Today, 06:20 AM
Well, the argument would be that the market will correct that fundamentally human problem with a fundamentally human solution. If, for any reason, one finds the company he's buying his products or services from distasteful, it will remove some of the value he gets from that product. If it removes enough, one will seek an alternative.
The ideal solution would be to remove the protections these big companies enjoy from their competitors. Like others have noted, if that was done, you wouldn't need anti-trust laws, because it would never become a problem. Anti-trust laws are a government "solution" to a government-caused problem. When you speak of "power", you must differentiate between the power to do what you want and the power to force others to do what you want. The former kind of power is a not a problem; it's the latter that is harmful and it takes a government to do that. Well, one would say that a powerful individual will always try to influence government to force others to do what he wants... But what if you had a government that was powerless to assist???
That being said, I may be a little less dogmatic on this than some. Like IP law, there are benefits to some limited protections. In our current state, it would be inherently foolish to allow governments to provide protections on one side of the ledger without some sort of check on the other side.
Connect With Us