Isn't It Necessary for the Government to Break Up Monopolies?

[sevin]

I never would have said this before, but I remember learning how J.P. Morgan purchased most of the major news outlets in the country decades ago. As a result, we no longer have a truly free press and the super-rich have a monopoly on the media. However, they did this without breaking any of the laws of capitalism. They used their wealth and bought them. You see the problem I'm having?

[Brassmouth]

I never would have said this before, but I remember learning how J.P. Morgan purchased most of the major news outlets in the country decades ago. As a result, we no longer have a truly free press and the super-rich have a monopoly on the media. However, they did this without breaking any of the laws of capitalism. They used their wealth and bought them. You see the problem I'm having?

I am quite sure he did this with State assistance of some sort. The man's life is a series of exploitative dealings with the State.

However, even if he did not, the media is inevitably stitched to the State in statist countries like ours. There is no such thing as a free MSM as long as the State exists.

Nevertheless, on a free market competition would prevent abuse or deceit in the media, no matter how consolidated the industry is. The internet has eternally insured this.

[klamath]

The mistake many people make is saying everything was great 100 years ago. Things weren't great 125 years ago. Many of the huge monopolies such as rail, steel, timber, banking,etc were created by the government subsidising the rail companies to promote the expansion of the country.

[Matt Collins]

Monopolies in a free market are short lived usually. Most monopolies in existence today are government-supported.

[nayjevin]

Nevertheless, on a free market competition would prevent abuse or deceit in the media, no matter how consolidated the industry is. The internet has eternally insured this.

News as RSS feeds or a variety of online news videos for instance would mean each user can drop whatever news source found to be inaccurate, and add others highly rated for accuracy. Ratings systems come naturally, consumer reports type websites would spring up, and people link to and email to friends those they trust. It works if government leaves it alone.

Unlike cable or radio, where some rich people and marketing teams tell you what to watch and listen to.

[Liberty Rebellion]

Monopolies in a free market are short lived usually. Most monopolies in existence today are government-supported.

Agreed. Also, not all monopolies will be harmful to consumers. If a shoe company can make high-quality shoes at low prices so much so that other companies cannot enter the market because they're not efficient enough, what's the problem with the efficient company being a monopoly. The consumer is not harmed by low-cost high-quality shoes.

Media is a bit of a different industry to compare to the aforementioned. However, the Internet has regulated the media to a large extent if you ask me.

A lot of the mindless "MSM-is-the-gospel" will die with the baby-boomer generation me thinks.

[Mini-Me]

I never would have said this before, but I remember learning how J.P. Morgan purchased most of the major news outlets in the country decades ago. As a result, we no longer have a truly free press and the super-rich have a monopoly on the media. However, they did this without breaking any of the laws of capitalism. They used their wealth and bought them. You see the problem I'm having?

Instead of arguing the point, I think it's probably best to start off by helping you work through the answer yourself. Ask yourself this: Although they initially obtained a monopoly by defeating and buying up the competition, what do you think the super-rich did afterwards to maintain their monopoly? How do you believe they ensured no prominent competition could arise to point out the aforementioned media consolidation and break up their audience? When was the FCC established, etc.? Considering the conglomerates have had a virtual monopoly over the media for nearly a century, why do you think the media and the indoctrinated public seem generally supportive of antitrust laws and so generally averse to libertarianism?

When the government obtains the power to meddle in the free market, decide market entry barriers, affect who wins and who loses, etc., it's taking that power of decision directly out of the hands of consumers. When the government gains the power to meddle in the free market, who do you think is influential enough to tip the government's rulebook and actions in their favor, whether overtly or covertly: The common people, or the wealthiest and most powerful elitists? Even the few honest, well-meaning lawmakers and bureaucrats are incredibly naive and arrogant when they think they can set some rule or regulation in the market without it backfiring or having awful side effects...but that doesn't mean that wealthy elitists don't know better or know how to manipulate idiotic politicians into thinking they're "helping the little guy." Did you ever wonder why Wal-Mart supports increased minimum wage? As a rule, virtually every single regulation raises the barrier for market entry and gives large incumbent companies an advantage. While antitrust regulations may seem to be exceptions if you take them at face value, that (http://www.mises.org/store/Antitrust-The-Case-for-Repeal--P10.aspx)'s debatable as well (http://www.mises.org/store/Antitrust-and-Monopoly-Anatomy-of-a-Policy-Failure-P296.aspx). I haven't read either of those books in their entirety yet, but I think they may contain some of the answers you're seeking about antitrust in particular.

