nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/31/84)
#R:ea:2054964996:inmet:7800147:000:1094 inmet!nrh Oct 29 23:35:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / dciem!ul / 10:06 am Oct 29, 1984 > >He never said "personal income tax". If I remember my US history, one >of the first things President Washington had to do was quash a rebellion >over payment of taxes on Corn Liquor or some such. The US has, like >all other social groups, NEVER got along without taxes. >-- > >Martin Taylor >---------- You're probably thinking of the "whiskey rebellion". How do you define a social group? I'm told (is this still true?) that Monaco has no taxes (I'm told it supports government activity by a casino and by fees for services), and that no taxes existed in Medieval Ireland (which was composed of groups of about 80) and Iceland (which had no central King or government) -- I give here as reference for these last two, a speech by economist David Friedman listing them as "essentially libertarian societies" at the libertarian Nominating convention some months ago. Thanks a lot for the sweeping generalization, Martin, but I don't recall hearing authoritatively that that one must be stolen from to exist, even in groups.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/01/84)
#R:ea:2054964996:inmet:7800149:000:3534 inmet!nrh Oct 30 13:39:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 3:52 pm Oct 29, 1984 >>> Now, if you deny the government's power to collect taxes from you, you >>> are denying the importance of this function of government. If a government >>> cannot tax the people to carry out its functions, it loses all of its >>> power. Before you can justify not paying taxes, you should try to first >>> argue that we could get along without any form of government, and I don't >>> think you will have much success. >>> >>> Wayne >> >> In that case, Wayne, however did the U.S. Government survive in >> the 130 years or so *before* it had a personal income tax!?! > >It made money through other taxes. Are you going to claim that it is ok >to tax property, but not income? **WHOA!** Your implication is that the "other taxes" were property taxes, not port fees and service fees. I wasn't aware of any time when the US had a nationwide property tax. Some support for this implication, some facts, please. >I'd be interested in seeing the reasoning >behind this. But the fact is that government has come to be responsible >for a great deal more now than it was in the 1920's, and whether or not >we should have income tax depends upon whether you can show that we would be >better off without these things. Not quite: whether these things should be done depends on whether you can show that we would be better off without these things *AND THEIR COSTS*. > >> Arguing that tax collection is a function of government sounds >> pretty odd to me - taking your money is a function of a robber, >> but I've never seen that used as an argument that robbers are >> good things. > >You people sound like a broken record sometimes. Can't you think of any >more interesting analogies to make than "Government taxation is theft"? >If you define theft as "taking money from people without their consent", I don't define things that way, the dictionary does. Look it up, and stop trying to draw a distinction that isn't there. >then the argument will have to become, "Is government theft a good thing?", >or, "Are we better off having government stealing our money?" I think so, >but using this sort of language is sort of misleading. (You can call taxation >theft, but I will use the term "paranoid anti-social spoiled children" to >refer to libertarians.) You want to label us paranoid -- somebody else tried the use of the word "psychotic". Grab those dictionaries! We're not against SOCIETY -- we're against an overblown government. I've submitted the dictionary definition of theft -- care to back up your accusation with the definitions of "paranoid", "anti-social", "spoiled" and "children", and show how they apply to anti-big-government folks? > >The whole problem, though, is that libertarians think that individual >liberty is the highest good, and I think that a better society is the >highest good. (Although certainly not in the manner of Ellsworth Toohey.) >You can take your pick -- all I want to argue is that if you accept that >society is more important than absolute liberty for the individual, the >sort of government I am advocating is the best. You seem to be ignoring the possibility that we believe that society would be better off if its members were free. Remember -- libertarians in general believe that almost everyone in a free society would be better off than if the society were not free. Of course, politicians would have a worse time of it, and so, probably would doctors, and lawyers -- but I could live with this.
