive get sick of pulling dead weight. At a certain point, the Professor and the Skipper get sick of working twice as hard for Mrs. Howell and Ginger.

When the Professor and Skipper finally say screw it and move to a different island (every island WANTS the Professor, Skipper.. but NONE want Ginger) the rest of the island is now screwed. They have all become dependent on the Professor and Skipper for their survival. They now experience a sudden, harsh, and incredibly painful collapse of their society... cannibalism is optional.

Yet another one who falls near the same scale on libertarianism as several others of us. Mild libertarianism.

Vinny

[vnatale]

political_compass.png

Some of the questions were worded in a misleading way, based on false or ambiguous assumptions and without a totally neutral answer option such as "Neither agree nor disagree". So I don't place too much weight on the result, other than the fact that it at least confirms my hunch that I was in the right-libertarian quadrant.

I would have predicted you'd be right but farther down. But you are yet another one who scored about the same on the Libertarian scale.

Vinny

[doodle]

You have theories that if we just eliminated government and turned everything over to privately led 'authoritarian' corporations that the world would blossom into this capitalist utopia.

I'm having a hard time understanding why you would describe a political philosophy that "turns everything over to privately led 'authoritarian' corporations" as libertarian. How do the monopolistic corporations that run virtually everything today acquire their unique status but for the protection and assistance of government? How do you explain that the very same players rotate seamlessly between government, NGOs, and multi-national corporations--but to acknowledge that they are part of the same hydra-headed beast? Why, given that reality, do liberals consistently side with the parasitic class, believing that they'll somehow come to the rescue of the little guy this time? But more to the point, why would anyone who would enable this loathsome trio in the interest of affording the "common man" some scraps from the table regard himself as libertarian?

Well now, this is interesting. See, I think large public corporations are actually beneficial in many ways, as is limited liability. I think large corporations can operate at economies of scale and take on projects that small private companies without the benefit of limited liability and large pools of capital would never be able to accomplish.

Monopolies are not a product of government. If that were the case then why did Roosevelt have to take this issue on and create Sherman Antitrust acts?

In many ways I feel aligned with Teddy Roosevelt on alot of issues. Somehow that makes me a communist...hence my avatar.

Although he (Roosevelt) himself was a man of means, he criticized the wealthy class of Americans on two counts. First, continued exploitation of the public could result in a violent uprising that could destroy the whole system. Second, the captains of industry were arrogant enough to believe themselves superior to the elected government. Now that he was President, Roosevelt went on the attack.

[Tortoise]

political_compass.png

Some of the questions were worded in a misleading way, based on false or ambiguous assumptions and without a totally neutral answer option such as "Neither agree nor disagree". So I don't place too much weight on the result, other than the fact that it at least confirms my hunch that I was in the right-libertarian quadrant.

I would have predicted you'd be right but farther down. But you are yet another one who scored about the same on the Libertarian scale.

Yes, I thought I would be farther down, too. I suspect that's at least partly due to some of the questions being poorly worded.

For example, one of the questions was something like (to paraphrase), "If globalist economics is inevitable, I think that the interests of humanity should come before the interests of large multinational corporations."

The question is kind of messed up for a couple of reasons. First, why are the interests of "humanity" assumed to be fundamentally opposed to the interests of large multinational corporations? Second, to the extent that many large multinational corporations do have some interests that are fundamentally opposed to "humanity" (however we define it), they often derive their disproportional power and influence from governments. If a huge corporation is able to shit on humanity because of the fascistic relationship it enjoys with multiple governments, am I to blame that on capitalism (which seems to be what the question is implying)?

If the questions were worded better to deal more precisely with such ambiguities (clearly define all terms, avoid sloppy premises, etc.), I suspect I would score noticeably farther down toward libertarianism.

[doodle]

I find the left view that the right are fascists ironic (see 'Antifa'). You don't see the right telling anyone what is acceptable to think. That is the hallmark of fascism.
facism sign.jpg

Antifa is like the QAnon of the left. ...a lot of confused people looking for scapegoat

On the right you have different issues related to free speech...