To make a general point: Let's say we allow the government to diagnose and regulate/break up monopolies to prevent certain market conditions the government [and its string-pullers] consider unfavorable. In that case, who diagnoses the monopolies? Should we empower the Congresscritters who ignored years of anti-war protests? Should we empower all the Congresscritters who ignored our thousands upon thousands of anti-bailout letters and phone calls? Should we empower some bureaucratic organization like the FCC, FDA, SEC, Federal Reserve, etc., who have all had completely stellar records when it comes to using their power wisely and resisting corruption? ;) When we entrust some similar institution with this power, will we just do a few rain dances to ensure that good, honest people become the public officials entrusted with coercive power? In any case, once we determine exactly who gets to decide, what are their criteria for monopoly status, and how will they define market sectors? What coercive powers will they have to "fix" this problem? Finally, if government is both benevolent enough and competent enough to diagnose and fix "problems" in the free market when it comes to monopolies, why then would it not be both benevolent and competent enough to diagnose and fix a handful, listful, or ten-thousand-page-book full of other "problems" with the free market? If we allow politicians and bureaucrats to diagnose and "fix" monopolies, why then should we not allow them to create ANY arbitrary business regulation? Why draw the line at antitrust laws and only antitrust laws? Perhaps you might even be able to find some justification for it to cleanly differentiate antitrust from other arbitrary regulation, but how long do you believe others will agree with your rationale about where to draw the line? Once the government gets its foot in the door, it takes a LOT less work for it to widen the opening.

In the above paragraph, I used the clause, "if government is both benevolent enough and competent enough..." A couple paragraphs ago, I briefly mentioned the trademark incompetence of even the most well-intentioned meddlers. Unfortunately, perhaps the single most important lesson humanity needs to learn is that the kind of people most attracted to positions of power are not the "well-meaning but short-sighted" politicians I mentioned above anyway. Power may corrupt, but the bigger problem is the kind of people that power attracts in the first place. (http://www.amazon.com/Political-Ponerology-Science-Adjusted-Purposes/dp/1897244258/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246331405&sr=8-1) The politicians and bureaucrats drink from the champagne fountains of the powerful*, and they will do exactly what is expected of them to keep the party going. There is practically no law we can create to forcibly prevent this corrupting influence that will not backfire horrendously, especially considering we're largely dealing with those who are already corrupt in the deepest sense. (http://www.amazon.com/Without-Conscience-Disturbing-World-Psychopaths/dp/1572304510/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246331362&sr=8-3) Because the vast majority of people do have consciences (even those who ignore them), it is difficult for us to seriously consider or fully comprehend the idea that some others literally do not have one...but we must. Not only do psychopaths exist, but they are the ones who currently run the world, and they always will as long as centralized positions of arbitrary authority and coercive power continue to exist. Pathological narcissists and psychopaths cannot feel empathy, cannot feel guilt, cannot feel love, and literally have no internal conscience...although the successful ones are phenomenal at preying on our own such feelings. Most can convincingly manipulate us by faking all of these qualities extremely well, and by doing so, they can fill us with too much doubt to confidently call them out for what they are. Furthermore, it's one thing to acknowledge their existence in the academic sense, but I think there are always some seeds of doubt and denial until you've had enough firsthand experience dealing with one to realize the horrifying truth with crystal clarity. They are so profoundly different from normal, healthy humans that it's mind-boggling to think we're even the same species. Of course, we've been conditioned to believe that the idea of truly evil people is a childish concept, and that we're all fundamentally alike at the core of our being...but that is exactly why psychopaths are so adept at fooling us, hiding from us, and blending in. We deny, downplay, or overlook their existence and influence, because the way they work is so horrifying and so alien to our own human experience. When we think of psychopaths, we think of the very few of them who turned into notorious serial killers, but we're totally overlooking the real threat. The prevailing notion is that calling someone evil and entirely without conscience is over-the-top, melodramatic, and at the very least too serious of a charge to make with any degree of confidence. In a lot of ways, that's correct - labeling individuals and especially groups as evil or inhuman can be very dangerous, and in the past it has been the prelude to atrocities. It seems as though almost the only people unequivocating enough to use the word "evil" anymore are the very religious fire-and-brimstone people and the kind of people who merely use it to manipulate others (consider George W. Bush's speeches about fighting against "evil"). We definitely need to be wary of labeling, but at the same time, we also need to understand that people like this exist and take that knowledge into account before we create jobs with so much authority and power that they're like "Disney Land for psychopaths." According to Dr. Martha Stout (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/076791581X/psychopathsorsoc), psychopaths/sociopaths comprise about 4% of the population. For all we know, even that could even be a modest estimate, considering the way successful psychopaths use charm, emotional manipulation, etc. to avoid detection and accountability. Until more people finally understand the way psychopaths work in general and especially the way they affect our world on the macro-scale, we will naively continue to create "official" positions of arbitrary coercive authority over others...and as long as the government can exercise the power of brute force over the market, these (http://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/0061147893/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246331362&sr=8-4) are the kinds of people who will always dominate those positions of authority.