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/02/84)
> >The whole problem, though, is that libertarians think that individual > >liberty is the highest good, and I think that a better society is the > >highest good. (Although certainly not in the manner of Ellsworth Toohey.) > >You can take your pick -- all I want to argue is that if you accept that > >society is more important than absolute liberty for the individual, the > >sort of government I am advocating is the best. > > You seem to be ignoring the possibility that we believe that society > would be better off if its members were free. Remember -- > libertarians in general believe that almost everyone in a free > society would be better off than if the society were not free. I remember a posting a while ago that said "Even if a worse society would result, libertarians still believe that absolute freedom is the most important thing". Obviously you aren't this sort of libertarian. If you can argue in a rational manner that complete freedom would work for the benefit of society, I'd like to see your arguments, because I haven't seen many arguments like this on the net. Almost everybody who has been arguing for libertarianism has been taking absolute freedom as an end in itself, which is an assumption that I can't accept. Wayne
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/06/84)
#R:ucbcad:-276100:inmet:7800158:000:5154 inmet!nrh Nov 4 15:52:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 7:40 am Nov 3, 1984 >> >The whole problem, though, is that libertarians think that individual >> >liberty is the highest good, and I think that a better society is the >> >highest good. (Although certainly not in the manner of Ellsworth Toohey.) >> >You can take your pick -- all I want to argue is that if you accept that >> >society is more important than absolute liberty for the individual, the >> >sort of government I am advocating is the best. >> >> You seem to be ignoring the possibility that we believe that society >> would be better off if its members were free. Remember -- >> libertarians in general believe that almost everyone in a free >> society would be better off than if the society were not free. > >I remember a posting a while ago that said "Even if a worse society would >result, libertarians still believe that absolute freedom is the most >important thing". Obviously you aren't this sort of libertarian. If you >can argue in a rational manner that complete freedom would work for the >benefit of society, I'd like to see your arguments, because I haven't >seen many arguments like this on the net. Almost everybody who has been >arguing for libertarianism has been taking absolute freedom as an end >in itself, which is an assumption that I can't accept. > > Wayne >---------- > Actually, I AM that sort of libertarian -- I think the right of everyone to go to hell in their own way is one of the fundemental human rights. On the other hand, I happen to believe that society as a whole would work out better (more people would be happier) given a policiy of maximum human liberty. Why? That's a topic for several books. My favorite, which I've quoted a lot is "The Machinery of Freedom", by David Friedman. One which addresses the subject more directly, but which I've never read all the way through is "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" by (I think) Robert Van Nozick. As for the basis of my own feelings on the subject, it falls out of a few sub-beliefs: 1. Utopia is NOT an option. 2. There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. 3. People know what they want better than any group of planners. 4. Power corrupts, either by attrition (the people with power become corrupt) or by attraction (corrupt people attempt to gain that power). 5. Good intentions have no more impact on the wisdom of a particular (legislative) law than they do on the formulation of a law of physics. Put another way, it is VERY easy (given coercive power) to do evil while trying to do good. 6. In a free market, only transactions desired by both parties to the transaction will take place. (This is a surprisingly deep concept, consider that it means that the whole structure of a free market will be determined, not by ideals, or designs of what people should be like, but what people ARE like -- what they desire and what they produce). 7. Private property is a moral concept. This list is certainly not exhaustive, but it helps to make the underpinnings clear. I do not know what would happen if we had "complete freedom." I'm not even sure the concept is meaningful. I believe (as my ethics instructor in high school put it) that "my freedom stops at your nose". As to why we'd be better off, consider number 6, above. A market represents the needs and the productivity of its participants. Not what someone thinks they should be like, but what they think they are like. Governments in general are at least one layer removed from this, and generally several - they act on models of what they think people will want. Because of this, governments reflect only imperfectly the desires of their constituents. Given that a government does exist, if it wields power it will become corrupt. Unlike (say) a corrupt insurance corporation, it will not be destroyed by market competition with its (presumably less corrupt) competitors. Once corrupt, it will grow, if it can, in order to extend its power. There are equilibrium forces, in a republic -- the government dare not offend enough to lose the popular vote. In a totalitarian society, it must avoid revolution. These strictures are so much less rigorous than the market forces that dictate moral behavior there that they allow for free play by the power-hungry, compared to what their scope would be in a private firm. Governments will claim to be doing what they do for the good of the people. The problem is that governments understand that good less well than the people involved. A truly beneficent government would be economically redundant (the market already assures that mutually agreeable trades will happen) and depending on what power the government owned, it would become a festering roost for the power-hungry (those who could not become powerful in a market because they don't serve human desires could become powerful in a government because they may oppress). I suspect this is what has happened to the relatively small government in the US. I'm a little pushed for time, so I'll leave you with that, and the suggestion that you try getting hold of "The Machinery of Freedom".
