Put me in the "play fair" capitalist niche - almost no regulation other than that which ensures some level of fair competition.
...and who decides what is "fair?"
Ditto that. Capitalism requires meaningful competition to work properly. Overt or effectual cartels destroy most of the benefits of the system. "Barriers to entry" is a very important subject in workable Capitalism.
Whose definition should we use for "fair" ?
You have let the elephant into the room. Who and how will you "make" it fair ? It becomes socialism - legislating the outcome.
Really?
I know monopolies are certainly possible, but are bad monopolies really sustainable? And what's wrong with a good monopoly? Yes. There is such a thing.
The only bad monopolies I've seen are those that are sustained by governments.
For instance, he wails on the monopolists, both government and privately sponsored. Play fair capitalism is addressed via his discussion of The Rule of Law, in which the rules of the capitalist game are known well in advance and not subject to the whim of petty bureaucrats.
Nobody's choices are narrowed via laissez-faire capitalism. We are all free to pursue our endeavors and create our own path. Everybody's choices are narrowed via regulatory policies. Hence the word, "regulate."
The dangers of monopoly are real - risks which Rand and her laissez-faire capitalism do not fully appreciate.
You're kidding, right? You've thought out the economic and social ramifications laissez-faire capitalism more thoroughly than Ayn Rand? You really should write a book.
Put me in the "play fair" capitalist niche - almost no regulation other than that which ensures some level of fair competition.
And who decides what regulations are "fair?"
I agree with you but that condition is not limited to capitalism but to any system run by human beings. There is always a tendency of people in power to rig the system so they will never face the possibility of being out of power. Companies do this by setting up anticompetitive arrangements so they won't have to continue to do the things that made their businesses grow in the first place. Being responsive to customers and making sure you stay on the top of your market is more difficult than telling giving the customers no choice in the matter.
The government is a prime example of this. If the people can not say no then there is no credible way to stop the growth of government. That is why I believe strongly that taxation should be entirely voluntary and that government branches should have to go to the public and private sector with justifications for their existence. Also the government should be treated like any other entity when collecting debts or dealing with citizens outside the arena of national security. The idea that any group in a social system can exercise absolute power runs contrary to the foundation of this nation and we should be wary of anyone who claims expediency as an excuse for tyranny.
Currently our system only gives lip service to checks and balances. The judicial branch clearly has the last word and is the effective governing power with the other two branches emasculated at the whim of the Supreme Court. The status quo in the government, something which I am very familiar with, is effectively a nation run by a collective that never finds its fill. The federal unions strangle any semblance of efficiency which is the primary delineating factor between the effectiveness of our troops and the lack of effectiveness in other areas of bureaucracy.
I believe every agency of government should have a product that is measurable and any agency that does not have a measurable product should be shut down. It is from those measures that wages structures should be set and performance pay be established. The idea that a government job is a safe job should be a thing of the past. I know from my own experience that groups within agencies play games with budget requests, they will never say they have enough people to do a job regardless of the number of idle people on staff. They craft projects not out of need but out of the fact that money is available and must be spent. It is a disgusting incestuous process and the biggest game of pretend played by a federation structured more like a thieves guild than a group assigned to do the "work of the people".
Could be.
I don't think the breakup of Standard Oil brought about BP or Royal Dutch Shell.
The breakup of AT&T, on the other hand, led to, IMO, the entire IT, internet, WWW, and wireless worldwide revolution.
yitbos
So if you spent 20 years inventing a product, you would give me the rights to manufacture a similar product, using your ideas, so that there would be no monopoly?