Replies

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.

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.