Antitrust Laws

There are several issues in which libertarians disagree. One of the most noticeable of these is the issue of antitrust laws. Anarcho-capitalists believe in absolutely no government intervention in the economy. They believe that 100% free markets always function well. Other groups of libertarian thought would agree that minimal intervention is necessary, such as a social safety net, and many believe in some sort of antitrust laws as well.

Anarcho-capitalists, including many prominent libertarians such as Peter Schiff and Walter Block, say that the monopoly issue is not a problem in free markets. Walter Block argued in a speech in Auburn, AL, that companies who are under performing will die out naturally, leaving the best companies to take the market. He said that it is possible for one company to take the market, which is actually fine if they are maintaining good products and decent prices. If they are not producing a good product or charging a fair price, people are free to start new companies that charge less and produce more, an therefore the consumer will choose that company, forcing the other company to drop prices and increase production. Peter Schiff echoes Block's sentiment, saying that if a monopoly drives out competitors by lowering prices and then jacks up prices, the market will one again be flooded with competitors.

The majority of libertarians seem to agree that antitrust laws could be abolished. However, there is a sizable amount that say that antitrust laws should be maintained to some degree. Libertarians that say this can range from moderate libertarians, all the way to minarchists who believe that government's only role in economics is antitrust. Jeffery Miron of CATO has stated on his blog that "reasonable people can make a case for some degree of antitrust enforcement." The argument here is generally that once a monopoly is formed, it is much more difficult to build competing businesses once the monopoly does increase prices. This is in part due to the size. The monopoly is obviously quite large, and a competitor would likely have to build from the ground up. This takes long amounts of time and requires large amounts of work. The argument is that it is nearly impossible to introduce competitors once a monopoly is born.

There has been much in-depth research done on monopolies since they were abolished in the United States by Theodore Roosevelt. According to Thomas DiLorenzo of Mises, there is no evidence that a "natural monopoly," or one that is not aided by the government, ever existed. He notes that economist and Dean of Undergraduate Students at my University of Illinois, Horace Gray, said that "the public interest would be best promoted by grants of special privilege to private persons and to corporations." Indeed, when utility companies were monopolized in the United States, he notes that the companies were subsidized, thereby giving certain companies an edge. It is important to note this favoritism to certain companies. Had the government not subsidized companies, would that not have increased competition? It is important to ask if those monopolies would not have occurred had the playing field been level.

Competition is, however, a key attribute in Austrian Economics. Competition helps drive down prices and produce better products. Competition is touted by free market-activists as a reason to have free markets, so wouldn't taking away competition with a monopoly take away a reason to have free markets at all? This is what may lead some libertarians to argue that government's only role in the economy should be antitrust laws. This was, the theory of competition can be upheld and therefore the free market can be validated. This is why even those who are as small government as minarchists will sometimes express support for antitrust laws.

Antitrust laws are a key argument among libertarians. While the majority of well-known libertarians fall on the side of abolishment of antitrust, there still remains a sizable group in favor of the laws. It is up to you to decide which side you fall on. In the end, however, let me reiterate that we are all on the same side right now as libertarians. If we ever get to the point where our two-party system is between one party who favors antitrust and another that does not, then we may split, but at this point we are all committed to spreading libertarianism.

The Grassroots Are Gone

It has been awhile since I published anything here at Liberty Glasses. That is due mostly to the fact that I moved down to school and I am just finished getting all settled in. A lot has gone on since I last posted, mostly having to do with the conventions. The Republicans hosted their convention at the end of August, and the Democrats just finished up theirs' here at the beginning of September.

