The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | May 13, 2006 | Murray N. Rothbard

[Durus]

Perhaps, you could expound upon JP Morgan, J. Paul Gettys, Vanderbilt, and a host of others called “robber barons.”
My reason for doing that would be what?

Is it your contention that all of those individuals and/or their organizations could not have, and did not, reach monopoly, or near monopoly status, except through the intervention/collusion of government?
That is very close to my contention.

While you’re at it, illustrate on the practical differences among cartels, trusts, and monopolies from the perspective of the small entrepreneur and consumer.
I don't think I will when anyone reading this can find that information for themselves. If you have something to say then go ahead and say it.

Given that the government currently regulates US markets to supposedly prevent the formation of monopolies, how many monopolies have been formed as a result?
If you think that asking a myriad of questions is a basis for debate or discussion then I won't waste my time posting. My original statement stands and you've offered nothing to make me reconsider my position.

[Marxbites]

Good on you Sam. Very nice rebuttal. Liberty IS the issue, the bigger the State & it's influence on the economy, the less freedom we have.

The Founders understood this as well as that men are fallible, and ergo, should be given only limited power, and that like you said, the Govt's sole purpose is in protecting our pre-existing liberties only.

We now have a sick unconstitutional blend of socialism & fascism mixed into what were once free markets with no entitlements or corp subsidy. Now the crap eats 2/3rds of non-discretionary spending, and is steadily on the rise into perpetuity. This arrangement fattens elites at taxpayer expense, always has and always will.

The State is always a negative to be limited as the Founders well knew and had experienced themselves and read of in history.

What destruction is the fear of a further than anticipated Fed contraction doing to todays markets? With the Fed rate at 1% for almost a year, they expanded the money supply too much too long, which always results in a contraction to attempt to dampen the inflation the ill conceived centrally planned expansion created. The Fed serves elites, NOT the people whose dollar is now worth 3% of it's 1932 value.

A Fed that chases it's tail benefits elites, while little inexperienced investors get to hold their empty bag.

I unloaded some tech stock several months back and bought some Goldcorp. Thank goodness, it's gains are leveling the losses on everything else today.

Have a friend who loaded up on ms63-64 certified graded US gold coins, mostly $20's, all during the 90's at $250-300/oz. Wished I followed his advice even more!

[Lucky Dog]

How are these tradintional values[establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare, etc.], when we were the first in history to promulgate them?

From post 54:

Let’s see… establishing justice… I seem to recall something about “an eye for eye” in a document thousands of years older than the US Constitution as a concept of justice. Maybe there was something about that concept of justice addressed in English Common Law or perhaps the Magna Carta or the Mayflower Compact or… Naw… that couldn’t make establishing justice a traditional value, could it?

….

Let’s see… there was democracy invented in Greece a few thousand years earlier, a republic invented in Rome a couple of thousand years earlier, a republic in England about a century earlier, English common law, the Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, the British Parliament, the Articles of Confederation, the writings of John Locke, the governments and charters of the various colonies prior to the revolution… .the US Constitution couldn’t have had a basis in any of those things. Could it?

The VALUE was freedom, period…

To paraphrase one of the founding fathers: freedom without restraint is license not liberty. Consequently, it would appear that the VALUE cherished by our founders was not freedom, rather it was “liberty.” However, beyond this issue, liberty was not the only value sought by our founders and enshrined in our system of government: conflict resolution with justice is most certainly another one among others.

From post 14:

The classic case of conflict of individual liberties is the individual enjoyment of private property. If a neighbor’s enjoyment of his or her property involves an activity that impairs the enjoyment of my property, whose rights are to be paramount? For example, suppose my neighbor enjoys playing loud music, but I enjoy peace and quiet. Must my neighbor cease enjoying his or her right to do whatever he or she chooses on his or her own property so that I can enjoy whatever I choose on my own property? The foregoing is but one of many potential conflicts in individual liberties and rights that must be balanced.

Even pure libertarians agree that some type of government must be called upon to coercively balance individual rights based upon certain principles. The quarrel then becomes on what principles should this coercive power be founded and exactly how should that coercive force be wielded.…

Could it be that to “balance individual rights based upon certain principles” is to “establish justice?” Would that not be a function of government?

Check those excellent links I posted earlier.

Beyond the original post and http://mises.org:88/Sophocleus I found none of those excellent links to which you refer. Perhaps, I just over looked it. Could you cite the post number in which you cited those links?

What we now have is nearly 180 degrees from it.

