Alan McKendree amck at thenetdr.com
Thu Jul 22 23:03:33 CDT 2004

> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:52:14 +0000
> From: "L. Bird" <pkeets at hotmail.com>
> This administration appears to be no friend to the capitalist spirit,

Sadly, true enough, what with record-high farm subsidies, steel 
subsidies, etc.

> which to me is built on the freedom of choice by consumers, not 
> freedom of choice to control the market. Who's freedom should be 
> protected?

There is no freedom to "control the market" under capitalism...there is 
only the freedom to try.  And no company has ever actually accomplished 
this except by the explicit help of the government making it ILLEGAL to 
compete (e.g., AT&T prior to the breakup, or the Post Office now).  
Under capitalism, the only market share a company can acquire is that 
which it earns by the choice of its customers.

> Capitalism, by definition, refers to the owners of businesses who 
> supply the capital for start-up and operation.

Depends on where you go for your definition.  It also means the system 
under which the right to property, for both employers and employees, is 
held inviolate.  (I'm sure you're aware that employees have plenty of 
property too.)

> In its pure, unregulated form, this means that both workers and 
> consumers should beware.

Not at all.  In a pure, unregulated form, a system is available under 
which both employers and employees can trade to their mutual benefit.  
In an impure, regulated version each operate in an adversarial 
relationship based on getting the government to hold one hostage to the 

> Monopoly is the natural tendency of any segment of business, as larger 
> corporations buy up smaller ones and run others out of business to 
> eliminate competition.

The only way they can do that under capitalism is by offering a product 
that the most customers freely choose.  In practice, no company ever 
actually cornered a market without government protection, which lead to 
revisionists claiming that *groups* of companies rather than 
individuals controlled the market.

> Capitalism in the US is supposed to be regulated to prevent some of 
> the evils associated with it--that's why we have consumer laws and 
> anti-trust measures.

Nay.  We have anti-trust "measures" -- nice euphemism, there -- aka 
"laws" -- because Standard Oil's competitors (NOT their customers) went 
to the government in the 1890's to stop S.O. when the competitors 
couldn't survive.  (Note your assertion that even regulation only 
prevents "some" of capitalism's evils.  Because it's *just that evil*.)

The alleged "evils of capitalism" are not some sort of self-evident 
truism. Government is the problem, masquerading as the solution -- 
e.g., instituting huge (60%) tariffs on imported goods in 1929, then 
blaming the resultant epic crash known as the Depression on "the 
excesses of capitalism".  Readers interested in learning more should 
see _Antitrust: The Case for Repeal_ by Dominick Armentano, and 
_Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_ by Ayn Rand.

"the average Texan...carries not just a gun but a SHOTGUN."  --Pete 
Townshend, 1967

More information about the TheWho mailing list