*Credit for that metaphor (although it's also literal...) should go to...uhm...someone else on this forum I think. Maybe HOLLYWOOD? I can't remember, but it stuck with me.

[Kraig]

How Antitrust Ruined the Movies (http://mises.org/story/3437)

Interesting take on how the government affected Hollywood.

[Kludge]

I never would have said this before, but I remember learning how J.P. Morgan purchased most of the major news outlets in the country decades ago. As a result, we no longer have a truly free press and the super-rich have a monopoly on the media. However, they did this without breaking any of the laws of capitalism. They used their wealth and bought them. You see the problem I'm having?

What happens when studies (funding) and news is controlled by corporations?

What do you do when so many scientists are publishing that one corporation's product is indeed superior, conveniently ignoring facts, and using weasel words?

What happens when the news reports those studies?

Corporatocracy; a de facto government.

We criticize MSM now, but in a free society, there is that potential for propaganda and manipulation beyond what I believe many are imagining.

Freedom is very dangerous. Freedom is respectful. Government is relatively safe. Coercive government is immoral.

[nayjevin]

What happens when studies (funding) and news is controlled by corporations?

What do you do when so many scientists are publishing that one corporation's product is indeed superior, conveniently ignoring facts, and using weasel words?

What happens when the news reports those studies?

Corporatocracy; a de facto government.

We criticize MSM now, but in a free society, there is that potential for propaganda and manipulation beyond what I believe many are imagining.

A free market would allow much better chance to overcome any arising manipulation.

- education level of the public would be much higher -- see how size of state relates to average education

- personal responsibility would be king (no other choice to survive) -- folks would do their research

- watchdog groups. people like us would be saying 'don't buy from Monsanto' except we wouldn't be having media blackout, because people wouldn't be addicted to one form of media, coming from a monopolistic mouthpiece such as MSM.

IOW, government existing encourages unnatural monopolies -- we see this today. free market provides the best defense against harmful monopolies - defenses we don't currently enjoy.

Free-market consumer reports / independent ratings systems / peer trust models FTW

[Mini-Me]

What happens when studies (funding) and news is controlled by corporations?

What do you do when so many scientists are publishing that one corporation's product is indeed superior, conveniently ignoring facts, and using weasel words?

What happens when the news reports those studies?

Corporatocracy; a de facto government.

We criticize MSM now, but in a free society, there is that potential for propaganda and manipulation beyond what I believe many are imagining.
Corporatocracy? In a free society, corporations as we know them couldn't even exist...although large joint-stock companies would, and we'd probably still call them corporations anyway. ;) Still, there's an important distinction to make when it comes to companies with and without state-granted "personhood."

