Monopolies Don't Happen Under Capitalism: Ayn Rand Explains
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июн 2024
- Read Ayn Rand’s book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
aynrand.org/cui-mom
Listen to the full interview of Ayn Rand: “19th-Century Capitalism.”
• "19th-Century Capitali...
This was Ayn Rand's answer to a question during a radio interview on 19th-Century Capitalism.
Question: Can a free-market function if monopolies naturally grow in a capitalist system?
TIMESTAMPS
(00:00) - Intro
(00:10) - Can a free-market function if monopolies naturally grow in a capitalist system?
Ayn Rand at Columbia University WKCR, “19th-Century Capitalism.”
------------------------
Subscribe to ARI’s RUclips channel to make sure you never miss a video:
ruclips.net/user/subscription_...
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:
- App Store itunes.apple.com/us/app/ayn-r...
- Google Play play.google.com/store/apps/de...
ARI is funded by donor contributions. You can support our work by becoming an ARI Member or making a one-time contribution: ari.aynrand.org/donate
******
Keep in Touch! Sign up to receive email updates from ARI: aynrand.org/signup
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Follow ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
Follow ARI on Instagram: / aynrandorg
Subscribe to the ARI Live! podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
******
Explore these ideas further! ARI's online publication, New Ideal, explores pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism: newideal.aynrand.org/
Join an upcoming virtual or in-person event: ari.aynrand.org/events/
Visit ARI’s website for more about our content and programs: ari.aynrand.org/
![DRAGON BALL: Sparking! ZERO - Fused Warriors Trailer [BUDOKAI TENKAICHI Series]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/84p4Lvyfyes/mqdefault.jpg)
Also good to note that the phrase "market failure" is a contradiction in terms, since the market cannot fail by definition. It is individuals that fail, the market is only the place of exchange of property contracts, which given a functioning legal system should never fail.
I agree, though, it is possible to define something capitalism should be successful at (or more successful than other systems) and then validate whether it is.
The main problem with that is that we don't have truly free markets, though we can evaluate less and more free markets and compare them.
But then the other problem is, what's the criteria ?
If the criteria are more individual wealth and happiness, then capitalism is the clear winner every time. If it's productivity and innovation, capitalism wins every time. It's even the best way to prevent social unrest and promote peace.
But collectivists might define other goals like "protect the weakest in society", "protect the environment", "protect our national identity" etc...
So it also comes down to what you ultimately value, and unfortunately a lot of people seem to value those collectivist ideals more than individualism
So markets only fail because of governments; but markets require a 'functioning legal system'.
Who do u think sets up the legal system?
@@ovariantrolley2327 Markets require a PROPER functioning legal system. A proper one is non-coercive.
@@ovariantrolley2327 The thing is that even without a government, such legal systems would arise naturally.
There is one instance in which market fails, and it has to do with timing. The market mechanisms take a bit of time to work (it is a natural process after all), and sometimes there is no time. In a world without deadlines, the market will always work. But we are surrounded by deadlines.
Think of it. Natural erosion can make wonders like the Great Canyon that cannot be replicated by machines. But if you need a trench dug by Tuesday, you get a machine, not wait for natural erosion. That is the conundrum.
In the world of concepts and ideas, time is not considered important, something that is true or false will remain, no matter the passage of time. But in the world we live it, time matters.
True free-market capitalism hardly exists anymore, especially in big, corporate business. Bought and paid for politicians bailout or prop up big corporations all the time and intentionally stifle small family owned businesses who appear to pose a threat to big business. Happens everyday.
Did a totally free market ever existed?
From the moment two or more competitors enter the market, corruption in some form or another is inevitable.
Also the entry cost can be prohibitive.
The local farmer's markets are the closet to a free market operation that I can think of.
@@jeremyperry5831 Nothing needs to be perfectly free. A semi-free market is still infinitely superior to Socialism.
"Bought and paid for politicians", is the key phrase. Ironically, the usual answer to "monopolies" is to grant said politicians more power, or to permit same to assume more power, over markets. It's like trying to extinguish a fire with flammable liquids just because - in simple minds - water is also a liquid.
Very true.
