Replies

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.

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.