In any case, in a free society, at least accessible alternatives would exist to call "corporate" media on its bullshit, and that would also aid in keeping them a bit more honest anyway. The reason the MSM is so dangerous is because they're considered "blessed" as authoritative, reliable news agencies. People think they can trust them, since they're all saying largely the same thing, with minor partisan details. Still, they can only get away with colluding and not viciously calling each other (or their sponsors) out for their practices because artificial market barriers prevent easily accessible alternatives from being heard on TV or the radio...which wouldn't be the case in a free society. Even today, the Internet is slowly starting to change all this and eat away at the MSM's power. Unless tyrants start trying to impose controls on it to stifle dissent (which I'm sure they'll try), I think the Internet is eventually going to start embarrassing the MSM so much that they'll have to either change or become entirely irrelevant. The influence of the Internet isn't all that pronounced right now, because most older people still rely solely on the MSM for their information, and they have no idea just how much is being omitted, twisted, injected, etc. (whereas even the Soviets knew they were being propagandized). In contrast, those of us on here are exposed to plenty of opposing viewpoints from international media, independent media, etc., even to the point where some of us have become so jaded and cynical that we don't really trust ANYONE (which I guess is probably a pretty good policy ;)). We're still a minority, but as the baby boomers and even generation X become tomorrow's elderly, the younger generations will become tomorrow's "responsible trusted grown-ups." As time goes on, I think we're going to see a lot more people relying more and more on the Internet as their primary news source, and the MSM's influence will just erode from there...but that's only if TPTB (TM) fail to muzzle the Internet or further dumb us down in time.



Freedom is very dangerous. Freedom is respectful.Were you just randomly picking adjectives? ;)


Government is relatively safe. Coercive government is immoral.
Nobody ever said government wasn't safe... (http://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-Experiment-Literary-Investigation/dp/0061253715/ref=pd_sim_b_2) ;)

[nayjevin]

In any case, in a free society, at least accessible alternatives would exist to call "corporate" media on its bullshit, and that would also aid in keeping them a bit more honest anyway.

The reason the MSM is so dangerous is because they're considered "blessed" as authoritative, reliable news agencies. People think they can trust them, since they're all saying largely the same thing, with minor partisan details. Still, they can only get away with colluding and not viciously calling each other (or their sponsors) out for their practices because artificial market barriers prevent easily accessible alternatives from being heard on TV or the radio...which wouldn't be the case in a free society.

Even today, the Internet is slowly starting to change all this and eat away at the MSM's power. Unless tyrants start trying to impose controls on it to stifle dissent (which I'm sure they'll try), I think the Internet is eventually going to start embarrassing the MSM so much that they'll have to either change or become entirely irrelevant.

The influence of the Internet isn't all that pronounced right now, because most older people still rely solely on the MSM for their information, and they have no idea just how much is being omitted, twisted, injected, etc. (whereas even the Soviets knew they were being propagandized). In contrast, those of us on here are exposed to plenty of opposing viewpoints from international media, independent media, etc., even to the point where some of us have become so jaded and cynical that we don't really trust ANYONE (which I guess is probably a pretty good policy ;)).

We're still a minority, but as the baby boomers and even generation X become tomorrow's elderly, the younger generations will become tomorrow's "responsible trusted grown-ups." As time goes on, I think we're going to see a lot more people relying more and more on the Internet as their primary news source, and the MSM's influence will just erode from there...but that's only if TPTB (TM) fail to muzzle the Internet or further dumb us down in time.

QFT and paragraphed ;)

[Conza88]

What happens when studies (funding) and news is controlled by corporations?

What do you do when so many scientists are publishing that one corporation's product is indeed superior, conveniently ignoring facts, and using weasel words?

What happens when the news reports those studies?

Corporatocracy; a de facto government.

We criticize MSM now, but in a free society, there is that potential for propaganda and manipulation beyond what I believe many are imagining.

Freedom is very dangerous. Freedom is respectful. Government is relatively safe. Coercive government is immoral.

Everything below this word, is a copy n paste job.

