|
U.S. Antitrust Laws
Are Pure Evil
Dear Editor,
Re: "Does Microsoft Dominance Serve Consumers?" -- Editorial -- April 24,
1998 -- Globe and Mail
While I agree with the editorial's conclusion that the U.S. government should stop
persecuting Microsoft, I strongly disagree with its endorsement of the antitrust
laws being used to persecute Microsoft.
What about the contradictory and fluid nature of these laws? What about all the corporations
(and their senior officers) that have been persecuted for their productive ability
under these laws during the last 100 years?
Laws exist under free enterprise to protect consumers and competitors from coercion,
theft (including patent laws) and fraud without the need of antitrust laws. What
antitrust laws do is make earned success a crime (a purely socialistic policy) because
the only way to legally achieve high market share -- the antitrust criteria for crime
-- under free enterprise is to perform brilliantly in terms creativity, productive
efficiency and effective marketing. To make earned success a crime necessarily makes
intelligence, ambition, creative thinking and ability a crime. What else besides
envy or power lust could possibly explain these inherently evil and destructive laws?
Sincerely,
Glenn Woiceshyn
© 1998 Glenn Woiceshyn.
All rights reserved. This article can be found on-line at at http://www.capitalism.org/glennw. |
|