The recent Apple suite by the federal government is a recent misidentification of economic power as coercive political power. Apple invented the successful app store. Some companies, like Epic, would like different terms and failed in court. There is no force involved in using Apple phone and store. If you want another store, there's Google. If you want an open-source option, there's F-Droid. If you want a phone with no distracting apps, there's The Light Phone II or Nokia 225. Most people love the quality that Apple provides. Most businesses make more money on iPhone than Android. This quite by the Justice department is immoral.
Part of the government's compliant was that Android users don't get the same sort of chat bubbles with the pretty colours, that Apple users enjoy. I'm not making this up. We need to address the abusive power of government.
@@willnitschke > chat bubbles with the pretty colours
Im voting socialist today. Is British racing green available?
apple sweet? apple soot? oh, apple lawsuit! suite is a group of rooms
It’s silly to state that there is zero coercion taking place when the average person gets an iPhone over a Linux phone.
@@anastasiya256 But you can't explain what this mysterious "coercion" is, right?
Consider KODAK. Once held a near monopoly, but they did not pursue the digital market they actually created. Now, KODAK is no more.
"Near monopoly". Not a monopoly then.
@@willnitschke His point is valid. You define by non-essentials. Markets are products of the mind, not real. If a primitive tribesman saw a stock market, he would only see people screaming and holding signs. No market in his mind.
@@TeaParty1776 His point is not valid, because a near monopoly is not a monopoly, because that's not what the word means. Furthermore, a near monopoly that abused its market power (the entire point of worrying about a monopoly to begin with), would rapidly diminish into a minor market player.
And no, markets are NOT "products of the mind". Me trading my dollar bills for an iPhone, is not an abstract concept. Actual material things in the real world that you can touch, feel and see, occurred. The fact that we assign labels to common activities to save time when communicating, doesn't make those activities abstractions.
@@willnitschke >markets are NOT "products of the mind".
Markets are products of the mind guiding the body. Or do mindless bodies farm, cure diisease , produce cars , and write RUclips posts? Man is a mind body unity. There is no religious mind/body split. Your error is bizarre.
@@willnitschke The concept, "monopoly" is inaalid, a contradictory package-deal of govt force and temporary market leadership always threatened by po tential competition. In capitalism, there are no govt-created or ernforced monopolies. In capitalism, temporary market leadership is earned by superior producers. Antitrusst is a pseudo-scientific, nihilist attack on the independent mind in fqvor of equality or faith. Mans focused mind is his basic method of survival. Govt force destroys production.
Very interesting! Very good format too
Rand was right about this.
I'm usually a bit more Articulate, maybe even wordy at times but, oh Hell Yes.
.
The best way to win at Monopoly is to be the only player with a shot-gun, you can bank on it.
That's true
Corporations buy lawmakers (cheap)who provide a regulatory environment that only the big players can weather, crippling their competition. Or else they just buy the competition. “Separation of powers” should should be applied to State & Corporations above all else, but it’s way too profitable for the corrupt players.
The only way to minimise corruption in any system of social organisation is to have an engaged public, of which we don't have.
@@willnitschke The second way to minimise corruption is to reduce the size of government to the point at which it has no power to influence the market. Let the market be driven by only individual consumer choice.
@@Team_schoenhardt It's not the "size" of government, but the "power" of government that needs to be minimized.
@@slode1693 I guess that's probably true. I just don't trust government to not get corrupt once it gets big. The only sure fire way to stop them from getting corrupt it to limit them. Free people are better equipped to take care of each other than the government is anyways. In my view, there should be no need for a big government in any scenario.
@@Team_schoenhardt Unfortunately what you're doing there is hoping the government will police itself responsibly. If it could manage that, size and over-reach would not be problems to begin with.
Great video, totally true.
Seems pretty obvious to me that coercive monopolies happen all the time, regardless of government support or hindrance. Microsoft controls a huge share of the software market. They do it by purchasing their competitors. Typically they also purchase the patent rights to whatever item the competitor invented that threatens Microsoft's dominance.
The erstwhile competitor has few choices. If he refuses to sell his patent rights, Microsoft can sue him for infringement (even if he's not infringing) and tie him up in court till he goes broke. It's not just Microsoft of course, most big corporations use these tactics.
Ayn Rand would probably say that the government is enabling such coercion through laws that rig the legal system to favor the rich. And she'd be right. But it's a systemic problem. So long as private enterprise is allowed to pay for political campaigns, legislators and courts will continue to be bought and controlled by special interests.