I have not commented on “what we have now” as being the most desirable of situations. In fact, I have grave misgivings about “what we have now” in terms of government. However, libertarianism (note the lack of a capital) must be tempered with practicality if it is to be a viable political force (see post 14).

[Lucky Dog]

Perhaps, you could expound upon JP Morgan, J. Paul Gettys, Vanderbilt, and a host of others called “robber barons.”

My reason for doing that would be what?

In a debate, it is customary to offer a defense and explanation of your assertions. Your assertion was challenged politely with a question citing some examples that some would say counter your point. That, in a nutshell, is the reason for answering the question.

While you’re at it, illustrate on the practical differences among cartels, trusts, and monopolies from the perspective of the small entrepreneur and consumer.

I don't think I will when anyone reading this can find that information for themselves. If you have something to say then go ahead and say it.

Very well, I contend that your assertion is erroneous. As you provided no support for your assertion when you made it, it known as a “gratuitous assertion” and it is logically defeated by my “gratuitous denial.” By posing the question to you, I was inviting you to produce your evidence and reasoning, if you have any.

If you think that asking a myriad of questions is a basis for debate or discussion then I won't waste my time posting. My original statement stands and you've offered nothing to make me reconsider my position.

Such a statement indicates a lack of willingness to even consider changing one’s position. Very well, I accept that you won’t “waste your time posting.” Good day, sir.

[Marxbites]

I should have been clearer.

Was democracy a topic 200yrs ago? Yup, but democracy is a wretched majority rule, hence our Republic.

However, the Founders WERE the first to propound a SELF Govt of liberty, which you seem to ignore.

And last I checked, liberty and freedom are synonyms.

Pick all the nits, make all the arguments you want, but I feel the Founder's MAIN impetus was escaping the oppression of Govt period, in the old they wished to escape, and in the new they hoped could be kept. That rule of law is necessary to justice, isn't the main point, restoring limited Govt is.

[Marxbites]

I meant 2000 years ago.

From ANOTHER post yesterday, I asked you to check the wrong thread, so here they are:

I don't believe in a living Constitution. And therefore, don't believe in any of the unconstitutional garbage policies of statism they witnessed the euro-dictators amassing their own power with, that the Progressives of both parties envied, embraced, then foisted upon American taxpayers for their own enrichment.

You may find the following videos enlightening, give em a whirl:

http://mises.org:88/Rothbard-Fed

http://mises.org:88/Sophocleus (you said you saw this? and?)

http://mises.org:88/Fed

http://mises.org:88/Cochran

And some excellent explanations of the souces of the beast's ability to grow so much over the last 100 years or so.

The Constitution was written and ratified to secure liberty through limited government. Central to its design were two principles: federalism and economic liberty. But at the beginning of the 20th century, Progressives began a frontal assault on those principles. Drawing on the new social sciences and a primitive understanding of economic relationships, their efforts reached fruition during the New Deal when the Constitution was essentially rewritten, without benefit of amendment. In a new Cato book, Richard Epstein traces this history, showing how Progressives replaced competitive markets with government-created cartels and monopolies. Please join us for a discussion of the roots of modern government in the Progressive Era.
http://www.cato.org/realaudio/cbf-02-15-06.ram

&

Big Business and the Rise of American Statism
http://praxeology.net/RC-BRS.htm

[tpaine]

Our various level of governments have no delegated powers to promote socalled "traditional values".
Nothing in the Constitution can be cited to support this communitarian position.

US Constitution, Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Are not establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare "traditional values?"

They were pretty radical [libertarian] values in the context of their day. I doubt any other traditional government had such values at the time.

Let's see… establishing justice… I seem to recall something about "an eye for eye" in a document thousands of years older than the US Constitution as a concept of justice. Maybe there was something about that concept of justice addressed in English Common Law or perhaps the Magna Carta or the Mayflower Compact or… Naw… that couldn't make establishing justice a traditional value, could it?

Nevertheless, the Constitution gave no delegated power to promote what you call the "traditional values" of prohibiting commerce in booze, guns or drugs.

Is establishing a constitution which specifies executive, legislative and judicial branches to carry out the traditional values, so specified, supporting them?

There again, our Constitutions structure was a radical [libertarian] departure from any previous attempt at self government.

Let's see… there was democracy invented in Greece a few thousand years earlier, a republic invented in Rome a couple of thousand years earlier, a republic in England about a century earlier, English common law, the Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, the British Parliament, the Articles of Confederation, the writings of John Locke, the governments and charters of the various colonies prior to the revolution… Yep, the US Constitution couldn't have had a basis in any of those things.