Freedom of Radio and Television - For a New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard


There is one important area of American life where no effective free*dom of speech or the press does or can exist under the present system. That is the entire field of radio and television. In this area, the federal government, in the crucially important Radio Act of 1927, nationalized the airwaves. In effect, the federal government took title to ownership of all radio and television channels. It then presumed to grant licenses, at its will or pleasure, for use of the channels to various privately owned stations. On the one hand, the stations, since they receive the licenses gratis, do not have to pay for the use of the scarce airwaves, as they would on the free market. And so these stations receive a huge subsidy, which they are eager to maintain. But on the other hand, the federal government, as the licensor of the airwaves, asserts the right and the power to regulate the stations minutely and continuously. Thus, over the head of each station is the club of the threat of nonrenewal, or even suspension, of its license. In consequence, the idea of freedom of speech in radio and television is no more than a mockery. Every station is grievously restricted, and forced to fashion its programming to the dictates of the Federal Communications Commission. So every station must have "balanced" programming, broadcast a certain amount of "pub*lic service" announcements, grant equal time to every political candidate for the same office and to expressions of political opinion, censor "contro*versial" lyrics in the records it plays, etc. For many years, no station was allowed to broadcast any editorial opinion at all; now, every opinion must be balanced by "responsible" editorial rebuttals.

Because every station and every broadcaster must always look over its shoulder at the FCC, free expression in broadcasting is a sham. Is it any wonder that television opinion, when it is expressed at all on controversial issues, tends to be blandly in favor of the "Establishment"?

The public has only put up with this situation because it has existed since the beginning of large-scale commercial radio. But what would we think, for example, if all newspapers were licensed, the licenses to be renewable by a Federal Press Commission, and with newspapers losing their licenses if they dare express an "unfair" editorial opinion, or if they don't give full weight to public service announcements? Would not this be an intolerable, not to say unconstitutional, destruction of the right to a free press? Or consider if all book publishers had to be licensed, and their licenses were not renewable if their book lists failed to suit a Federal Book Commission? Yet what we would all consider intolerable and totalitarian for the press and the book publishers is taken for granted in a medium which is now the most popular vehicle for expression and education: radio and television. Yet the principles in both cases are exactly the same.

Here we see, too, one of the fatal flaws in the idea of "democratic socialism," i.e., the idea that the government should own all resources and means of production yet preserve and maintain freedom of speech and the press for all its citizens. An abstract constitution guaranteeing "freedom of the press" is meaningless in a socialist society. The point is that where the government owns all the newsprint, the paper, the presses, etc., the government?as owner?must decide how to allocate the newsprint and the paper, and what to print on them. Just as the government as street owner must make a decision how the street will be used, so a socialist government will have to decide how to allocate newsprint and all other resources involved in the areas of speech and press: assembly halls, machines, trucks, etc. Any government may profess its devotion to freedom of the press, yet allocate all of its newsprint only to its defenders and supporters. A free press is again a mockery; furthermore, why should a socialist government allocate any considerable amount of its scarce resources to antisocialists? The problem of genuine freedom of the press then becomes insoluble.

The solution for radio and television? Simple: Treat these media pre*cisely the same way the press and book publishers are treated. For both the libertarian and the believer in the American Constitution the govern*ment should withdraw completely from any role or interference in all media of expression. In short, the federal government should denational*ize the airwaves and give or sell the individual channels to private owner*ship. When private stations genuinely own their channels, they will be truly free and independent; they will be able to put on any programs they wish to produce, or that they feel their listeners want to hear; and they will be able to express themselves in whichever way they wish without fear of government retaliation. They will also be able to sell or rent the airwaves to whomever they wish, and in that way the users of the channels will no longer be artificially subsidized.

Furthermore, if TV channels become free, privately owned, and inde*pendent, the big networks will no longer be able to put pressure upon the FCC to outlaw the effective competition of pay-television. It is only because the FCC has outlawed pay-TV that it has not been able to gain a foothold. "Free TV" is, of course, not truly "free"; the programs are paid for by the advertisers, and the consumer pays by covering the advertising costs in the price of the product he buys. One might ask what difference it makes to the consumer whether he pays the adver*tising costs indirectly or pays directly for each program he buys. The difference is that these are not the same consumers for the same products. The television advertiser, for example, is always interested in (a) gaining the widest possible viewing market; and (b) in gaining those particular viewers who will be most susceptible to his message. Hence, the pro*grams will all be geared to the lowest common denominator in the audience, and particularly to those viewers most susceptible to the mes*sage; that is, those viewers who do not read newspapers or magazines, so that the message will not duplicate the ads he sees there. As a result, free-TV programs tend to be unimaginative, bland, and uniform. Pay-TV would mean that each program would search for its own market, and many specialized markets for specialized audiences would develop?just as highly lucrative specialized markets have developed in the maga*zine and book publishing fields. The quality of programs would be higher and the offerings far more diverse. In fact, the menace of potential pay-TV competition must be great for the networks to lobby for years to keep it suppressed. But, of course, in a truly free market, both forms of television, as well as cable-TV and other forms we cannot yet envision, could and would enter the competition.

