Hacker News Reader

Comment by TuringNYC | Hacker News Reader

The libertarian answer is "to let the market decide" and walk with their pocketbook / talk with their wallet. That is all fine in theory but the theory doesn't address what happens when there is only a single dominant player. For example, if I "walk away with my wallet" on my cable tv provider, i'm done -- there is only one provider.

View on HN

Cable TV isn't a good example because "nothing" is a strong competitor and really much better than cable TV.

But lately companies like VISA and MC seem to be abusing their semi-monopolies. Try living without a card or bank account.

>That is all fine in theory but the theory doesn't address what happens when there is only a single dominant player.

The market can decide that only one player is sufficient to its needs.

A single player that is strong enough can decide that the market will not have more than one player.

Facebook and your cable company are similar in that they both offer a compelling (for some people, at least), yet unessential product.

in these situations, you vote with your wallet by no longer using the service. there are issues with the libertarian "vote with your wallet" theory, but this is not one of them.

How does Libertarian "vote with your wallet" theory deal with essential products?

there might be some diehard libertarians that disagree with me, but I think it's pretty obvious that the theory can't work when a company has a monopoly on a truly essential product.

I live in a place (Canada) where even some non-essential products are monopolized not by private companies, but by the government. In fact, the only monopolies of which I am aware are created and mandated by government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com