Comments on: The 28 Principles of Liberty: Principle 15

By: alex

alex — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:49:58 +0000

May I make a comment on point 3.
Over the recent couple of months I become more and more convinced that the original meaning of monopoly implied a government-granted monopoly wherein the government grants an exclusive right to a business.
Viewed in that light it makes sense – certainly what Microsoft or WalMart have achieved is not a monopoly in it’s original sense, because the companies achieved success by means of their own industry and thus it would be very wrong for a government to punish such businesses just because they are more successful than others.
Point 2 – I’m not really sure here. It is OK for the government to enforce contracts wherein such quality, location and ownership are stipulated and punish those who violate such contracts by misrepresenting any of the items just enumerated.
But I need to have a think how far such protection should be taken…
Thanks for your observations Mitch.

By: Mitch

Mitch — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 05:49:58 +0000

Well in response to Eric.

Point 2 is very important otherwise you’d see lawsuits everywhere. you could have some guy make the same watch as say fossil and make it look exactly the same but use really crappy materials and sell it at the same price as fossil and also mark it with the same brand. You could have many problems with that.

Point 3 could cause many problems. Our country runs off of small companies without them we wouldn’t do well financially as a country. A monopoly would buy up all the competition. Also it would buy out the companies that it needs materials from to. Say like a furniture company becomes huge and buys up all competition then it decides hey instead of buying the wood for our company from a different company we’ll buy them out too. thus creating one big super power. which would cause lots of problems too.

point 4 i agree deeply with the writer but that one is more opinionated than anything.

By: alex

alex — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:04:54 +0000

I also have exactly the same concern as Eric in post one.
Points 2 3 4 seem rather suspicious from a libertarian’s view point.
I also tried to find them in Wealth of Nation but failed to.
Could someone please point us to the right direction here?

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:50:54 +0000

Isn’t government a “monopoly that eliminates competition that results in restraint of trade”?

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:17:23 +0000

Hi Charity Angel. In your article you mention the following:

”
There are four legitimate areas of responsibility which properly belong to the government.

1. Prevention of illegal force in the market place to compel purchase or sale of products.

2. Preventing Fraud in misrepresenting the quality, location, or ownership of the item being sold or bought.

3. Preventing a Monopoly that eliminates competition that results in restraint of trade.

4. Preventing Debauchery of the cultural standards and moral fibers of society by commercial exploitation of vice pornography, obscenity, drugs, liquor, prostitution, or commercial gambling.
”
I suspect that many Freemen would agree that the government should be limited to the protection of life, liberty and personal property.

With this template, I am entirely on board with the #1, but am uncomfortable with #’s 2-4. Would true free market competition and merchant reputation not generally obviate the need to police for quality misrepresentations, in addition to the other listed ills?

And, I don’t believe that monopolies are the trend in true free markets. Walter Block and Murray Rothbard have written very convincingly on this topic.

And, #4, as noble as it sounds at first blush, seems to be legislating morality and circumventing free agency, no?

I’d be interested in your justifications or sources of these items. But I enjoyed reading all of it.