Replies

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.

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.

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.