Can we try to keep (the deeply discretited) Hayek and the Chicago school, not to mention over-complicated philosophical jargon out of the argument? I would content that you should liberate yourself from the received wisdom of your philosophy course, and think for yourself.
The issue is simple: is protection of local industry justified in the face of globalization. Obliquely (not orthogonally), are local businesses adding social value, or is lowest cost the absolute and only barometer of utility. Only once we have answered these questions can we decide if Amazon is correct or not, and it is not going to help to cite a bunch of dead people, who, in my opinion, are very clearly responsible for the ills of our current society.
Far better, citing The Economist Style Guide, "think what you want to say, then say it as simply as possible".
In addition, I "cite[d] a bunch of dead people" because I was responding to a criticism of libertarianism in general, not of my specific beliefs.
In that light, it is most appropriate to discuss the views of exemplars and intellectual fathers of a particular strain of libertarianism. My personal views are of little consequence to the discussion, considering that I have had no influence on libertarian ideology, and that my opinions depart from most of my fellow libertarian-minded folk in a number of ways.
Possibly the most pretentious post I've ever read.
The issue may be simple, but it doesn't have a thing to do with what you're talking about. Amazon operates in France. It's a local business. Next question?
Clearly the point is that Amazon is also a global business, and therefore, through economies of scale, is able to dominate businesses that are small or purely local. Moreover arguably it has monopoly power, exacerbating the issue futher. It is clear that you have not thought this through.
> The issue is simple: is protection of local industry justified in the face of globalization.
I don't think that issue is simple, but my answer is no, and my reasoning is similar to why I don't think that protection of the horse and carriage industry should be protected in the face of the nascent automobile industry.
Discredited by your priors, for your priors, maybe. All kinds of people here are busily engaged in the act of thinking for themselves. Just because their received wisdom doesn't align with your received wisdom doesn't mean you need to "liberate" anyone with your One True Faith.
The issue is simple: is protection of local industry justified in the face of globalization. Obliquely (not orthogonally), are local businesses adding social value, or is lowest cost the absolute and only barometer of utility. Only once we have answered these questions can we decide if Amazon is correct or not, and it is not going to help to cite a bunch of dead people, who, in my opinion, are very clearly responsible for the ills of our current society.
Far better, citing The Economist Style Guide, "think what you want to say, then say it as simply as possible".