Of course it used those things in its radical new structure. -- But nothing in that new structure gave some men the power to prohibit the liberties of others, without due process of [it's new constitutional] law.

Which branch of government [at what level] would be empowered to decide what are to be "traditional values"?
-- The very idea of trusting any elected official/or branch with such power is a ludicrous dream.

US Constitution, Article I Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to…
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof

Does this answer your question on which branch of government is empowered to decide what are to be "traditional values?"

No.

Feel free to try again.

There's that towering intellect in operation, again…

Unable to formulate an actual answer, you make snide comments on "intellect". So much for who here is being juvenile.

And I didn't even mention the judicial branch's power to interpret and apply the law or the executive's discretion in how and when it enforces those laws. Those activities certainly aren't based in "traditional values," are they?

No, they're not -- they are part of the radical departure our Constitution took in an attempt to make checks & balances on governments powers.

The Constitution prohibits those powers, not Congress or "the government".
… no one is at 'liberty' to commit criminal acts.

In deed, and who is it that determines exactly what is a criminal act? It couldn't be Congress or the various state legislatures, (government) could it?

You're getting it, -- but you're forgetting that they too are restrained by due process of [constitutional] law. Prohibitions violate that due process.

Naw, a crime is a violation of a legal prohibition,

There you go again, claiming there can be "legal" prohibitions on life, liberty or property, without violating due process of law. -- Both the writing & enforcement of fiat prohibitions violate due process.

and, according to the "towering intellect," government can't "prohibit" anything.

It conceded in the 18th that it required an Amendment to prohibit booze. Case closed.
-- You really should study the document a bit more. and history…

If the shoe fits,

Ah yes, another clever bon mot from he who is obsessed with "towering intellect". -- Whatta joker.

[tpaine]

To: Lucky Dog
-- the Founders WERE the first to propound a SELF Govt of liberty, which you seem to ignore.

Pick all the nits, make all the arguments you want, but I feel the Founder's MAIN impetus was escaping the oppression of Govt period, in the old they wished to escape, and in the new they hoped could be kept.

65 Marxbites


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Well said.

Our boy willfully ignores the "presumption of liberty" inherent in our Constitution.

Sample Chapter for Barnett, R.E.: Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty.
Address:http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/i7648.html

[Durus]

In a debate, it is customary to offer a defense and explanation of your assertions. Your assertion was challenged politely with a question citing some examples that some would say counter your point. That, in a nutshell, is the reason for answering the question.
In a debate a leading question is not a counter argument. It is merely a question. Further by allowing you to frame the discussion in such a specific manner it allows you to quickly change questions at anytime and at the end of the day you can always fall back to the "but I didn't claim any opinion I just asked questions" argument.

Very well, I contend that your assertion is erroneous. As you provided no support for your assertion when you made it, it known as a “gratuitous assertion” and it is logically defeated by my “gratuitous denial.” By posing the question to you, I was inviting you to produce your evidence and reasoning, if you have any.
Now you make a simple denial instead of a leading question yet somehow you posit that I am somehow in error without ever stating how. A simple "your wrong" is not a counter argument to a specific statement. Further I already answered one of your leading question demonstrating my statement to be correct to the best of my knowledge and your further "debate" tactic is only to ask more questions.

Such a statement indicates a lack of willingness to even consider changing one’s position. Very well, I accept that you won’t “waste your time posting.” Good day, sir.

I disagree and in fact the statement "you've offered me nothing to change my position" indicates that if you were to offer a rational counter argument it would further the discussion and possibly change my position.

One last time I will entertain your counter argument that you have only given hints about rather then stated. I suspect that your argument goes something like this (and I further suspect that if I attempt to pin you down on your position you will attempt to slide out of it) I "think" that you are claiming that Monopolies are the bane of capitalism and that only with Government regulation of markets (with it's infinite wisdom and in-depth understanding of the marketplace) we would face the horrible evils of the oft mentioned "robber barons" of the 19th century.

If this is in fact your position let me begin with the statement that the majority of "trust breaking" and "anti-trust" and "monopoly breaking" government actions have hurt the marketplace and the economy. Monopolies are not inherently evil unless there is force being exerted to gain monopoly share of the market, usually with government collusion, or force being exerted to maintain monopoly share, again usually with Government intervention. Free market mechanics make monopolies rare and short lived.