Welp, they did. Even if it not a pure Monopoly it is an oligarchy with mafia-like behaviours
What "is" ? Some abstract fantasy in your head?
force is not production. production is not force. Marxx is wrong.
We don't have Capitalism. We have a state regulated business and ownership in which the state gets the bigger share. In my country, which is the part of EU, taxes are in some cases exponentially driven up by the factors that should be driving them down, like salary. We have an unknown number of people who are unemployed, but aren't registered as such. Being on an unemployment list is a privilege in my country.
To be precise, all developed economies are unstable mixes of socialism, fascism and capitalism. But only capitalism is blamed for problems.
The free market makes people wealthy. So wealthy that some can afford to change the economic system into crony socialism.
Of course there are two groups who work together to try to abolish capitalism. Certain segments of the rich and powerful who want less competition so they can increase profits (which capitalism drives down) and Socialist types. The Socialist types are their useful idiots.
The citizen's duty is to prevent politicians from participating in it.
Not if the government stays out of it.
Without *some* government intervention, however, mafias could form in such an environment and frighten or bribe competitors away. A proper government would not allow entrepreneurial individuals to be threatened or harmed, however.
You're mixing two aspects of society. Mafias engage in criminal activity which would fall under the purview of government, i.e. the law, courts, etc. Businesses engaged in criminal activity would face government intervention, where if they didn't ideally the government would never have to get involved.
@@kenward1310 In addition to drug running, bootlegging, etc., historically mafias also owned and ran many perfectly legal enterprises such as construction companies, casinos, nightclubs, etc. They did not allow competition on their "turf" in most instances, creating localized monopolies.
@@seattlecommenter The fact that they "did not allow competition on their turf" proves Kenward's point. They could only enforce that by threatening violence... which is illegal and is something the justice system IS empowered to stop.
Package deal
But what kind of intervention? Regulating markets will not stop the mafia, and that is the govt power that is being questioned.
I agree. Competition....
The strongest form of competition is war.
@@ThomasVWorm He was referring to market competition, knucklehead.
@@willnitschkeyes. And even with laws and a state in place, this competition ranges over companies becoming criminal to organized crime, which are economic units, which kill each other and do have wars against each other.
This isn't normal today but considered illegal. But when libertarians like Rand were succesful, the only thing, which changes, will be that such things become common practices.
@@ThomasVWorm I, and nobody else, have any idea what you're babbling about now. Please don't write comments when you're stoned.
What would Ayn say about Amazon? Or Walmart?
The fact that you named those two means there is no monopoly. Don't forget Costco, Target, eBay, etc.
Back in the '80's we were worried about the monopoly power of IBM. Then, in the '90's we were worried about the monopoly power of Microsoft. Now, we are worried about the monopoly power of Google. These things come and go. They are supplanted by new competitors. Their power is temporary. But a government-mandated monopoly is forever. Think about it: home electric power, the postal service, home natural gas, cable tv, garbage collection, landline phones, state ferries, water and sewer, drivers licenses... There is no escaping these monopolies. And their service deteriorates while their prices rise. But Google still has to provide a product that people want to buy. The real source of monopoly in our lives is government power.
@@AssaultSpeed I’m sorry I’m still a little confused. Is it that the government is not involved in those companies?
@@madlynx1818 when you have a mixed economy, the government is involved with everything, even individual lives. The key is to get the government out. That's what Ayn Rand is advocating, the government doesn't take any sides.
@@AssaultSpeed thank you again. I feel like I understand her position very well actually but I’m not great at expressing it all, if that makes any sense. And I want to be able to in conversation. What about things like the tariff situation with most notably China? Isn’t that some kind of subsidy? I believe everything that can be built and manufactured in the U.S. should be. Some say capitalism means that if China can produce it cheaper then American companies have the right to take advantage of that and that is capitalism. But China has a coercive and communist government. How can that be sorted out in a real free market system?
Also capitalists never die, she expl-
Imagine being that hateful of your superiors, the people who feed you... ugh.
Companies have a tendency to persuade governments to set up regulations etc to make it harder for competitors to enter the marketplace. A laissez-faire government would have to have mechanisms to resist such pressure.
So the problem is government, not Capitalism. Correct.
What you need is a government without the power to set up regulations. Which is the definition of a laissez-faire system.