Kneeling during anthem or mandated school pledge of allegiance off the top of my head.

Yeah, this one time, a person refused to kneel during the national anthem and Qanon set the entire city on fire.

And when I was in grade school, a classmate refused to recite the national anthem and the republican teacher spit in his face and slapped him. Saying “punch a non patriotic asshole” and we all took turns punching him.

I think you can find plenty of violence and antisocial behavior inspired by QAnon or Proud Boys or white nationalists. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make? Are you trying to say I'm a sympathizer to left wingers shutting down free speech? That I'm condoning the violence in the streets?

The question is kind of messed up for a couple of reasons. First, why are the interests of "humanity" assumed to be fundamentally opposed to the interests of large multinational corporations? Second, to the extent that many large multinational corporations do have some interests that are fundamentally opposed to "humanity" (however we define it), they often derive their disproportional power and influence from governments. If a huge corporation is able to shit on humanity because of the fascistic relationship it enjoys with multiple governments, am I to blame that on capitalism (which seems to be what the question is implying)?

They aren't always opposed...in some cases they are. It's a mixed bag.

Secondly, why did antitrust legislation and increased government regulation of business come about? We're the issues Upton Sinclair wrote about in the Jungle a result of the government?

[doodle]

Capitalism isn't evil. It's created an absolutely enormous amount of wealth and innovation. Its the best economic system I know. However, that doesn't mean that it doesn't require modulation and regulation. Even Adam Smith understood this. I take issue with your belief that if you simply eliminate the government everything will function perfectly. That simply isn't borne out by historical empirical data.

The interest of the dealers [referring to stock owners, manufacturers, and merchants], however, in any particular branch of trade or manufacture, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, and absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. (Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1991), pages 219-220)

[Mark Leavy]

So far.... from what you have gathered about the personalities / leanings of any who have so far taken the test....how many have surprised you by the results?

Vinny

You can't be surprised about the position on the axis until you know the limits of the axis.

[Maddy]

Capitalism isn't evil. It's created an absolutely enormous amount of wealth and innovation. Its the best economic system I know. However, that doesn't mean that it doesn't require modulation and regulation.

There's nothing inherently wrong with either capitalism or limited liability. What's wrong is the symbiotic relationship that has developed between monopoly corporations and their whores in government. You argue that it is appropriate for government to regulate corporations, and I'm practical enough to agree. But do you seriously think that Goldman Sachs and Archer Daniels Midland are constrained by governmental regulations? That they're even meaningfully touched by them? How do you think it happened that we have 237 millionaires in Congress?

If unregulated corporations are the problem, why in heaven's name would you look to government as the answer?

[vnatale]

Is there anyone here who do not believe that it is the mega-corporations who control our country via our government?

John Talbott has been preaching that long ago and after this book came out tried to start a movement to rein in such corporations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Talbott

Survival Investing: How to Prosper Amid Thieving Banks and Corrupt Governments

https://www.amazon.com/Survival-Investi ... oks&sr=1-1

I can well see that there would be differences in opinions in this forum regarding the size of government and its role in our country.

But was it the liberal or conservative side of the Supreme Court that ruled that "corporations are people"? How does that ruling fit in with the many seemingly definitions of libertarianism in this forum? Which sides of the political spectrum most allow this power of the mega-corporations to control our government?

Vinny

[Tortoise]

Secondly, why did antitrust legislation and increased government regulation of business come about? We're the issues Upton Sinclair wrote about in the Jungle a result of the government?

I didn't know a whole lot about the early 20th century meat-packing industry, so I did a little searching and found the following interesting article and book excerpt. They explain that not only did federal meat inspection exist for years prior to the publication of The Jungle, but the big meat-packing companies actually supported it and pushed to extend it to reduce competition from smaller meat-packers:

As popular myth would have it, there were no government inspectors before Congress acted in response to The Jungle and the greedy meatpackers fought federal inspection all the way. The truth is that not only did government inspection exist, but meatpackers themselves supported it and were in the forefront of the effort to extend it!
[...]