[Lucky Dog]

Gentlemen:

There appears to have developed some rather gross misunderstandings about my positions on this thread. Consequently, allow me to re-post my original statement in its entirety for your consideration:

From post 14:

The function of any, and all, governments is the maintenance of social order. Ultimately, disagreements and conflicts among the various advocates of differing governmental systems stem from what should be the proper “social order” that is to be maintained. By definition, a “social order” is what makes a “society.” In short, arguments of the proper type of government and proper “social order” are arguments about what should be the proper type of “society.”

Pure libertarians hold that government should be minimized and that government should have only that power necessary to prevent an individual or group of individuals from coercively imposing their will on other individuals or groups. Such a philosophy is, indeed, laudable, but fraught with potential pitfalls. Not the least of the many practical pitfalls is where to draw the limits when valid, individual rights come into conflict.

The classic case of conflict of individual liberties is the individual enjoyment of private property. If a neighbor’s enjoyment of his or her property involves an activity that impairs the enjoyment of my property, whose rights are to be paramount? For example, suppose my neighbor enjoys playing loud music, but I enjoy peace and quiet. Must my neighbor cease enjoying his or her right to do whatever he or she chooses on his or her own property so that I can enjoy whatever I choose on my own property? The foregoing is but one of many potential conflicts in individual liberties and rights that must be balanced.

Even pure libertarians agree that some type of government must be called upon to coercively balance individual rights based upon certain principles. The quarrel then becomes on what principles should this coercive power be founded and exactly how should that coercive force be wielded. With this concession, the pure libertarian is in the same “philosophical boat” with all other advocates of differing forms of government.

A pure libertarian could never philosophically support socialism, Marxism, monarchism, feudalism, fascism, or even unlimited democracy. Each of these systems of government (and, in some cases, economy) can allow, and have allowed in the past, the state to trample the liberty of individual. Therefore, the pure libertarian, it appears, can only support a constitutionally limited, democratically-elected, republican form of government with certain individual rights immutably and irrevocably enshrined in that constitution. Further, a pure libertarian could never support any economic system except capitalism since all others arbitrarily limit the individual’s freedom to engage any commercial enterprise of choice. Unfortunately, another of those pesky, practical, pitfalls appears, again.

Capitalism, unbridled, leads to monopolies which, in turn, strangle capitalism. In other words, this economic system, unregulated, contains the seeds of its own destruction. Consequently, even pure libertarians must concede that some form of coercive regulation has to be emplaced to prevent monopolies from developing and stifling the economic liberties of the individual. However, what type of regulation and how much is appropriate? Once again, with this concession, the pure libertarian is lumped together in the same competition with all other advocates of differing forms of government.

Inevitably, the argument returns to what should be the proper type of “society.” “Societies,” it seems, have some principles of their own that must be observed. For example, a society that discourages, or at least, fails to encourage its citizens to procreate is doomed to collapse from an eventual lack of population. Therefore, a government supporting a society must encourage, or, minimally, not discourage, the production of new potential citizens.

Yet, again, another conundrum arises for a pure libertarian. Gay marriage would seem to be an individual liberty choice on the face of the issue. However, the practice weakens the heterosexual family unit and thus, potentially the “society” in which the libertarian would exist. Does the pure libertarian take the position of saying the government should not be involved in the issue and allow such advocacy to potentially weaken the “society” to the point of collapse, and with it, his or her liberties? Alternately, does the libertarian take the position that limits must be emplaced on individual liberty for the continued existence of a society of limited liberties?

Another problem of “societies” is that a certain percentage of the population must, of necessity, be “productive” or the entire population starves and the “society,” again, collapses. Whether and individual chooses to abuse his or her body with hallucinogenic and narcotic drugs appears, on the surface, to be purely and individual liberty choice. However, if a “society” does not encourage its members to be “productive” by penalizing, or, at least, discouraging, non-productive behavior, it risks collapse from starvation. Consequently, a libertarian is, again, faced with the choice or risking loss of his own liberties due to the collapse of a “society” which would support a government protecting them. Alternately, the libertarian must support limiting the liberties of fellow citizens to engage in destructive behavior.

The modern Libertarian (note the capital letter) Party seems to have ill-defined concepts of how to balance individual liberty with the requirements of a stable “society” that remains capable of supporting and protecting those very liberties IMHO.

Our boy [presumably referring to Lucky Dog] willfully ignores the "presumption of liberty" inherent in our Constitution.

You are decidedly incorrect in your assessment.

The Constitution was written and ratified to secure liberty through limited government. Central to its design were two principles: federalism and economic liberty…

I have no basic philosophical quarrel with these statements. However, I think we part company on matters of degree. Let me remind you that in the original document universal “liberty” was not acknowledged, i.e., there was no universal suffrage and slavery was an officially recognized institution. “Liberty” was exclusively for those who were of the correct race, sex and economic status.

