Reply #136: Whoa! Quite a lot there...

[Tommythegun]

Lemme see:

First, how did Microsoft including its browser prevent anyone from using Netscape? Last I remember, I could install and run Navigator fine on Windows. My Chevy game with a Delco radio. GM owns Delco. Does that mean Delphi should sue for anti-trust?

Second, it is interest that you note: "advanced societies stopped using child labor because it BECAME (emphasis added) unethical to most people..." When, and why did it BECOME unethical when it was not before? Child labor existed long before industrial capitalism. Children were a source of labor for the family during pre-industrial in agricultural and pastoral settings, whether on smallholdings or on estates. Remember that summer break from school originated with the need of child labor on the farm over the summer. This habit held over when the farm families moved into cities to work in factories. I'm not arguing that people didn't regard child labor as unethical and certainly it is, or at least, we consider it to be today. What I AM saying is that the economic rationale for child labor had to recede before it could be considered unethical and THAT happened when workers in the economy needed to develop more skills through schooling before they entered the workforce.

Aside from that, the children, in some cases, are still working even in the 'advanced' societies, whatever laws may exist. If you doubt this, go to California's Imperial Valley or Florida's orange groves.

Finally, the claim that unrestricted capitalism leads to monopolies and widespread poverty: where is the evidence of monopolies? If capitalism led invariably to monopoly, then I would expect more intervention by government. I would expect more anti-trust suits and actions against mergers.

More on that point, I started this topic arguing that government being wrapped up with business led to something worse than business exercising power on its own. Look at the entertainment industry. It survives pretty much solely on grant-of-privelege and rent-seeking from Congress. It (the recording labels and movie studios) act in very anti-competitive and oligarchic ways yet seem to have little to fear from anti-trust actions. The government acts more like a business agent for this industry than a regulator. Again, how is this better?

Finally, I never advocated no government. That would indeed make me an anarchist and business, of any sort, must rely on some sort of rule of law to enforce contracts and standards in the economy (like the money supply, etc). I merely feel that government ought to act only as a neutral arbiter, and not expand in such a way that it acts as it does to favor or punish one sector of the economy or another.