One common argument against private ownership of TV channels is that these channels are "scarce," and therefore have to be owned and parcelled out by the government. To an economist, this is a silly argument; all resources are scarce, in fact anything that has a price on the market commands that price precisely because it is scarce. We have to pay a certain amount for a loaf of bread, for shoes, for dresses because they are all scarce. If they were not scarce but superabundant like air, they would be free, and no one would have to worry about their pro*duction or allocation. In the press area, newsprint is scarce, paper is scarce, printing machinery and trucks are scarce, etc. The more scarce they are the higher the price they will command, and vice versa. Further*more, and again pragmatically, there are far more television channels available than are now in use. The FCC's early decision to force stations into the VHF instead of the UHF zone created far more of a scarcity of channels than there needed to be.

Another common objection to private property in the broadcast media is that private stations would interfere with each other's broadcasts, and that such widespread interference would virtually prevent any pro*grams from being heard or seen. But this is as absurd an argument for nationalizing the airwaves as claiming that since people can drive their cars over other people's land this means that all cars?or land? must be nationalized. The problem, in either case, is for the courts to demarcate property titles carefully enough so that any invasion of anoth*er s property will be clear-cut and subject to prosecution. In the case of land titles, this process is clear enough. But the point is that the courts can apply a similar process of staking out property rights in other areas?whether it be in airwaves, in water, or in oil pools. In the case of airwaves, the task is to find the technological unit?i.e., the place of transmission, the distance of the wave, and the technological width of a clear channel?and then to allocate property rights to this particular technological unit. If radio station WXYZ, for example, is assigned a property right in broadcasting on 1500 kilocycles, plus or minus a certain width of kilocycles, for 200 miles around Detroit, then any station which subsequently beams a program into the Detroit area on this wavelength would be subject to prosecution for interference with property rights. If the courts pursue their task of demarking and defending property rights, then there is no more reason to expect contin*ual invasions of such rights in this area than anywhere else.

Most people believe that this is precisely the reason the airwaves were nationalized; that before the Radio Act of 1927, stations interfered with each other's signals and chaos ensued, and the federal government was finally forced to step in to bring order and make a radio industry feasible at last. But this is historical legend, not fact. The actual history is precisely the opposite. For when interference on the same channel began to occur, the injured party took the airwave aggressors into court, and the courts were beginning to bring order out of the chaos by very successfully applying the common law theory of property rights?in very many ways similar to the libertarian theory?to this new technological area. In short, the courts were beginning to assign property rights in the airwaves to their "homesteading" users. It was after the federal govern*ment saw the likelihood of this new extension of private property that it rushed in to nationalize the airwaves, using alleged chaos as the excuse.

To describe the picture a bit more fully, radio in the first years of the century was almost wholly a means of communication for ships?either ship-to-ship or ship-to-shore messages. The Navy Department was interested in regulating radio as a means of ensuring safety at sea, and the initial federal regulation, a 1912 act, merely provided that any radio station had to have a license issued by the Secretary of Commerce. No powers to regulate or to decide not to renew licenses were written into the law, however, and when public broadcasting began in the early 1920s, Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover attempted to regulate the stations. Court decisions in 1923 and 1926, however, struck down the governments power to regulate licenses, to fail to renew them, or even to decide on which wavelengths the stations should operate.2 At about the same time, the courts were working out the concept of "home*stead" private property rights in the airwaves, notably in the case of Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station (Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, 1926). In this case the court held that the operator of an existing station had a property right, acquired by prior use, sufficient to enjoin a new station from using a radio frequency in any way so as to cause interference with the signals of the prior station.3 And so order was being brought out of the chaos by means of the assignment of property rights. But it was precisely this development that the government rushed in to forestall.