@@Biologist19681 Depends what is meant by the word 'regulation'. Because if you just throw that word out there, you're saying nothing at all.
@@willnitschke not really. A regulation is a rule imposed by the government limiting the freedom of markets a priori. Regulations force businesses to do things that the government wants in the way that government wants.
Contrast this to laws which punish force and fraud, which is a legitimate function of government.
@@Biologist19681 Not really. A government rule might be there to protect private property rights, without which capitalism wouldn't function. That's why you can't just babble 'regulations!'. You need to be specific.
Rockefeller was undone by a light bulb.
Actually, it's by Texas oil fields that he failed to anticipate (he was invested heavily in Pennsylvania oil fields).
I think Ayn Randy’s argument here is incorrect. A business is a natural monopoly if its unit cost of production continues to fall with increasing production volume. This is typically the case for businesses which provide products via networks , I.e. telecommunications, electrical power, roads, water, gas. Essentially, the barrier to entry is extremely high for competitors after the network is built, because they require duplicated infrastructure to serve a very small market share. When network capacity constraints are reached, the unit cost of production begins to increase until it becomes economically feasible for competitors to enter the market - an example is radio spectrum bandwidth constraints in wireless telecommunications networks.
You repeated her point precisely. It is not a monopoly if anyone is free to enter the market to compete in the segment. But if a company can grow large enough to be substantially cheaper, better, quicker, than its competition that's to everyone's advantage. You are free to compete against the service/product, but until you can provide it better, faster, cheaper, good luck. Why would anyone want to force competition by limiting a company's ability to conduct business in a lawful manner. That would only drive prices up and quality down. If the government would let "too big to fail" companies fail, there would be much more competition and better products/services all around.
*Essentially, the barrier to entry is extremely high for competitors after the network is built, because they require duplicated infrastructure to serve a very small market share*
This is not a problem in a modern economy because of the vast quantity of 'venture capital' available to fund profitable projects, irrespective of size. (Basically you're typing economically illiterate nonsense.) If you are making huge profits, competitors will move in, even if the costs involve billions.
In the case of certain types of infrastructure, the government may disallow competition for various reasons, not all of which are necessarily unreasonable. However, this is once again a government imposing a monopoly, not the free market.
@@slode1693 The issue here is he assumes there are barriers to entry in a modern economy, when in fact there are none. Provided, that there is a good ROI on the project. The government "prints" so much money that we have the opposite problem now. Excess liquidity in markets, not lack of liquidity.
@@willnitschke my point was that natural monopolies exist in capitalist economies, but not because of capitalism.
Your point about the availability of venture capital for competitive infrastructure is irrelevant. Investors look at the return on capital, which is low for competitors of natural monopolies. That the proportion of fully duplicated networks is low ( water , electricity, roads ) is evidence this is correct. Natural monopolies usually attract some level of government regulation, in part because the very high barrier for competition allows these businesses to have very high profit margins. In some instances, regulation is used to separate the natural monopoly business into parts to introduce a level of competition, although this is not always effective.
@@slode1693 I thought Rand was making the case that free market capitalism did not allow monopolies to exist.
I am pointing out that natural monopolies do exist, and the reason they exist is independent of the market type they operate in.
The only coercive monopoly is the state.
Lmao monopolies are the end goal of capitalism 😂
Yeap, yet the US has 33 million businesses alone. Full credit to Marxists, who no matter how stupid the claim, never give up on it. 🤣
Capitalism is constant change, with new ideas, companies, constantly increasing and decreasing production in constantly changing markets. You want monopoly political control over production.
@@TeaParty1776 Capitalism is free trade and exchange with private property rights protections. It doesn't change. What changes is the type of economic organisation within liberal democracies.
Like coin, there are two sides to capitalism. One which views individuals primarily as individuals, each with their own agency and owning themselves. The other which views individuals primarily as parts of groups.
No the groups part is called 'Socialism' the exact opposite of Capitalism. 😂
Fyi, Adam Smith wrote another book called "The Theory Of Moral Sentiments" which is discussing the things you mentioned. It was less popular than his "The Wealth Of Nations", but Adam Smith considered it his best book.
@@willnitschke were the national socialists more capitalist or more socialist? socialism often uses capitalism as a tool to gain and maintain group/party power.
