I Hate Cartels
I absolutely hate them. Few things get my free market juices flowing like disgusting cartels propped up by slovenly favoritism and privilege from government.
On the other hand, I just love the Institute for Justice 
. Besides having a full page ad on the back cover of Reason Magazine for as long as I can remember...which I read every month with a smile...they fight the good fight for economic liberty and free competition and honest entrepreneurship every day in the legal battle fields against bad laws, cronyism and downright stupid legal bullying greed enforced by government...local, state and federal.
A feature case currently involves Errol Tyler, an entrepreneur fighting the local cartels in Boston in an attempt to introduce his business concept there.
Like Errol says, he's not looking for a hand-out...just a chance.
Apparently, the lawyer from IJ handling Mr. Tyler's case says that this is a good time to revisit, clarify and CORRECT the interpretation of the 14th Amendment which guarantees:
"...every American the right to earn an honest living free from unreasonable government interference."
Sounds pretty simple...almost TOO simple for imaginative business (and labor)interests looking for short cuts and protections against competitors and competition. After all, why deal with the hassle of a free market when you can pay people to close it off? Ugh.
That pesky word "unreasonable" is a little too subjective for my tastes. Could you imagine the trouble and grief that the absence of that word would have spared us all?
The video explains how we got from a seemingly straightforward protection of the freedom to do honest business to where we are today. I agree with the lawyer:
the Justices just might have gotten this one wrong (ya think?!?!) and he claims there's increasing scholarly consensus that the SCOTUS DID get it wrong in the precedent case that enables all this cartel junk.
Wish them luck. The ramifications would go a long way.
- John's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
if the IJ were in Brazil...
This is a bit off topic, but I know the IJ (and John) would be bothered by the program of Rio's new mayor
:
I'd like to think that this street vendor is quite eloquent...but I know his statement must have been translated by the reporter.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
sick
what a friggin' hero that mayor is.
snark
interpretation of 14th amendment seems shakey
While I sympathize with the case, I don't see how the right to engage in honest business can be read as a Constitutionally protected right. Still, the Slaugterhouse cases
are interesting, and it makes me shiver to think of what our country would be like if they had been decided otherwise.
For what it's worth, I have a book written in 1955 ("Leading Constitutional Decisions" by Robert Cushman) in which he discusses the historical debate over whether the framers of the amendment intended it to be interpreted broadly or not. He suggests that current research was indicating that they did not intend it broadly (meaning that the Slaughterhouse cases were essentially correct, even though they used a much narrower interpretation than the modern interpretation).
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Lochner era was an expansive interpretation of the 14th
amendment that was applied to to the economic sphere...
certainly could be interpreted to imply a right to engage in "honest business"
...without due process of law
I think you dropped an important qualifier from the 14th amendment --
So the legislature writes a law, and enforces it fairly. That's my understanding of due process of law....then they can deprive people of property and liberty. Otherwise, this amendment would ban taxes.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
equal protection clause
" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
could be construed to strike down all crony capitalism regulations; hence, the equal "right" to engage in honest business under the law where others enjoy such rights.
"Due Process" is a bit tricky because a legislature can't, for example, pass a law that makes it a crime to criticize the legislature, even if it's enforced "fairly and equally" across the board. Due Process typically means that the State must repect the legal rights of the individual according to the laws of the land. It can be a bit self-referential because of the incorporation doctrine, which would simultaneously allow a given Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amedment outside of the incoporation issue itself to be instantly "incorporated" as the law of the land. The 16th Amendment, however, would trump any "tax interpretation."
same standards
Okay, I thought about it more and realize that this interpretation would not ban licensing in general, just unfair licensing....where a license is denied to one person based on criteria that were not applied when the license was granted to another.
I guess I can see how the Constitution could be read that way. It still seems like a stretch, especially when the difference in treatment results from a sort of grandfather clause (keeping the old licenses, even if they don't meet the new standards).
Tyler looks like he could have been considered "black" back in the days when the 14th amendment was passed. I wonder if that fact could help him win the case, since the court originally ruled that the amendment was specifically intended to protect the freedmen.
Good luck to them. I know some people who would be supportive of this case. I'll spread the word. The consequences could be profoundly good.
p.s. Above, I shouldn't have written that "it makes me shiver"--since that implies fear. Maybe I meant "it makes me tingle" or something like that. Either way, this prospect is fantastically good!