The 1926 Zenith decision striking down the government's power to regulate or to fail to renew licenses, and forcing the Department of Commerce to issue licenses to any station that applied, produced a great boom in the broadcasting industry. Over two hundred new stations were created in the nine months after the decision. As a result, Congress rushed through a stopgap measure in July 1926 to prevent any property rights in radio frequencies, and resolved that all licenses should be lim*ited to ninety days. By February 1927 the Congress passed the law estab*lishing the Federal Radio Commission, which nationalized the airwaves and established powers similar to those of the current FCC. That the aim of the knowledgeable politicians was not to prevent chaos but to prevent private property in the airwaves as the solution to chaos is demonstrated by the legal historian H. P. Warner. Warner states that "grave fears were expressed by legislators, and those generally charged with the administration of communications? that government regula*tion of an effective sort might be permanently prevented through the accrual of property rights in licenses or means of access, and that thus franchises of the value of millions of dollars might be established for all time."4 The net result, however, was to establish equally valuable franchises anyway, but in a monopolistic fashion through the largesse of the Federal Radio Commission and later FCC rather than through competitive homesteading.

Among the numerous direct invasions of freedom of speech exercised by the licensing power of the FRC and FCC, two cases will suffice. One was in 1931, when the FRC denied renewal of license to a Mr. Baker, who operated a radio station in Iowa. In denying renewal, the Commission said:

This Commission holds no brief for the Medical Associations and other parties whom Mr. Baker does not like. Their alleged sins may be at times of public importance, to be called to the attention of the public over the air in the right way. But this record discloses that Mr. Baker does not do so in any high-minded way. It shows that he continually and erratically over the air rides a personal hobby, his cancer cure ideas and his likes and dislikes of certain persons and things. Surely his infliction of all this on the listeners is not the proper use of a broadcasting license. Many of his utterances are vulgar, if not indeed indecent. Assuredly they are not uplifting or entertaining.5

Can we imagine the outcry if the federal government were to put a newspaper or a book publisher out of business on similar grounds?

A recent act of the FCC was to threaten nonrenewal of license of radio station KTRG in Honolulu, a major radio station in Hawaii. KTRG had been broadcasting libertarian programs for several hours a day for approximately two years. Finally, in late 1970, the FCC decided to open lengthy hearings moving toward nonrenewal of license, the threatened cost of which forced the owners to shut down the station permanently.

Government intervention... caused / set up the monopolies... Who'd have thought... :rolleyes:

Furthermore; you want Free Market media? What are you using right now..... INTERNET. :D

The mainstream media is loosing record numbers in viewership, in both television & newspaper sales. "Freedom is popular."

People are making the choice, they are sick of the bullshit crap braindead nonsense they are being fed daily on the idiot box. They're flocking to the net. Hence the new efforts to shut it all down ;)

[Pericles]

One word: Microsoft

Retail Price of Win 3.x = $79.95
Retail Price of Win 95 = $209
Retail Price of Win 98 = $209
Retail Price of Win 2K = $249
Retail Price of Win XP = $289
Retail Price of Win Vista = $319
Retail Price Win 7 = $319

Name any other IT component that has increased in price over the last 15 years.

[heavenlyboy34]

One word: Microsoft

Retail Price of Win 3.x = $79.95
Retail Price of Win 95 = $209
Retail Price of Win 98 = $209
Retail Price of Win 2K = $249
Retail Price of Win XP = $289
Retail Price of Win Vista = $319
Retail Price Win 7 = $319

Name any other IT component that has increased in price over the last 15 years.

It's not IT, but Adobe creative suite has increased in price a lot too (as well have numerous other popular software programs).

[Conza88]

One word: Microsoft

Retail Price of Win 3.x = $79.95
Retail Price of Win 95 = $209
Retail Price of Win 98 = $209
Retail Price of Win 2K = $249
Retail Price of Win XP = $289
Retail Price of Win Vista = $319
Retail Price Win 7 = $319

Name any other IT component that has increased in price over the last 15 years.