Republicans Shun Maine Delegates

Starting at the RNC, the Ron Paul campaign failed to bring enough delegates to force a second vote. That did not occur without some fireworks, though. The Maine delegation was not seated, and instead the RNC chose to seat its' own delegation, which they felt better represented the state of Maine. I am not sure exactly how this was permitted. Since when is the RNC in the position of determining how a state feels? Isn't that what elections and then state conventions are for? As the Maine delegation was denied participation, they chose to walk out of the convention. Many of the delegates stated to the media as they walked out that they would have lent their support to Romney had the RNC played fair, but since they were being silenced, they have decided to not vote for Romney. Here is video of the delegation walking out:

RNC Changes Rules To Limit Grassroots Activity

In addition to the silencing of Maine delegates, the RNC proposed a change to the way that the delegations were elected at the state level. The new rule proposed would force state parties to nominate delegates that were supportive of the victor in that state. This rule is detrimental to grassroots activism. We live in a Republic, not a Democracy, and that must be preserved. The majority is not always correct, and true republicanism allows for an end to the tyranny of a majority, as well as the rule of law being written by a minority if it is "tireless" and "irate," in the words of Doctor Paul. This rule changed is now in the RNC books. But how could such a thing pass? Well, it didn't. Here is video from the RNC:

The 'ayes' have it? Really? To me, it sounded like it was at the very least unclear, although I would go as far to say that not only was it a tie, but it sounded to me like the 'nays' had it. Why would Boehner assume that the 'ayes' had it? Well, for several reasons, actually. First of all, it was an RNC-written rule. There was no way that the RNC was prepared to let their rule get struck down. Second of all, that is what he was told to say before hand. Look at this evidence captured at the RNC of the teleprompter that Boehner was reading from. Guess what it says.

There was no vote. He had his role scripted from the very start, which goes back to my point that there was no way that the RNC would let this get struck down. Thirdly, you may ask why it sounded so much like the 'nays' had it when the Ron Paul delegates were in the minority there. The answer to this is twofold. First of all, many of the Romney delegates were actually Ron Paul supporters who had been elected to delegate positions, but forced to vote for Romney by their states. They would vote 'nay.' The group that made it a majority, however, was the other grassroots supporters in the room. The RNC has convinced many grassroots activists from the Tea Party to support the candidate that is nominated. However, they would still vote against this rule, because it hurts them in the future. This is evidenced by an outrage of grassroots neo-conservative bloggers, who I don't always agree with, but I did this time. Here is Michelle Malkin via Twitter:

These grassroots conservatives put the Ron Paul crowd over the top and clearly made the 'nays' the winner, but Boehner was not expecting that. He was expecting them to fall in line, and when they didn't, he preceded anyway, like it didn't phase him. After all, he has shown in the House that he is not willing to listen to grassroots activists.

DNC Imitates RNC's Bullying

A vote came up to a vote at the DNC as well. This vote was on whether or not the DNC platform should treat Jerusalem as the fair capital of Israel. This is a very controversial issue in the world and in politics, seeing as though the Palestinians and Israelis have been fighting over that territory for thousands of years. The rule came up to a vote, and look what happened (watch all the way through):

Now, Villaraigosa is not as experienced at this kind of stuff as Boehner is, so, as you can see, he hesitated quite a bit. His gut told him that the 'ayes' indeed did not have it, but, guess what his teleprompter was telling him:

It's getting out of control, folks. Our leaders used to try and hide that they didn't care what we thought, but now they are just flat out ignoring the people that make up their party. It really is telling that the same horrendous act was committed at each of the convention. It really illustrates that the two "major" parties are on the same page, and both are full of elitists who do not care what you think.

Conclusion

Now, you probably noticed that I did not mention any of the big speeches or other anticipated events of the conventions. All of those speeches are meaningless. They are full of lies, deception, and propaganda. Many fact-checking websites proved that Paul Ryan an Michelle Obama delivered speeches that were some of the most dishonest speeches given on such a high level in a while. The real issue, though, is the issues discussed throughout this article. The real issues are that the people's voice in their government is no longer being slowly eroded - it is disappearing at a remarkably fast rate. Until we awaken more of the idea of a small government that is accountable to the people, the big government elite will continue to ignore the people that elected them.