Our various level of governments have no delegated powers to promote so called "traditional values".

US Constitution, Article I Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to…

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof

Exactly what part of making laws do you think excludes “traditional values?”

There you go again, claiming there can be "legal" prohibitions on life, liberty or property, without violating due process of law.

First, I never claimed that there can be “legal” prohibitions on life. However, one could view a death sentence for lawful conviction of a capital crime as such. As an item of interest there are hundreds of constitutionally valid “legal prohibitions” in our legal system. As a minor example, your liberty travel on a public highway in excess of the posted speed limit is, in fact, “legally prohibited.”

It appears that you are confused about the definition of “due process of law.” The term simply means that a citizen can not be deprived by the legal system of life, liberty or property without a legally recognized and proper proceeding such as a trial before a competent tribunal with valid jurisdiction.

-- Both the writing & enforcement of fiat prohibitions violate due process.

Exactly where did you come up with the idea that I proposed the writing & enforcement of fiat prohibitions? I have never even mentioned such. Rather, I have spoken of Congress and state legislatures passing laws under the authority granted them by the US Constitution and their various state constitutions. However, unless you are woefully ignorant, or willfully perfidious, such can, in no way, be termed the writing & enforcement of fiat prohibitions. As I have previously noted, due process of law is about the legal sanctions for violations of “legal prohibitions.”

I trust we have "cleared the air" of misunderstandings.

[Lucky Dog]

Let us begin anew our debate about capitalism and monopolies.

First, my position is based upon the words of the Declaration concerning certain inalienable rights: “among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” In particular, the term “pursuit of happiness” refers to a desired lawful occupation and/or economic activity, if you will (not the “chasing of personal joy” as some would have it mean).

In essence, I support the liberty of doing whatever lawful work fulfills a person psychologically and sustains that person economically and that such should not be unnecessarily infringed upon by government.

As I noted in post 14, unbridled capitalism can, and has, in the past, lead to the existence of monopolistic restraints on the market place. For support of my point I cite the existence of “robber barons” and their organizations of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. From this support, I ask that you to concede that monopolies (and all of their “cousins” such as trusts, cartels, etc.) can exist in unregulated capitalism.

By definition, a monopoly “controls” a particular market or economic segment. The monopolist’s control and restraint of competition unfairly prevents me (or other entrepreneurs) from potentially exercising my right to the “pursuit of happiness.” Therefore, a monopoly presents a conflict of liberties: the monopolist’s rights versus my rights.

If you concede that a conflict exists, then a balancing of rights and liberties must take place. It is one function of government to so resolve such disputes based upon principles of justice. Therefore, it is appropriate for government to establish coercive measures to prohibit such an unjust situation from developing. The only remaining debate that can exist is what should be the principles upon which such justice is to be founded.

Your position that monopolies are not inherently evil unless there is force being exerted to gain monopoly share… is wrong in a libertarian sense. The mere fact that monopolies can prevent (and have, in the past, prevented) citizens from freely entering into a “pursuit of happiness,” one of their God given rights, makes them unacceptable restraints upon liberty.

[Marxbites]

Capitalism, unbridled, leads to monopolies which, in turn, strangle capitalism. In other words, this economic system, unregulated, contains the seeds of its own destruction. Consequently, even pure libertarians must concede that some form of coercive regulation has to be emplaced to prevent monopolies from developing and stifling the economic liberties of the individual.

Prove this assertion please!! IMHO, capitalism is merely the result of liberty - the free choosing of who, what or where to do commerce with, or not, as one sees is in his own best interest.

America had NO monopolies until Govt created them at industry's own behest to quash small competitors with the barriers to entry of regulation. This is NOT debatable, it is fact.

The reason they did this is that commodities were falling in price from competition to the taxpayer's good benefit for nearly the whole last quarter of the 1800's.

Why settle for non-guaranteed profits when they could prevail on Govt to give them the same deal as they saw their euro-counterparts & partners getting from the euro-dictators in the making?

Just like they copied state education, the better to propagandize us with.

And SS, the better to fund reelection slush funds with.

Graduated taxation, the better to instill class warfare and more Govt.

On and on it goes. We've adopted every pathetic central planners dream from the euro-statists that we eventually had to go to wars to relieve them from!

[Lucky Dog]

Please see post 71.