@@mustang607 The National Socialists were Collectivists, hence Socialists. Just because someone points out they were not Marxist, is meaningless. There are many versions of Socialism and Marxism is just one of those.
Right! Both Left and Right hate individualism. We have a philosophical problem. Americas founding culture was the Enlightenment, the ONLY basically individualist culture in history.
2:30 she misses the most important privilege in capitalism: ownership.
Ownership is an artificial legal constructs and does not exist in nature.
There are finite resources like land and in capitalism you can use ownership to extend what you do own. So you can own more and more land until you own all of it.
This is where the concentration of wealth in capitalism origins: ownership. Ownership increases your power. If others need access to what you own you can exploit them to make profits. The profits then are used to extend ownership - you can buy more than others.
To prevent this, you must erase the state, government and with it the legal system and as a result ownership.
But then you cannot have a market, because markets serve a single purpose: to transfer ownership between two parties.
Without ownership stealing is not stealing anymore but a normal transaction. So you don't need markets anymore.
BTW, working your entire life to accumulate 'assets' is not 'privilege'. Now I assume you think this is how the world works, because you live with parents and they pay for everything.
But remember, the real world is unconnected with Socialist Clown World.
By the same logic, rights don't exist 'in nature', too, right? 😆
@@exnihilonihilfit6316 absolutely. Cannibals will love to meet you.
"possession" is the natural state. I would agree "ownership" is an artificial legal construct to define possession. But it's still important. It was invented to control the non-violent transfer of possession. The law of supply and demand will always prevent one entity from possessing everything unless done so violently. And the only institution to ever (in "civilized" history) have legal authority to transfer possession violently is the government itself. So if you want to live in a "civilized world" this is very important.
@@slode1693 Supply and demand won't prevent one entity from owning everything. You will always "demand" food. Because of this you are in a weaker position towards those who own the means, which feed you. This will make you accept unfair deals. Unfair deals mean accumulation of property, because it creates a net flow to the more powerful party. It creates a rent seeker class. And it accumulates property for generations, because ownership can be transfered from one generation to the next one. This is practically the same as in feudalism.
Ownership is based on violence, because the government protects ownership with violence. So to create a new feudal class, the government must do only two things:
1. create ownership
2. create and support a market economy
Free market😂😂😂😂
This is badly outdated. Global corporations that own other corporations leads to monopolies. Corporations must be brought down to a smaller size and forbidden to own another corporation. Decentralized free market capitalism is what Rand failed to specify and propose a lawful solution. Fair and just laws make free market capitalism the greatest system of prosperity in history. Centralization creates economies of scale that become tyrannical for common people looking for work. I understand that big corps create thousands of jobs, but I think we could have 20% more jobs if global and national corporations were banned.
There are no monopolies, unless a government created one. You sound mentally deranged by your ideology, sorry.
Better, cheaper products are generally a good thing. But the problem I have with Voluntary Monopolies is that if I just don't like that company, for ANY reason, I may have no where else to go for that product or service.
THAT is a problem.
Same goes for government run industry tho--and worse, no other option is possible when gov't runs the show.
If you don't like a company you can compete with them and try taking away customers who feel as you do.
@@johnnynick3621 Yes of course.Anyone can just set up a company if they feel like it...🙄
@@GamB2007 Yes.... that is correct.... if you live in a free society.... anyone can just set up a company if they feel like it. The fact that you don't know how to do that is proof that those who do know how to do that deserve MORE than you.
@@johnnynick3621 😂 Yes of course. And as an ' individualist' it follows that you have the ability to decide what people unknown to you may or may not "deserve".
Large companies buy small competitors and that seems coercive
Those small competitors can refuse to be bought.
@@coggnus9656 but coercion is NOT part of the definition of a monopoly !
rand is a liar.
@@Stafus In a free market economy it’s impossible for anyone seller to hold exclusive possession or control over a single good or service indefinitely. Monopoly’s are only able to exist in mixed market economies or less where government threat of force is always a factor. I’m assuming you haven’t read her books.
@@coggnus9656 why would I read the books of a blatant liar who is wrong on everything ?
monopoly is 100% inevitable under pure capitalism, denial of that fact is utterly moronic.
@@Stafus Based on what? Do you really think pure capitalism was ever attempted?
Actually, they are happening, and that is why we need anti competitive practice laws. Look at the recent NAR and RealPage and other investigations and lawsuits.