From "Ideas and Consequences: Of Meat and Myth" by Lawrence W. Reed

One of the earliest acts of Progressive regulation of the economy was the Meat Inspection Act, which passed in June 1906. The orthodox myth holds that the action was directed against the “beef trust” of the large meat packers, and that the federal government was driven to this anti-business measure by popular outcry generated by the muckraking novel, The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair, which exposed unsanitary conditions in the Chicago meat-packing plants.

Unfortunately for the myth, the drive for federal meat inspection actually began more than two decades earlier and was launched mainly by the big meat packers themselves. The spur was the urge to penetrate the European market for meat, something which the large meat packers thought could be done if the government would certify the quality of meat and thereby make American meat more highly rated abroad. Not coincidentally, as in all Colbertist mercantilist legislation over the centuries, a governmentally-coerced upgrading of quality would serve to cartelize — to lower production, restrict competition, and raise prices to the consumers. It, furthermore, socializes the cost of inspection to satisfy consumers, by placing the burden upon the taxpayers instead of on the producers themselves.
[...]

From The Progressive Era by Murray Rothbard

[Maddy]

Ditto with the whole coronavirus affair. Small business has been systematically extinguished, while large corporations--particularly the handful of uber-wealthy--have moved in to occupy that market share with an efficiency unrivaled by the most well-planned hostile takeover. The handful of individuals at the very top of the control hierarchy have been the real beneficiaries of this supposed crisis.

It's a fool's errand to debate whether the republicans or democrats have been most responsible for the concentration of resources and power that is the sine qua non of the symbiotic relationship between government and the transnational corporations that control it. If you still believe that the R-D divide is anything but theater for the masses that insures the continuity of the preordained regime no matter how the pendulum swings, then you haven't been paying attention over the last few months as the true allegiances of our so-called representatives in government have been laid bare.

What IS, significant, in my mind, is that the populist movements which have rejected the encroaching tyranny of the Elite have embraced the traditional principles of republicanism (referring to the form of government, not the political party) and seek first and foremost to safeguard individual liberties. This was, in a nutshell, the "Trump" phenomenon. Whether you like or dislike Trump the man, and whether you agree or disagree with his policies, there's no denying that the tidal wave of support he has achieved in this country represents a clear rejection on the part of rank and file conservatives of the imperialist criminal syndicate that runs the western world.

In contrast, on the left we see ordinary people lining up almost reflexively behind the very same psychopaths and criminals that have brought us here, embracing shockingly authoritarian policies that they demand be enforced by the iron fist of government. In this regard, I see no equivalency at all between the right and the left--much less any possibility of reconciling the values of the progressive left with the fundamental principles of libertarianism.

[doodle]

Capitalism isn't evil. It's created an absolutely enormous amount of wealth and innovation. Its the best economic system I know. However, that doesn't mean that it doesn't require modulation and regulation.

There's nothing inherently wrong with either capitalism or limited liability. What's wrong is the symbiotic relationship that has developed between monopoly corporations and their whores in government. You argue that it is appropriate for government to regulate corporations, and I'm practical enough to agree. But do you seriously think that Goldman Sachs and Archer Daniels Midland are constrained by governmental regulations? That they're even meaningfully touched by them? How do you think it happened that we have 237 millionaires in Congress?

If unregulated corporations are the problem, why in heaven's name would you look to government as the answer?

Goldman and friends are not only unconstrained by government regulation but they help congress draft the regulations such that they can exclude smaller competitors from the market. And that is why we have 237 millionaires in congress.

Also, meow!