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Any discussion of cartels
that pretends they exist primarily due to government action rather than the actions of capitalist companies is a non-starter. The government didn't create Walmart, nor Microsoft. Government didn't force gas companies to enter into agreements to divide up areas. When the phone system was dominated by a single monopoly it was the government that tried to inject competition by breaking up Ma Bell, the problem is all those supposedly competing companies chose to collude instead. Ditto the cable companies.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
A non-starter?
Well then how do you explain the case being fought here?
For starters....
as an aberration
When dealing with the probelm of cartels/monopolies, rather than running off to look for the odd case where the government is at blame it's a lot better to deal with the vast majority of cases that arise from unregulated business entering into collusion.
low hanging fruit, and all that...
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
It's not an aberration.
It's the case classic of a private cartel enforced by government statute through license quotas.
Actually, many cities are plagued by this sort of activity.
And I'm not even getting into the fact that Wal-Mart and Microsoft are not cartels by any true defintion of the term and for many, many reasons.
exclusive licenses are a dime a dozen
After my above discussion with Kal, I recognized that these exclusive licensing policies are all over the place. I would say that they are "a dime a dozen", except that these licenses can often be sold for a hefty sum.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Hefty sum...yes.
That's what I call fake value through enforced scarcity.
at least consumers have a chance...
When the government isn't forcing the cartel on us, we still have a chance to resist it's power.
Microsoft is a perfect example of how we have alternatives (Apple, Linux, etc), and we--the people of the USA--could shift to those alternatives if we wanted to. I've been a supporter of open source software for years, and have typically found that most people just don't care enough to bother switching--even when there are no compatability/network issues. Firefox has been one of the few sucess stories, and apparently only because Microsoft screwed up so royally with security issues.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
that's completely backwards adam
You have far more choice with government because with a liberal democratic government you have representation in government. You have no control over where Walmart builds a store. You have no control over the fact that Microsoft maintains a monopoly. You personally can choose to use a different OS but you still live in a world dominated by microsoft. You have no choice over the fact that Microsoft will be bundled with every major computer system sold. You have no control over the fact that Microsoft has significantly retarded the progress of computer technology world wide.
You have vastly more control over the actions of government (which has some small responsibility to you personally) than you do over the actions of any large company (unles you happen to be a major shareholder).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Talk about having it backwards
Besides the fact that your notion is totally off base and backwards. I reject the notion that Microsoft or Wal-Mart are even cartels. They are not. Cartels have a definition and these two companies may fit a lot of different definitions but "cartel" isn't one of them.
They may be industry leaders but they are not cartels. They may recipients of government largesse and aid...but not cartels.
OPEC is a cartel. Taxi Big Wigs in cities like NY,C, Boston, Baltimore and so on are cartels.
Microsoft and Wal-Mart? No. They have competition...real competition and it's intensifying everyday.
A theoretical cartel would be if Big Box retailers like Target, Wal-Mart and Costco colluded to control prices...and they do not. Besides, as long as market entry isn't obstructed or inhibited (see: through force or government....like the taxis), it's unsustainable anyway.
Of course, this collusion is not the case so the point is moot.
Moreover, on the orignal point that you have backwards, the notion that we have a say as to what these companies do isn't even relevant. We shouldn't have a say as to what they do as long as they are conducting their business lawfully. That's the key: within accordance of the law. That's part of free society and private property. You don't have to shop there and yes, you DO have alternatives regardless of how much you want to torture and obfuscate that notion.
OTOH, government does a lot of things that you can cry about and vote against but that doesn't mean you're going to get your way. And unlike companies like Wal-Mart, the government is indeed supposed of the people and doing the people's will. Yet, it doesn't always do that....not even close.
I see no point
in making a distinction between cartels and monopolies. It's the same thing the only question is if it is done by one company or two.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
is the technical term "market power"?
This seems to be what you're looking for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Well, I do
but do as you will.
those poor corporations...
Maybe I haven't been following every discussion here, but I don't recall John (or other libertarians in this group) bringing up any sob story about how anti-trust regulations make it so hard for poor Microsoft to do business.
These state-sponsored cartels are a problem, regardless of whether Microsoft or Walmart is a problem.
FWIW, in my neighborhood (the city of Pittsburgh), big box stores are some of the biggest recipients of government subsidies, and are pretty much non-existent outside of government subsidized redevelopment projects. In fact, government officials often make a big fuss about striking deals with these big companies...I guess that small entrepreneurs just aren't important enough to receive the mayor's attention.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.