How do libertarians feel about Anti-trust law?
- Thread starter liberty2897
- Start date
osan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 16,867
If a nation is operating on a basis of correct principles, anti-trust law is unnecessary. Anti-trust behavior on the other hand would be met with disfavor and legal action. The reason for this is simple: in a free nation with free markets, all non-organic barriers to entry and collusive behaviors that distort natural market life constitute violations of the rights of others. Price collusion sucks, but I consider this to be far less serious a problem than the erection of artificial barriers to entry into a market.
Collusive price fixing may suck, but I am not convinced it constitutes a criminal violation of market freedom. If for example ten market players collude to fix prices but the market is open to new players, then at least the opportunity exists for an eleventh player to come in and undermine those in collusion, thereby forcing them to make a price point decision, all else equal. The problem arises when those oligopolists work to make it impossible for new competitors to spoil their party bybeing more efficient and perhaps honest.
Erection of artificial barriers to entry constitutes criminal behavior because such action denies equal access to markets, a direct violation of the rights of other individuals who might otherwise be able and willing to enter that market. Organic barriers to entry are not a problem. For example, the aerospace industry is very capital intensive in terms of market entry by its very nature. If people do not have the means at hand to start an aerospace company, too bad for them. But if the natural barriers would allow John Doe to enter the market, yet he cannot because those barriers have been artificially raised beyond his reach through collusive and/or lobbying activities (usually resulting in laws that place impossibly onerous restrictions and requirements on new-comers), then a serious violation of the markets and of individual freedoms has occurred and heads should be rolling.
This is the problem with law as it exists - it tends most often to be arbitrary and often opaquely so, but it is law and in great measure cannot be questioned, especially if the SCOTUS has upheld it.
Nations of laws are pig vomit. We need a nation of principles from which all right and proper legal determinations can be readily made.
Collusive price fixing may suck, but I am not convinced it constitutes a criminal violation of market freedom. If for example ten market players collude to fix prices but the market is open to new players, then at least the opportunity exists for an eleventh player to come in and undermine those in collusion, thereby forcing them to make a price point decision, all else equal. The problem arises when those oligopolists work to make it impossible for new competitors to spoil their party bybeing more efficient and perhaps honest.
Erection of artificial barriers to entry constitutes criminal behavior because such action denies equal access to markets, a direct violation of the rights of other individuals who might otherwise be able and willing to enter that market. Organic barriers to entry are not a problem. For example, the aerospace industry is very capital intensive in terms of market entry by its very nature. If people do not have the means at hand to start an aerospace company, too bad for them. But if the natural barriers would allow John Doe to enter the market, yet he cannot because those barriers have been artificially raised beyond his reach through collusive and/or lobbying activities (usually resulting in laws that place impossibly onerous restrictions and requirements on new-comers), then a serious violation of the markets and of individual freedoms has occurred and heads should be rolling.
This is the problem with law as it exists - it tends most often to be arbitrary and often opaquely so, but it is law and in great measure cannot be questioned, especially if the SCOTUS has upheld it.
Nations of laws are pig vomit. We need a nation of principles from which all right and proper legal determinations can be readily made.
Governments simply should not be permitted to sanction 14th amendment corporate personhood............PERIOD. Certainly, any real person should be utterly free to enter any market...............BUT when ya screw up and damage your customers/ vendors/ the general public your personal liability is absolutely unlimited. No separation of business and personal assets recognised. State sanctioned Corporations have been the hand-maiden of tyrants since their invention.
The design for an automobile or for the tool designs to fabricate the auto or for the software to control the fuel flow is every bit as much Property as the physical factory and should enjoy the same legal protections.
BTW those who infringe a copyright by pirate downloading of music are every bit as much thieves as those who shoplift the actual CD at walmart. Doesn't matter that the thief imagines himself/herself 'libertarian' because he/she thinks legal drugs would be cool and hates mom&dad cutting off the college gravy train over too much teen/unemployed 20 something boinking.
Milton wasn't an Austrian?
No personhood = no personal jurisdiction = good luck holding corporations accountable under law.
Unless you simply hold all corporations as inanimate property and hold owners accountable, which has its own problems when they are in different states.
GeorgiaAvenger
Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2011
- Messages
- 4,945
He with the Chicago school but his monetary views improved with age
Comrade
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4
I believe in a tax increase on corporations, and directing those tax funds to small businesses. small businesses make up the majority of the US economy, while corporations outsource-make cheap plastic crap-are only worried about stocks/investors-and have unlimited profits. a lot of the corporate corruption stems from these Wall Street investors and Globalist Interests tying to the IMF and the UN. I am a European social democrat and a Hugo Chavez enthusiast, consequently Chavez works against the NWO Coalition. Though I consider voting for Ron Paul because even though Obama is a socialist in disguise he still works for NWO interests. I would support any Anti-Globalist leader like Chavez Gaddafi or Ron Paul, if they are socialist or libertarian it does not matter as long as they are Anti-NWO.
Last edited:
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
Wesker1982
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,807
Hard to see how the downside would be more than a tiny fraction of what we have now.
How many schools are there (assuming a pro-capitalist)? Austrian, Chicago, Keynesian? What school is Adam Smith?
SkarnkaiLW
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2011
- Messages
- 109
Adam Smith is a Classical Economist (along with Ricardo, Say, etc). There are even more schools given the Neo-Classsicals, Neo-Keynesians, MMTers, etc.
liberty2897
Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,147
Everyone, thanks for all the discussion and feedback. I've had a hard time understanding what "free markets" really means.
@Wesker1982, the Thomas Woods videos are very informative. Thanks.
@Wesker1982, the Thomas Woods videos are very informative. Thanks.
Snowball
Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,242
Anti-Trust legislation is not against Libertarian or old-school Republican principles.
If corporations become so powerful that they restrict individual freedoms, individual
freedoms must be protected from them.
This was a very big deal in the 1890's. See here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
The Sherman Act was passed in 1890 and was named after its author, Senator John Sherman, an Ohio Republican, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who was also Rockefeller's colleague.[2] After being ratified in the Senate on April 8, 1890 by a vote of 51-1, the Sherman Act passed unanimously (242-0) in the House of Representatives on June 20, 1890, and was then signed into law by President Benjamin Harrison on July 2, 1890.[2]
If corporations become so powerful that they restrict individual freedoms, individual
freedoms must be protected from them.
This was a very big deal in the 1890's. See here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
The Sherman Act was passed in 1890 and was named after its author, Senator John Sherman, an Ohio Republican, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who was also Rockefeller's colleague.[2] After being ratified in the Senate on April 8, 1890 by a vote of 51-1, the Sherman Act passed unanimously (242-0) in the House of Representatives on June 20, 1890, and was then signed into law by President Benjamin Harrison on July 2, 1890.[2]
you mean you want the government to protect freedom loving people from other people?
Similar threads
