How Do Libertarians Deal With Monopiles

[u/OkPreparation710]

In wake of the Presidential Election, I have been reading and learning more about alternative ideologies. Libertarianism - particularly Minarchy - has stood out the most to me, but I cannot fathom how monopiles are dealt with. I understand that some people say that if the market is free with no regulations, then there can only ever be a monopoly by having such a good product, but what is there to stop business owners bribing smaller businesses to sell their business to them. For example, if Company A is the largest company in a sector. Then you have many smaller companies. What is stopping the owner of Company A from bribing the owners of all the smaller companies to sell their companies to Company A? Company A could then acquire all the competitors in the market, and hence a monopoly is created.

Sorry if this is naïve, but I just cannot wrap my head around it.

Thanks!

Edit: I just realised I spelt monopolies as monopiles, but I cannot change the title

Edit 2: Thank you for your help everyone, I understand now and the example of Thames Water in London has definitely reinforced the rest of your comments about monopolies being propped up by the Government most of the time

[u/Mojeaux18]

Natural market forces. It’s an illusion that monopoly is a capitalist inevitability. If company A, let’s call them Apricot, buys Banana (maker of the Banana jr), they will have a larger company. But larger companies are plagued by corporate drag. Corporate drag is real and manifests itself with internal bureaucracy, complacency, and a kind of decision making by committee that leads to too many chiefs and political counter arguments, bean counters, and other risk averse behavior. Small innovative companies tend to be far more efficient than larger companies. Their products and processes are focused, they take risks, they are motivated to change, and often they fly under the radar.
Let’s say Apricot also aquires Camcung and Dellta, Hackard Pewlet, and even Enovo dominating the market for … idk a computer?… a niche producer of computers can easily profit as long as there are no govt impingements on entry. The corporate drag will drive the cost of computers up, the lack of innovation will make it easier for a small company to innovate even to produce compounded products that provide alternatives. People are not monolithic and niche products are always being created that challenge the market paradigm. AT&T even with its monopoly (sic) was challenged and is now a minor player. Same with the duopoly of Verizon and AT&T.
Monopolies are an artifact of govt corruption/influence. They do it in the name of public interest safety or welfare, but it’s the opposite. Exorbitant license requirements, safety regulations, or other impediments serve to protect the establishment and not the public. Even then the industry can be shaken up by an innovator. Look at Uber as they challenged the Taxi establishment. It wasn’t really a monopoly but it was totally dominated. Taxi medallions could cost a million and the taxi rides were horrible and barely convenient. Uber isn’t perfect but it’s miles above what we had before.
Natural market forces would prevent monopolies if it weren’t for government preserving them.

[u/OkPreparation710 → u/Mojeaux18]

So really having many smaller companies is better for innovation, and this can be achieved by no or minimal regulations? 

[u/Mojeaux18 → u/OkPreparation710]

Regulations are like speed limit signs. They are meant to protect the public by limiting speeds thereby reducing traffic accidents. Ultimately they are futile and frustrating. People speed and cops use ticketing as a source of revenue. Better is the police citations for reckless drivers AND ultimately responsibility lying with the drivers.

Same goes for corporations. Regulations are paperwork. Better would be awareness and understanding that if your product is defective and hurts someone, you go to jail and lose the money. Soft proportional regulations that depends on the size of your business (larger companies pay more) would make sense.