First, I realize that using the term Libertarian casts a very wide net, so I expect to get a range of responses.
So here is my question.
It is my understanding that most Libertarians want private ownership, generally speaking, in as much as possible.
The claim is that anything that can and should be created should be funded privately and that this will result in improvements over the public/ private system we have now.
Now, I have an objection to this idea on practical grounds and I'm curious if there is someone who'd be willing to point out why my concerns are unfounded.
My concern is that businesses are, by their nature, risk averse. They tend to be short-sighted as a lot of emphasis is placed on short term profitability and return on investment (ROI). In the world we have now businesses are allowed to write down losses and many businesses will show losses for years before showing profitability, but it's taxpayers that pay for some if not all of the losses, This increases return on investment and reduces the barriers to entry for new businesses increasing the ability for startups to be more competitive.
It is my assumption, that people that adhere closely to "pure" Libertarianism would not agree to a government that provides tax incentives or subsidies or other advantages to any business, thus, this would cause at least two major problems in my mind.
1. The barrier to entry would be even greater than it is now delaying profitability and requiring investors to take much greater risks (with great risk must come the promise of great potential returns).
2. Increased risk comes at an increased cost.
3. Even if the private sector could have invented the internet, built the infrastructure to utilize it, settled on thousands if not 10's of thousands of interoperability standards, is there any reason to think, that without government providing tax incentives (at both the federal and state level), grants for R&D, organizations like ISO, IEC, IEEE, IETF, W3C, OASIS, Ecma International, HL7 International, IHE, SISO, DMTF, The Open Group just to name a few (and yes some are international, but almost certainly established by US government influence if not money).
I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever, that private companies would be willing to take the risk to lead industry in novel directions, at least in a way that was competitive globally. Thus, I think US private industry in a Libertarian world would largely relegated to waiting until technologies were created outside the US and then iterate on them. I think the profit motive, when left without a social political mandate competes to do what's in a companies best interest, even if that interest creates a more complex and convoluted system.
I don't see the US under a purely private system can look forward 5-10 years when profits are reported quarterly.
My other issue with private companies running everything and the idea that they will do the right thing otherwise people won't purchase their products. Let's look at a real world example.
Dupont makes Teflon. Some of you may know that Teflon contamination (specifically C8 a processing aid used in the manufacturing of Teflon for many years. It helped in the polymerization process of PTFE, Teflon itself is inert at normal temperatures.) is so widespread that there isn't a single living thing that's not contaminated with it. Now Dupont has made $10 billion, extremely conservatively on it's sales of Teflon. A more realistic number could be as high as $30 billion.
They have been sued for approximately $6 billion. POFA, after 60 years was finally phased out in steps after 2003. Now we have C6. No long term publicly available testing, its assumed it's better than C8, but some preliminary testing shows it has similar effects as C8. But why should Dupon care? If future fines are some fraction of their profits.
Why should anyone believe that in a purely private system that Libertarians say that want that the Dupont case should expect to get better and not worse?