Not adjusted for inflation I gather. ;)

[Epic]

This is so backwards. The government IS a monopoly.

[Pericles]

Not adjusted for inflation I gather. ;)

That would only make the comparison even more pronounced when compared to the price of hardware, networking, and other products -

T-1 connection down from $1500 per month in '94 to $300 a month today

Priced a 10 GB hard drive lately - don't even make those anymore

Lotus Notes server in '94 $2750, today $1300

So, how is the government keeping MS in a dominant position, or when do think they will be swept from the market by a competitor?

[Kraig]

One word: Microsoft

Retail Price of Win 3.x = $79.95
Retail Price of Win 95 = $209
Retail Price of Win 98 = $209
Retail Price of Win 2K = $249
Retail Price of Win XP = $289
Retail Price of Win Vista = $319
Retail Price Win 7 = $319

Name any other IT component that has increased in price over the last 15 years.

Wow I really can't stand it when people want to use force to break damage Microsoft, a pet peeve of mine. Don't forget that from Win95 onwards MS had to *waste* money redoing things with their OS to comply with government orders. I also think software in general has gone up, not to mention there are markets for it that didn't even exist in the 3.x days.

Despite all that, do you really want the government to fuck with other companies to keep prices low? There is also rarely a reason to pay the full retail price for the OS, if you are getting a new PC you can get it at OEM price or if you are just replacing it on your current PC chances are you can just buy the cheaper upgrade.

[jmlfod87]

YouTube - Anti-Trust and Monopoly (with Ron Paul) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C4gRRk2i-M)

[nayjevin]

One word: Microsoft

Retail Price of Win 3.x = $79.95
Retail Price of Win 95 = $209
Retail Price of Win 98 = $209
Retail Price of Win 2K = $249
Retail Price of Win XP = $289
Retail Price of Win Vista = $319
Retail Price Win 7 = $319

Name any other IT component that has increased in price over the last 15 years.

You're comparing 7 different products released at different times - doesn't work. What's the cost of Win 3.x now?

[TGGRV]

Monopolies in a free market are short lived usually. Most monopolies in existence today are government-supported.
Or government regulated.

Whenever government passes more regulation, it increases the entry costs on a market and hence favoring monopolies.

EDIT:And who is stopping you from using Linux? There are even free versions of it. lol

[Mini-Me]

One word: Microsoft

Retail Price of Win 3.x = $79.95
Retail Price of Win 95 = $209
Retail Price of Win 98 = $209
Retail Price of Win 2K = $249
Retail Price of Win XP = $289
Retail Price of Win Vista = $319
Retail Price Win 7 = $319

Name any other IT component that has increased in price over the last 15 years.

Copyrights are coercive intellectual monopolies granted by government, and so are patents. On top of that, we have particularly draconian copyright and patent laws, and the only reason Microsoft is able to monopolize anything is because it's abusing those laws.

I'm not trying to start up another battle on copyrights and patents in this thread. The point is just that so-called "intellectual property" is a government-granted monopoly that inherently and unavoidably conflicts with physical property rights. If you consider copyrights and patents valid, you must give them precedence over physical property rights to enforce them (and even the right to liberty in the case of patents), which obviously means you do not consider physical property rights to be "inalienable." As a side note, because they are territorial intellectual monopolies, copyrights and patents are much more complicated and expensive to enforce than physical property rights, as well. If we include legal protection for physical property rights as part of our definition of a free market system, then regardless of whether you support copyrights and patents or not, they still must be considered the government's fault, not the free market's fault. Since Microsoft's monopoly (or near-monopoly) in the OS market is built entirely on these government-granted intellectual monopolies, it must therefore be considered the result of government intervention...even if you believe in that kind of intervention.

If you really want laws to exist that could "take down" Microsoft, there's no need for the government to actually break them up: All the government would need to do is revoke their government-granted coercive intellectual monopolies (copyrights and patents, if not trademarks as well). That's a whole lot easier than setting up some kind of agency, committee, etc. to break up big companies, isn't it? ;) In the meantime...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_distribution :D