How do libertyfags deal with this scenario?

How do libertyfags deal with this scenario?
>town needs to build a bridge in a critical area
>gives the contract to a private company, BridgeCo, who will run the bridge as a private business
>company borrows money to build the bridge, spends $100 million
>after 2 years in construction, finally the bridge is open for business
>BridgeCo has a monopoly, thus charges monopoly prices
>quickly makes up enough money to pay off their debt
>starts to turn a huge profit, still charging monopoly prices
>BridgeCo's only competition is a road, Sapien Way, going around the ravine an extra 10 miles
>Sapien Way is owned by a competing company, RoadCo
>the road's business has been poor since the opening of the bridge, income is way down
>BridgeCo decides to really turn the screws on them, drops it's prices
>practically nobody uses Sapien Way anymore, RoadCo quickly goes bankrupt
>BridgeCo happily offers to buy, and has plenty of money to do so
>Without any competitors, BridgeCo cranks it's prices up higher than ever before
>the townspeople find themselves unable to freely travel, but must in order to reach their jobs
>angrily decide to break BridgeCo's monopoly by building a competing bridge
>form a company Townco, start construction on a bridge in a nearby location
>every day the owner of BridgeCo steps out to smoke a cigar and watch the construction
>2 years later, BridgeCo has earned $300 million, meanwhile TownCo is $100 million in debt
>but finally the big payoff, the bridge opens
>and BridgeCo immediately drops their prices
>BridgeCo can handle low prices, even run at a loss for a while if they have to
>but TownCo is heavily in debt and desperately needs to turn a profit
>a few years later, TownCo goes bankrupt as the interest on their debt mounts
>they sell the bridge to help pay off the debt
>and who has the money to buy? Bridgeco

Teddy Roosevelt believed it, that the free market has a natural tendency to monopoly

So... burn the assholes bridge is the moral of the story?

Enterprising kike makes AmphibiaCo that makes cars that are boats.
Thermites bridge and blames it on TalibanCo.

> How would you deal with my completely made up scenario in which I decide exactly how every acts and reacts to the situation
Clearly someone invents personal teleporters and jet packs, helicopters become extremely cheap and his bridge company goes under unless he adapts to being a tourism company. Duh...that or when a cyclone wipes out the first bridge I buy the contract for the second or of course Libertarian aliens come down and blow up the bridge, oh wait nevermind someone murders the guy and his son is a socialist and turns it into communal property.

Fucking EZmode.

>and BridgeCo immediately drops their prices
Get the town together and beat the fuck out of whichever scab scumbags go back to BridgeCo after being price gouged for years. Use new bridge, everybody wins (except le cartoonishly ebil monopoly man that you invented).

I think its pretty obvious to anyone who isnt seeking to satisfy their own confirmation bias that completley unregulated markets lead to monopoly. what's more, that monopolies are subject to moral decay, with the incentive to be progressive disappearing as the market is cornered.

spbp

public roads cant be owned retard

>hurr durr what do you think about my fanfiction

Name an unregulated market that led to a monopoly. A completely free market cannot by definition lead to a monopoly, it's like saying free speech can lead to dictatorship.

Stop being a poorfag.

>How do libertyfags deal with this scenario?
be bridgeco

...

...

> free speech leads to censorship
> therefore we must censorship in order to protect free speech to make sure no one is censored
> meanwhile the state has been consoring people since inception
Really ferments my yeast extract.
> removing artificial barriers means that there will be barriers

>I don't understand the concept of barriers to entry

Libertarians are kike

>libertyfags
>contract
that's crony capitalism you fucktard, try again

You are so far wrong on what you are saying that it is hard to believe that you posted this ludicrous argument. Have you not heard of a public works project?

First, the town wants a bridge so they, themselves would be the ones to form Townco first and then outsource the building of the bridge to Bridgeco but keep the rights to the bridge.

Thus they would get the loan, which is much easier as the town has a ton of assets to put up and can issue municipal bonds to generate money.

Bridgeco builds the bridge and Townco has ownership. That is how these thigns work. Townco then puts a toll on the bridge to pay off the bonds. End of story. That is how the REAL world works.

You have no clue about how monopolies are formed. The need some inherent regulation to forge an monopoly, be it patents or laws which they create or use to suppress competition.

Thus in a free market, where protectionism does not exist to that level, they cannot form unless they can gain an asset someone else cannot copy. Land is the only thing which can be called a monopoly but that can even be undermined.

Without protectionism, there can be no monopolies.

We already have one big monopoly... the government, maaan.

>what is a ferry

What is wrong with monopoly?

your forgetting the armed take over of the bridge and hanging the BridgeCo kikes from their bridge

uh dude the scenario you described is literally a regulated monopoly. that is what public works is.

if you want to talk about the real world, talk about how protectionism for large infrastructure projects is effectively impossible.

internet infrastructure was one such project which costs billions of dollars to construct and maintain.

go ahead, try to start your own ISP. I suppose you could start by wiring cable in your neighborhood. Who are you going to call when you need an easement to run cable across the road to your neighbor's house?

that is why 'the internet' is a natural monopoly.

to start, I stop building strawmen

Literally MUH ROADS.
Why most anti free market shills are burgers with no culture of economics, and no knowledge of simple fundamental concepts of economical and political theory.

First of all, independent Antitrust authorities are essential for the functioning of free markets, as they are the ones who break cartels, monopolies and thus allow competition to continue. (As you admit yourself).
Secondly, the public authority who commissioned the infrastructure could and should specify in the contract the means of use allowed by the chosen company.
Third, go read up a bit on what a Tragedy of Commons is. There are less retarded examples to explain the concept (and plenty of literature to deal with it) than a completely made up scenario like yours, where everything is an unrealistic chain of events shaped up to hammer an untenable point (for comparison, read up a bit on railway bridges in the gilded age).