What services would a libertarian government provide?

How would the libertarian non-coercive policy apply to a company that needs to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

As a little libertarian, I have long argued that individuals have the right to declare themselves “married” to anyone they see fit, but that doesn't mean they force others to do something in order to respond . If the relationship of two people is universally recognized by the population as a whole, but a particular person does not want to acknowledge it, then the population may shun the latter person for their rudeness, but if the latter person agrees then it should be their right.

Furthermore, I would assume that the business rules in question should not relate to religion, but rather to basic business freedom. If a mixed couple goes to a bakery and tries to order a magenta wedding cake with light green flowers, then the owner should have the right to refuse such an order based on taste. Even if the design is one that most people would find tasteful, the owner of should still be entitled to use their own sense of taste to decide which assignments to take or not to take, without any legal obligation to make their decisions to justify to anyone.

In the event that a same-sex couple goes to the bakery with an order that offends the baker's sense of taste, the baker should have the same right to refuse that order as he would if it was from a heterosexual couple and how before The baker should not be legally obliged to justify his decisions.

Forcing a business owner to serve someone with whom the business owner has not entered into a friendly relationship is to make the business owner a slave to that person. Most business owners will realize that unnecessarily turning off deals is generally bad for their bottom line, and many who do not know this will go broke give way to others who would realize it, but such decisions should be made by the business owners become questionable. Generally, when a company doesn't want a customer's business, forcing the company to serve that customer results in a lower quality of service than could be obtained from a company that actually wants the business.


Are there exceptions for monopolies? For example, if a private electricity company, of which there is only one in the region, decides not to serve Christians, Muslims or atheists, should the government force them to do that service against their will? This is not an example of cherries. Some small towns only have a bakery, supermarket, mechanic, gas station, hospital, etc. Not all of us live in an area with choices for everything we need and want.

Super cat

@CramerTV: That would depend on what factors prevent the emergence of competitors. Often times, monopolies are protected by local government policies, and protecting a monopoly that has refused to serve someone effectively prohibits that person from serving. If the only factor preventing someone from opening a bakery to compete with an existing bakery is a lack of customers preferring the new bakery, the government should not be considered responsible or obliged to be responsible for that condition "improve it.


Fair enough, but the start-up costs for a bakery and a power plant are significantly different. Given the enormous start-up costs, would a power plant be able to recoup these costs if it could take 50% of the market? If the answer is no and the monopoly powerhouse refused to serve Buddhists, for example, how should we resolve that discrimination?

Super cat

@CramerTV: Power plants usually sell electricity as a fungible good. The kilowatts they make available to Buddhists are indistinguishable from those they make available to others. In addition, in many cases power plants do not sell electricity directly to consumers, but to supply companies who buy it on behalf of consumers. If a power company refused to serve a Buddhist it could be a problem, but most power companies let local governments assist in providing rights of way for wiring, which would be in line with the locally protected monopoly principle.