[Marxbites]

As I noted in post 14, unbridled capitalism can, and has, in the past, lead to the existence of monopolistic restraints on the market place. For support of my point I cite the existence of “robber barons” and their organizations of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. From this support, I ask that you to concede that monopolies (and all of their “cousins” such as trusts, cartels, etc.) can exist in unregulated capitalism.

Does the fact they exist NOW under heavy regulation mean nothing???

You are a fool if you think Govt intervention has ever done anything but bolster the monopolies Govt created.

You best read/watch these my terrifyingly naive friend:

Big Business and the Rise of American Statism
http://praxeology.net/RC-BRS.htm

How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution
http://www.cato.org/realaudio/cbf-02-15-06.ram

Then we can have a debate based on reality.

[Lucky Dog]

Does the fact they exist NOW under heavy regulation mean nothing???

My dear fellow, if you concede that monopolies exist, then you must address the question of whether these monopolies create a conflict of rights. Is the conflict based upon the right of a citizen to his or her “pursuit of happiness” versus the rights of a monopolist to otherwise, legally, control a market through economic leverage?

If such a conflict exists, then the remaining question is what must be done to resolve the conflict in a just manner. Without government intervening coercively to settle such a conflict, the only remaining option is for citizens to resort “the law of the jungle.” Such a resort is definitely not “establishing domestic tranquility.”

Your cited references and not-so-veiled insinuations that the government is unfairly resolving such conflicts of rights in favor of the monopolistic entities may be correct. However, it is irrelevant as to whether or not a resolution should be imposed upon disagreeing parties. Rather, what you wish to debate is the principles upon which such a resolution should be based. That is a different debate.

[Durus]

First, my position is based upon the words of the Declaration concerning certain inalienable rights: “among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” In particular, the term “pursuit of happiness” refers to a desired lawful occupation and/or economic activity, if you will (not the “chasing of personal joy” as some would have it mean).
While you and I might agree that the Declaration is a wonderfully written document you must understand that it has no force of law. Secondly when reading all of our founding documents I tend to think they mean what they say "like pursuit of happiness" means pursuit of happiness.

As I noted in post 14, unbridled capitalism can, and has, in the past, lead to the existence of monopolistic restraints on the market place. For support of my point I cite the existence of “robber barons” and their organizations of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. From this support, I ask that you to concede that monopolies (and all of their “cousins” such as trusts, cartels, etc.) can exist in unregulated capitalism.
You claim that the existence of robber barons created a need for Government involvement in the marketplace. I disagree and suggest that government involvement created an ever increasing need for involvement. This, of course, is typical of bureaucrats. Their stupidity creates a problem and for some reason they expect more stupidity to fix it. In the case of the robber barons States had begun to exert "controls" over the business's of these men. In an effort regain control they began to incorporate, when States began regulating corporations they formed trusts, then the Fed Government regulated trusts. So on and so forth to this day when we can barely claim that we have a free market at all. I have already conceded that monopolies may exist in a free market but they are rare and short lived.

"By definition, a monopoly “controls” a particular market or economic segment. The monopolist’s control and restraint of competition unfairly prevents me (or other entrepreneurs) from potentially exercising my right to the “pursuit of happiness.” Therefore, a monopoly presents a conflict of liberties: the monopolist’s rights versus my rights."
By definition a monopoly has complete control of a market but that does not mean that they gained 100% market share unfairly or that they are using "unfair" practices to maintain said market share. You are stuck on the concept that monopolies are inherently immoral. Further, in a free market, the only way to gain 100% market share is to offer the best goods or services at a better value then the competition. Anything other then rising to the top through competition, and maintaining that position through competition, would have to involve Government collusion, Government "regulation", or Government failure. The conflict, as you see it, isn't between a monopoly and the individual but between interaction of individuals, specifically the initiation of force or fraud, that the government is required to halt. They can do this without regulating the market place.

"If you concede that a conflict exists, then a balancing of rights and liberties must take place. It is one function of government to so resolve such disputes based upon principles of justice. Therefore, it is appropriate for government to establish coercive measures to prohibit such an unjust situation from developing. The only remaining debate that can exist is what should be the principles upon which such justice is to be founded."
As you can see I have not agreed that a conflict inherently exists, I do not believe that monopolies are inherently immoral, but I certainly agree that the government exists to resolve disputes between individuals. This does not require regulation of the market.

