|
Diane Francis Is No Free
Enterpriser
[A condensed version was published in the Financial Post on May 28, 1998, pg. 22]
Dear Editor,
Re: "Strong antitrust laws give U.S. its competitive edge" -- by Diane
Francis -- May 26, 1998 -- The Financial Post
According to Diane Francis: 1) the antitrust assault on Microsoft is morally justified;
2) the antitrust laws are what made America prosperous; and 3) these laws are essential
to free enterprise because competition is its "cornerstone."
All wrong -- dead wrong! The essence of free enterprise is the protection of individual
rights, including property rights, thus leaving individuals free to produce and trade
on a voluntary basis. Competition is a derivative, not an essential. The only way
to achieve high market share under free enterprise is superlative performance. Competition
is always present because investors and competitors are always ready to seize opportunities.
The only way a government can regulate competition is by annulling property rights
to punish success and reward failure -- a policy consistent with socialism, not free
enterprise.
As for the antitrust laws, the world's greatest champion of free enterprise -- Ayn
Rand -- summarized them as follows: "Under the [U.S.] antitrust laws, a man
becomes a criminal from the moment he goes into business ... if he charges prices
some bureaucrats judge as too high, he can be prosecuted for ... 'intent to monopolize';
if he charges prices [too low], he can be prosecuted for 'unfair competition' or
'restraint of trade'; and if he charges the same price as his competitors, he can
be prosecuted for 'collusion' or 'conspiracy.'" (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,
pg. 49) As current Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan wrote: "[The antitrust laws are]
so vague businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared
illegal until they hear the judge's verdict -- after the fact." (Ibid, pg. 63)
Non-objective law is a characteristic of dictatorship, not free enterprise.
The history of antitrust laws is a horrific one of punishing the good for being good.
(Ibid. pg. 44-62) As Greenspan wrote: "Those who allege that the purpose of
the antitrust laws is to protect competition, enterprise, and efficiency need to
be reminded of the following quotation from Judge Learned Hand's indictment of ALCOA's
so-called monopolistic practices."
'It was not inevitable that it [ALCOA] should always anticipate increases in the
demand for ingot and be prepared to supply them. Nothing compelled it to keep doubling
and redoubling its capacity before others entered the field. It insists that it never
excluded competitors; but we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively
to embrace each new opportunity as it opened, and to face every newcomer with new
capacity already geared into a great organization, having the advantage of experience,
trade connections and the elite of personnel.' (Ibid, pg. 70)
This is the same mentality now attacking Bill Gates. There could be nothing more
immoral than punishing the good for being good. For Diane Francis to call herself
a true free enterpriser is an intellectual and moral obscenity. I strongly recommend
for her to visit the website of the Committee for the Moral Defense of Microsoft
( http://www.moral-defense.org/ ) to educate herself on what real defenders of free
enterprise are saying about antitrust laws and the vicious assault on Microsoft by
the U.S. government.
Sincerely,
Glenn Woiceshyn
© 1998 Glenn Woiceshyn.
All rights reserved. This article can be found on-line at at http://www.capitalism.org/glennw. |
|
