Actually there is no such thing as a ‘private’ monopoly. The firms that are protected from competition by the state should be regarded as part of the state - because they are.
There are two problems with telling people that ‘private’ monopolies are better than public ones : 1) It is not true 2) It provides support for advocates of statism who claim that “capitalism is legal plunder on behalf of the rich”
That means you are defending mercantilism in a libertarian forum and you don’t care ?
I am explaining economics in an economics forum and you are trolling.
What you appear to be doing is defending corporatism and monopolism in the name of the free market. Vulgar libertarianism at its finest. The problem with this is (1) that so-called “private” monopolies have nothing to do with the free market and are illegitimate entities in bed with the state and (2) as Juan points out, this merely reinforces the political left’s false impression that libertarians are just apologists for economic elites - you start to become a living caricature of this. I fail to see what, say, Halliburton has to do with the free market or why it should be defended merely because it’s considered to be “private”. I’m not trying to go on a witch hunt or anything but this is a very real problem within libertarian discussion.
The question asked was not about the free market.
I never noticed Stranger advocating anything. He is merely analyzing monopoly from an economic POV.
-Jon
I am afraid that you are about the be thrown out of the Official Libertarian™ Club, for real libertarians only.
True enough, but as long as everyone undestands what’s meant, there’s no problem using the expression. A “private monopoly” is either an organized crime syndicate, or else a “public/private partnership.” And the two are of course both examples of crime syndicates–but it’s useful to distinguish the mafia from the government. In other words, whether the hit men wear suits or uniforms.
I still can’t tell if he’s using the right definition of monopoly or not. Assuming he is, it’s possible that he’s merely asking the economic question whether a monopoly granted by government to a private firm is an improvement over the same function being served by a government agency directly. An argument can probably be made that it’s less bad–in rather the way that it’s less bad to be shot with a .22 than a .30-06.
–Len
I’m not aware of any Austrian economic POV that supports his claims which seem to imply that “private” monopolies are somehow reasonable or legitimate or utilitarian or anything.
If you spent more energy communicating clearly, and less venting your disdain for others in your obnoxious francophonic way, you’d find yourself involved in a lot less conflict.
–Len
While some reasonable arguments could be put foreward that “private” monopolies might be “less bad” than state monopolies, I think that perhaps the distinction is barely existant when it comes down to it. “Private” monopolies will run into the calculation problem as well and have the potential or seeds within them to become states. Indeed, I’m convinced that the calculation problem has expansive implications as an organizational theory in general, far more than a mere criticism of state-socialism as it was in its original context. If the size and organizational structure of the “private” monopoly is nonetheless fairly similar to that of the state monopoly, then it might not be an improvement at all in real terms.
Agreed. What jumps to mind, for example, is that there’s a friction layer between the monopolist and enforcement: it might be slightly harder for a “private” hospital to enact orders to shoot a competitor than for a state-run hospital. And at least sometimes, they’ll be at odds with their government partners, which reduces the efficiency of their oppression.
If we ask the same questions about “privatized” law enforcement, I think we obviously come to the opposite conclusion. Authorizing private individuals as agents of force gives government the power to order attrocities while disclaiming responsibility. So when Hillary declares martial law, I think I’d rather have it enforced by US troops than by Blackwater. But again, it’s like choosing between shooting and hanging.
–Len
Yes. Private anything is always better than “public” whatever. At least with private monopolies there is the (very good) CHANCE that a competitor could come up. If it is the government you have no choice, there can be no competition, they can be as inefficient as they want and they can be as abusive as they want with no recourse for the abused.
That contradicts the definition of monopoly, though: if the “private monopolist” can’t forcibly exclude competition, he isn’t a monopolist at all. He might happen to be the only provider of some good, but that’s not a monopoly. Thus my question to Stranger, which definition he’s using.
–Len
You didn’t read the the previous posts, did you ? 
Monopolies exist when government outlaws competition. So there can be no competition in such a scenario
To me it depends on what you mean by capitalism.
Many here make the distinction between “laissez-faire capitalism” and “X-adjective capitalism,” but I think it’s a waste of time.
This may seem like semantics, but say what you want, words are important and it’s important to distinguish a philosophy as much as possible - as it is to distinguish any other kind of product. In all reality, I believe that “laissez-faire capitalism” is a complete oxymoron. Throughout history, no front economy has been “laissez-faire” - at least not in modern times. However, it would seem ridiculous to suggest that capitalism has never existed. To some extent, governments have manipulated and monopolized industries in all economies of all eras. Is capitalism just a minimal of this? Well fine, but is this what libertarians advocate? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Libertarians advocate laissez-faire. You can’t get this in capitalism as it requires a minimum of state involvement.
Len pretty much answered this the same way I would.
-Jon
You know Walter Block once debated whether private slavery was better than public slavery.
Capitalism has become identified with free enterprise because, by its much more productive nature, it comes to be the dominant form of organization in the economy so long as private ownership of capital is permitted. However, it is not necessary for there to be free enterprise in order for capitalist enterprise to exist. There need only be private ownership of capital and salaried (risk-free) labor.
Telecomms, insurance, agriculture, any activity, can either be subjected to free-competition or else be a monopoly. It’s as easy as A or not-A - Tertium non datur.
From the point of view of advancing liberty, to recycle a ‘public’ monopoly into a ‘private’ one is a disaster, because it reinforces the vulgar vision of ‘free-enterprise’ as theft. And besides, a ‘private’ monopoly is still a monopoly - it is corrupt and inefficient.
Private ownership of capital means that the owners can do with their property whatever they want. IF they can’t compete with existing firms THEN they can’t use their capital as they see fit SO there’s no private ownership of capital.
And btw salaried labor is not ‘risk-free’.