Your position that monopolies are not inherently evil unless there is force being exerted to gain monopoly share… is wrong in a libertarian sense. The mere fact that monopolies can prevent (and have, in the past, prevented) citizens from freely entering into a “pursuit of happiness,” one of their God given rights, makes them unacceptable restraints upon liberty.
A cartel, organization, corporation, trust, or any other group that has a monopoly is not necessarily stamping out competition through unfair trade practices. They may have 100% percent market share because they are better then everyone. In truth there has rarely been an actual monopoly with or without unfair trade practices and it's extremely unlikely that in a free market (capitalism) one is ever likely to flourish. This hysterical fear of monopolies is socialist driven propaganda designed to instill distrust of a free market and it would appear that you have taken the propaganda at face value. Typically the answer to the hysteria is the call for regulation which only stifles competition usually to the benefit of a large corporation which only can exist without competition.

[Lucky Dog]

While you and I might agree that the Declaration is a wonderfully written document you must understand that it has no force of law.

Absolutely agree. Nonetheless, its principles are part of the “traditional values” of our nation’s legal system. As such, it does have influence.

when reading all of our founding documents I tend to think they mean what they say "like pursuit of happiness" means pursuit of happiness.

There is no “belief” required. I suggest you consult some reference books such as Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy and Theology by Allen Jayne or Declaration of Independence : A Study in the History of Political Ideas by Carl L. Becker.

Regardless of your belief, or lack thereof, the point is the same.

You claim that the existence of robber barons created a need for Government involvement in the marketplace.

I said no such thing. I used the existence of such to establish the fact that monopolies come to exist under capitalistic systems. The requirement for government involvement exists only if there is a conflict of rights as the result of the existence and practices of a monopoly.

I have already conceded that monopolies may exist in a free market but they are rare and short lived.

Regardless of their rarity or brevity of existence, that fact that they exist creates the potential for the conflict in individual rights to fairly pursue commercial enterprise versus the rights of monopolies to restrict such. Is it your position that if such an infringement of personal liberties exists it is acceptable because it is only short term?

By definition a monopoly has complete control of a market but that does not mean that they gained 100% market share unfairly or that they are using "unfair" practices to maintain said market share.

The very existence of a monopoly gives it the power to control prices and, thus, the potential profit margins of any competitor. It has been a standard business practice of, not just monopolies, but any large competitor confronting a smaller, potentially better competitor to lower prices long enough to drive the smaller competitor out of business. In fact, historically, that is typically the way monopolies have achieved their monopolistic status.

The conflict, as you see it, isn't between a monopoly and the individual but between interaction of individuals, specifically the initiation of force or fraud, that the government is required to halt. They can do this without regulating the market place.

On the contrary, it is neither force nor fraud, but perfectly legal, for a monopoly to lower its prices to drive a competitor out of business in a situation without market regulation. It may unethical and unfair, but not illegal, because, by definition, without market regulation, there is no governing law for such a practice.

As you can see I have not agreed that a conflict inherently exists,…

An individual owning a monopoly denies another the individual the right to ethically compete on a “level playing field.” How is this situation any different from the “enjoyment of private property” conflict of rights I cited earlier? Was not that situation a conflict?

I do not believe that monopolies are inherently immoral, but I certainly agree that the government exists to resolve disputes between individuals. This does not require regulation of the market.

The morality, or lack thereof, for monopolies is not the issue. Rather, the issue is their ability to arbitrarily restrict the economic liberties of others.

[Publius Valerius]

To be fair, there was (is) a major rift in the LP over the correct response to 9/11. There was the political isolationist, anti-nation building crowd that said "Told you so! and wanted to pull US troops out of foreign countries" and the crowd that wanted a swift, vengeful response.

I never heard anything about Browne wanting to employ letters of marque, but I suppose it wouldn't surprise me terribly, although I note that those were traditionally given to privateers and I can't really see how they would be useful against Iraq or Al Qaeda, given the obvious lack of sea battles in the war on terror.

[Publius Valerius]

Antitrust laws are indeed inherently anticompetitive.

First off, we have to note that monopolies are not inherently bad. They are neither inherently bad or inherently good; they simply are. For instance, a small town in rural America may only have one drug store. That drug store certainly has a monopoly on selling drugs, but it is not bad--people need drugs, and the small town market may well not support an additional drug store. An additional drug store might cause both drug stores to go out of business, which would be a net societial loss.

The only "bad" monopolies are those monopolies that are coercive--or, as is referred to in today's economics, those companies with "market power;" i.e., an ability to raise prices to supracompetitive levels. BUT, in a free market, the free flow of capital acts as a check on any company's ability to institute supracompetitive pricing. As a company with market power begins to charge supracompetitive prices, capital will shift to that particular industry because it offers a higher rate of return than other industries--thus encouraging new entrants, which will, in turn, lower prices to competitive levels.