Yes, our government has been co-opted by big money and their lobbyists. My solution is to take measures to reduce big money's influence on government. Your solution is to eliminate government. I think my position is more moderate and yours is quite radical and at this particular point not realistic. In that way you share a lot in common with AOC. You are proposing the mother of all green new deals in terms of level of radical change.

Also, the number of wealthy people in congress is not surprising. It's kind of always been that way...our founders weren't exactly poor either. I do not like it. People like Pelosi disgust me.

Secondly, why did antitrust legislation and increased government regulation of business come about? We're the issues Upton Sinclair wrote about in the Jungle a result of the government?

I didn't know a whole lot about the early 20th century meat-packing industry, so I did a little searching and found the following interesting article and book excerpt. They explain that not only did federal meat inspection exist for years prior to the publication of The Jungle, but the big meat-packing companies actually supported it and pushed to extend it to reduce competition from smaller meat-packers:

As popular myth would have it, there were no government inspectors before Congress acted in response to The Jungle and the greedy meatpackers fought federal inspection all the way. The truth is that not only did government inspection exist, but meatpackers themselves supported it and were in the forefront of the effort to extend it!
[...]

From "Ideas and Consequences: Of Meat and Myth" by Lawrence W. Reed

One of the earliest acts of Progressive regulation of the economy was the Meat Inspection Act, which passed in June 1906. The orthodox myth holds that the action was directed against the “beef trust” of the large meat packers, and that the federal government was driven to this anti-business measure by popular outcry generated by the muckraking novel, The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair, which exposed unsanitary conditions in the Chicago meat-packing plants.

Unfortunately for the myth, the drive for federal meat inspection actually began more than two decades earlier and was launched mainly by the big meat packers themselves. The spur was the urge to penetrate the European market for meat, something which the large meat packers thought could be done if the government would certify the quality of meat and thereby make American meat more highly rated abroad. Not coincidentally, as in all Colbertist mercantilist legislation over the centuries, a governmentally-coerced upgrading of quality would serve to cartelize — to lower production, restrict competition, and raise prices to the consumers. It, furthermore, socializes the cost of inspection to satisfy consumers, by placing the burden upon the taxpayers instead of on the producers themselves.
[...]

From The Progressive Era by Murray Rothbard

Now you are beyond my scope of knowledge. I will say this, I have posted quotes out of the wealth of nations from Adam Smith warning of the ways in which corporate interests run counter to public good. It is obvious that social philosophers from the beginning were aware of this issue and proposed government regulation as a means to counteract it.

Upton Sinclairs jungle was published not so much to disgust people regarding their food supplies, but to highlight the subhuman conditions of the workers.

I can't attest to the accuracy of what you posted without looking further into the issue. I tend not to believe much of what I read from Rothbard, or things that come out of Mises Inst. or Cato Inst. because they start from a premise that has almost religious significance for them. Everything in the world is interpreted through a particular lens and there is very rarely if ever a good place from which to undertake an objective analysis regarding the facts. I find very often that they twist reality by omitting certain pertinant information or miscontrueing other in order to try to prove their position. I used to read CATO publications a lot but stopped largely due to this reason.

I think the history of monopolies is quite a bit more nuanced. Sometimes they were created by government..large projects and exclusive contracts were granted in order to undertake massive projects. Large-scale public works needed to make the country hospitable required large companies to carry them out. These companies were granted exclusive contracts for these works by colonial administrators. Some industries like large utilities, road building etc can't be built efficiently and also have competition. It makes no sense to have competing sewer, electric, road, railroad systems etc. I'm not entirely sure I agree that Facebook and Amazon or the increase concentration of corporate conglomerates and consolidation of industry and media is due only to the government. Big wealthy corporations don't like competitors and have the ability to raise capital and buy out their competition. We see this is farming where massive farming concerns are basically eliminating small independent farmers who can't compete. I don't think it's entirely accurate to lay the blame for this all on government. That sounds like overly simplistic scapegoating and a way to grind an axe with personal issues that one might have with government legislation that they don't like. I think it leads to solutions that result in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.