I need to learn more about economics before I try to make up any more theories I tend to be far too much of an idealist, and unfortunately the world doesn’t work in ideals. After all “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” – James Madison

Thanks! I’m glad you liked the post. Hopefully I’m not too far off in my responses…

1. I suppose I should have qualified one thing about my whole viewpoint on this issue: it would only work under a just government. I fully agree that under our current legal system, there is at least some need for restrictions of the sort you discussed. As long as it is possible for a company with lots of many to out-lawyer a small business, or use illegitimate patents, this system would be impossible. The legal system should not favor those with large amounts of money, and if the laws are complicated enough that you need a team of lawyers to prosecute a case, the laws need to rewritten. Underselling is a legitimate concern, and I will say I haven’t entirely made up my mind about whether government should regulate it.
2. The real question is, should the people have the power to control large companies? Just because the majority wants something does not make it right, or automatically grant them the power to do it. Large businesses only need to be put in check when they actually harm others (through inhuman working conditions, etc.), and I would argue that private property rights prevent democracy from interfering at any other time.
3. I’m afraid I don’t quite understand how a government controlled monopoly is a net gain in justice, isn’t it unfair to any businesses that would like to compete with the monopoly?
4. Ok, granted, if the democracy actually works as such (rather than being an oligarchy as most are) it is different than feudalism at least in the fact that the monopolies are somewhat accountable to the people. But this doesn’t rule out the fact that it is still unjust to any private business owner who would like to try competing with the monopoly. Also, just because a business is accountable to the people doesn’t mean that its executive officers are going to be perfect, and a corporation tied to the government also has the power to force individuals to buy its products even if they don’t want or need them, a power private companies never possess.

Mark,

I haven’t entirely made up my mind, but I think that except in extreme cases (such as actually physically harming their workers, (IE: maiming or killing them), most abuses of workers can be handled by unions. This isn’t to say that some regulations – such as requiring that workers be payed with hard currency rather than company script – are always needed, but most regulations are unnecessary. However, once again, in order for this to work the government must not favor the companies over the workers, such as by not prosecuting them when they massacre their workers for going on strike. The state must also not be allowed to give precedence to workers over companies, especially through laws such as “union only shops”, which allow the workers to extort ridiculous benefits from companies, oftentimes driving them out of business.

Regulations such as child labor laws are particularly problematic, as the problems they attempted to combat would have been better handled by simply prosecuting factories when they blinded or killed their workers. Now that dangers like these are mostly eliminated, the child labor laws remain, preventing minors who are fully capable of working from doing so (just as Sprint did to you).

1. Socialists do not make mistakes about permanency. Actually, they perceive that tyranny is tyranny, whether the law gives power to the takers or to certain family lines. WalMart constitutes about 4% of the US GDP. If you get in an argument with them, you lose–they will out-spend and out lawyer you to death. If they want to buy up obscure patents and put people out of business or illegally undersell all local businesses at a loss to establish themselves, they can, and the government currently does not hold them accountable.
2. Socialists have a legitimate answer to capitalist power: make it accountable to the people. Democracy keeps the government in check. Why shouldn’t it keep other large powers in check?
3. Yes, regulation brings permanent monopolies. This is a net loss in efficiency, but a net gain in justice.
4. Socialism is different from feudalism if it is democratic. Instead of private property owned by lords and worked by serfs, socialism produces public property owned by elected officials and accountable to the people who work it.

I suppose you are right about the need for some government intervention in capitalism, although I think it should be kept to an absolute minimum (such as preventing extortion or price-fixing). In general, I think the ability of most companies to create unfair competition actually stems from government intervention, such as the telecom monopolies. “Fair” competition doesn’t necessarily mean “equal” competition, and making it so would require handicapping successful business owners to give others a chance, which obviously isn’t fair.

Its only when competition is hindered in some way that businesses are able to compete unfairly. Even if a company is extremely well established, if it begins to become corrupt and treat its customers badly, another smaller company can still compete with it. “Competition” isn’t always needed, even under capitalism. Its only required when a business tries to increase its prices too high or act unethically.

Plus, without government intervention in private sector, it might be very difficult for small businesses to rise up and actually displace existing ones. The existing large company can use their money and large area to compete unfairly with the new small company, thus preventing the new company from rising up at all. This is why the government specifically gets involved in the free market to allow more fair competition.

So basically capitalism is really no better off than socialism, in terms of treating the individual man better. Also, a purely capitalistic economy would not be really any better than a socialistic economy. Rather we need a capitalistic economy with government intervention, when needed to promote competition, as this preserves the good of capitalism.