A common response to this from Big Government types is a need to regulate "predatory pricing," which, in theory, is where a company that is faced with a new entrant lowers prices below marginal cost in order to drive the new entrant out of business which would then allow the existing company to raise prices to supracompetitive levels. Again, though, the free capital market prevents predatory pricing--an industry offering a higher rate of return attracts capital and new entrants, and a company cannot continue to engage in predatory pricing indefinitely. Indeed, even modern economics and antitrust law have recognized that predatory pricing is essentially impossible and you can really no longer state this type of antitrust claim.

More importantly, the concept of cross-elasticity of demand also makes it very difficult for most market players, even if they are to have a "monopoly" in a particular industry, to have a coercive monopoly. Any attempts to raise prices to supracompetitive levels will result in consumers switching to a different, less expensive (but equally useful) product. For instance, if SC Johnson were to attempt to raise the price of Saran Wrap to supracompetitive levels, consumers would respond by buying tin foil, a lower cost substitute.

So the capital market acts as a regulator of price, and so long as capital is free to flow, then prices are kept at competitive levels. ONLY in situations in which government restricts free flow of capital (stock market regulations, for instance) or places artifical barriers to entry (for many years, telephone and cable regulatory schemes, for instance) can a coercive monopoly take hold.

Let's make no mistake about it: antitrust laws are not designed to "level the economic playing field;" quite the opposite. Antitrust laws are a response to capitalists who have suceeded and accumulated (not by any sort of force, mind you, but simply by offering a product that consumers desire) massive amounts of wealth. Antitrust laws are simply schemes to redistribute wealth. Like income taxes, they are a thinly veiled socialist shot at the wealthy. That socialists have managed to clothe their laws in a defense of capitalism is the ultimate coup.

I note, incidently, the people you named weren't monopolists, but had tremendous industrial rivals: Jay Gould to Cornelius Vanderbilt; Getty had numerous rivals in oil, not the least of which was Standard; Morgan was hardly a "robber baron," of course; indeed, he essentially saved the government from bankruptcy.

[Lucky Dog]

You make some interesting points. While I am willing to concede your points in a number of areas, something comes to mind that you don’t seem to address.

The only "bad" monopolies are those monopolies that are coercive--or, as is referred to in today's economics, those companies with "market power;" i.e., an ability to raise prices to supracompetitive levels. BUT, in a free market, the free flow of capital acts as a check on any company's ability to institute supracompetitive pricing. As a company with market power begins to charge supracompetitive prices, capital will shift to that particular industry because it offers a higher rate of return than other industries--thus encouraging new entrants, which will, in turn, lower prices to competitive levels.

If the monopolistic entity has the “market power” to use predatory pricing to drive out new entrants, it has the power to deny any competitor entry regardless of the capital flow situation. Any market entrant able to withstand such pressure long enough to force the monopoly to return to competitive prices would have to have access to huge amounts of up-front “loss capital.” Such a loss would deny the investors the opportunity to achieve profitability in any reasonable time. In the final analysis, after a successful market penetration, even if enough “loss capital” were theoretically available, the prices would only return to a “competitive” level and the recovery of “loss capital” over any reasonable period would be virtually impossible making the capital return on investment unjustifiable.

More importantly, the concept of cross-elasticity of demand also makes it very difficult for most market players, even if they are to have a "monopoly" in a particular industry, to have a coercive monopoly. Any attempts to raise prices to supracompetitive levels will result in consumers switching to a different, less expensive (but equally useful) product.

This is true only if a suitable, substitute product is readily available and can be available at a cheaper price than the supracompetitive levels charged by the monopoly. The monopolist only need keep the price just below the elasticity point to achieve a market shut out position to new, competitive entrants and avoid the cross flow problem. For example, in theory, carbon fiber technology would be a suitable, cross-elasticity product for steel in many applications. However, steel would have to reach nearly the price of silk per pound for such product elasticity to exist. A steel monopolist need only keep that price just below that level to deny such elasticity and, given the start up costs of new steel mills, could theoretically deny any non-governmentally aided, new entrant a market position. Additionally, there are products for which no alternative product exists.

Having posited the above, please do not assume as have some on this thread, that I am advocating “big government.” I am not, by any means. I merely intend to point out that there are situations that can reasonably be foreseen where pure libertarianism cannot provide a practical answer. My point is, and has been, all along, that while Jefferson was generally right that the best government is the least government, there are situations where some government intervention is a practical necessity.