Replies

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.

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.
As you were the first to use the phrase "belief" I will leave it to you to determine it's place in this discussion. I still claim that founding documents text determine it's meaning.

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.
And my point was that monopolistic systems are not a natural occurrence of capitalism but a reflection of manipulation of market almost always with Government involvement such as the "robber barons" who, by the way, were not actually monopolies.

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.

If it is a monopoly then there isn't a need to manipulate prices because by the definition of the term the monopoly doesn't have competitors. In fact in a free market system determines prices not the organization producing the goods or service. Further price manipulation only works if the competitor wants to play the game of cutting prices. Not everyone buys the cheapest item in the market.

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.
Your example doesn't work. Price control (to the limited extent the monopoly can exert it) is not enough to maintain a monopoly. Further if a company can provide a good or service cheaper then everyone else who is harmed? The person that wants to produce a good or service for more? If an individual wants to enter into a market they have to produce a good or service that is competitive in price or value. If they can't they have no place in the market.

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?
An individual that owns a monopoly isn't necessarily restricting anything including the "economic" liberty of others. A level playing field is the market free from manipulation and regulation. Show me a monopoly that has existed without force, fraud or Government involvement. It almost sounds as if you consider free market economics a restriction of liberty...which borders on Orwellian.

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.
Restricting the liberties of another isn't immoral? Regardless the fantasy monopoly boogy man that can control the market and unfairly compete with it's competitors doesn't exist unless you have an example. No the "robber barons" don't count as I have already demonstrated that they were the product of Government manipulation.