What is happening?
Monopoly is anti logical.
A safe space for free market cultists, little to do with reality.
Says the Marxist nitwit living in his fantasy world. 😂
Your emotions are noted.
I like when I find good evidence for just how completely ignorant and ridiculous Ayn Rand and her ideas were. Standard Oil, AT&T, and American Tobacco are just a few examples of monopolies that had nothing to do with the Government and in fact needed the Sherman Antitrust laws to come about to dismantle. And even right now there are dozens of near- monopolies that skirt the edge on purpose just so they can avoid the anti-trust litigation.
Had nothing to do with government? Just the opposite. And, really goes to show the stupidity of government bureaucracy. The companies you named only achieved their size and dominance due to government interference in the economy. Then they feel forced to turn around and break them up when if they'd simply stayed out of it from the beginning no such action would've been required.
@@kenward1310 Spoken like a true believing mindless cult member, without a shred of evidence nor a single original thought of your own, just parrot the words of your prophet. It was because of ignoramuses believing that a market system would never allow for a monopoly that they sat idle while robber barons amassed grotesque amounts of wealth and power and forced the government to do their bidding, not the other way around. It took several brave and intelligent men to turn it around and realize that nothing left unfettered doesn't turn feral. They saved our economy from collapse and reversion to a neo-feudalist state as well as the complete dissolution of democracy itself.
@@PhokenKuul Standard Oil and American Tobacco were what Rand is referring to as "voluntary monopolies" in that they were so good at what they did they were able to sell superior products at far lower prices than their competitors, thereby enticing their competitors to either join them or try fighting against them. The public benefitted from their expertise with better quality products at lower prices.
AT&T was a government-created monopoly. It was illegal to compete against them. Anyone attempting to start a rival phone company was ordered to cease and desist. Because of this, AT&T charged very high prices. When the government finally allowed for free competition, prices on long-distance calls plummeted
Rand is absolutely correct. When someone has a huge market share because they offer a better product at lower prices... we, the public benefit.
Walmart, Microsoft, Amazon have all been called quasi-monopolies. They are not. They are just better at what they do than their competitors.
@@johnnynick3621 You are incorrect. All those businesses leverage the government in order to offer those products and services at lower prices or in captive markets. That is how they have managed to obtain such large market shares in the first place. The government has actually helped them become the leeches off society they are.
@@johnnynick3621 Uh no. A voluntary monopoly is a cartel, that is not at all what Standard Oil or American Tobacco were, that's pure bull. And proof that someone does something better than another is not in the fact that they BUY them out. Standard Oil didn't out compete anyone, they bought them out. And it was done with unethical practices such as predatory pricing and collusion as well as bribery. And no one benefited but Rockefeller. No one benefits from a lack or even a reduction in competition. That is simply wrong. Basic economic theory. Same story with American Tobacco. And AT&T struck a deal with the Gov't AFTER they were already a monopoly. They manipulated the government with their political might, NOT the other way around.
Dumbest thing she ever said...and she said a lot of dumb things
Seethe
You don't know anything about how a free market works.
I'm guessing that this comment is NOT the dumbest thing YOU ever said.... and that YOU have said a lot of dumb things.
you spend too much time on reddit
I didn't expect her to directly stand in such stark contrast to common sense.
Completely ridiculous! Because human consumption is limited, the formation of monopolies lead to an eventual fall in quality of goods in services. Competition is essential for a healthy and thriving economy. Our government knew this and for that reason passed antitrust laws. Ayn Rand's philosophical and economical ideas are very provincial and lack depth into the intricacies of the real world.
There are no monopolies, unless a government created one. You sound mentally deranged by your ideology, sorry.
Amti-trust is like the fake news law. It's arbitrary, and most of the time is violation of rightm
You ratiionalize your nihilist hatred of mans independent mind , the basic cause of production
For scientific frauds, competition is communism in which everyone is economically equal to everyone else. This is taught in university economics depts and was/is the basis of antitrust. Antitrust is anti-independent mind, not science. The 1848 Commie Manifesto became late 19th century Progressivism. That became the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act. Conservatives, with their virtually psychotic, self-willed stupidity, were the main Congressional advocates of this immoral 1890 attack on mans independent mind.
Absolutely. Libertarianism is a fantasy just like utopian socialism