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/08/84)
> 3. People know what they want better than any group of planners. When it comes to politics, that's not true. Maybe they know what kind of dishwashing detergent they like, but when it comes to things like foreign policy, environmental protection, economics, etc, they don't. (Or at least they don't know how to get what they want). > 4. Power corrupts, either by attrition (the people with power become > corrupt) or by attraction (corrupt people attempt to gain that > power). True, but the problem is, what system is least corruptable? In a system where the government didn't have most of the power then a few strong individuals would eventually get it all, and they would probably be more corruptable than the government we have now. > 6. In a free market, only transactions desired by both parties to the > transaction will take place. (This is a surprisingly deep concept, > consider that it means that the whole structure of a free market will > be determined, not by ideals, or designs of what people should be like, > but what people ARE like -- what they desire and what they produce). That doesn't necessarily mean that a completely free market will work very well. Look at what happened in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when markets simply became too big for complete freedom to be a viable policy. There were massive depressions and crashes, because of the lack of control of the economy by the government. (I shouldn't talk about economics though, because I really don't understand it...) > 7. Private property is a moral concept. I doubt that you can argue that there are any objective moral concepts at all, but assuming that you mean that private property holds a status in Western culture similar to that held by rights to live, etc. I would agreee with you. I will also agree that it is a very useful concept, and any infringements upon it have to be for a very good reason. > Given that a government does exist, if it wields power it will become corrupt. > Unlike (say) a corrupt insurance corporation, it will not be destroyed by > market competition with its (presumably less corrupt) competitors. > Once corrupt, it will grow, if it can, in order to extend its power. The sort of corruption that occurs in private enterprise is not the sort that makes them less competitive, it is things like bombing their competitors and establishing monopolies, which makes them more competitive. And I really don't see what sort of government corruption you are talking about. It really doesn't need to extend its power, but rather avoid detection (things like embezzelment and graft). > There are equilibrium forces, in a republic -- the government dare not > offend enough to lose the popular vote. In a totalitarian society, it > must avoid revolution. These strictures are so much less rigorous than > the market forces that dictate moral behavior there that they allow for > free play by the power-hungry, compared to what their scope would be in > a private firm. What do you mean? I don't see how that follows. Why should a lack of power hungry individuals in a private firm make it more likely to succeed? > Governments will claim to be doing what they do for the good of the people. > The problem is that governments understand that good less well than the people > involved. A truly beneficent government would be economically redundant > (the market already assures that mutually agreeable trades will happen) > and depending on what power the government owned, it would become a > festering roost for the power-hungry (those who could not become powerful > in a market because they don't serve human desires could become powerful > in a government because they may oppress). In a free market, things aren't always as idyllic as you suppose. You can make an awful lot more money in the private sector than in government, and I suspect that government really doesn't attract those people who want power the most. In a completely free market, life would be nasty, brutish, and short (except for the most ruthless, who establish monopolies and get incredibly rich). > I suspect this is what has happened to the relatively small government > in the US. I think that the U. S. Government has grown simply because people want more from it. They want welfare, defense, regulation, education, and so on, and it has expaneded to provide these things. Of course, a good percentage of its expansion is probably just plain fat... Wayne
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/11/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / dciem!ul / 3:12 pm Oct 30, 1984 >In writing my B.A.Sc. essay I cam across a very interesting >paper by S. Bagno "The Communication Theory and Economics" IRE Convention >Record, 1955. He identified money transfer with a complex network of >information channels, which leads to a large number of interesting >economic predictions that don't seem to be obtainable in more orthodox >ways. Be that as it may; in the course of this article (which I can't >find, so I'm relying on memory) he identified one NECESSARY function >of government as the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor. In >the Dark Ages and perhaps the Middle Ages, there were no governments >to perform this function, and their place was in fact taken by robbers >and robber bands. If there is any truth to this approach to economics, >SOMEONE has to function as a robber, if the economy is to continue >in a stable fashion. The argument is complex, and may be wrong, but >it is interesting to contemplate, nevertheless. >-- Naturally, I'm fascinated. To what extent must the transfer be involuntary? Can charititable agencies do the job, or is a certain component of threat ("your money or your life") required by the theory? Must the transfer be from the rich, or may it be merely from the middle class? What bad effects (the economy becomes unstable) preceede the instability? Can the rich, perceiving this, do something about it (as individuals, not as a government). I didn't understand the acronym "IRE" (talk about your acrimonious acronyms :-)) -- would that be enough to give a reference librarian helping me find the paper? Any idea whether Bagno's ideas have been refuted or supported? Thanks - Nat Howard
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/15/84)
#R:ucbcad:-277800:inmet:7800178:000:11400 inmet!nrh Nov 13 15:42:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 12:32 am Nov 8, 1984 >> 3. People know what they want better than any group of planners. > > When it comes to politics, that's not true. Maybe they know what > kind of dishwashing detergent they like, but when it comes to > things like foreign policy, environmental protection, economics, > etc, they don't. (Or at least they don't know how to get what they > want). Oh yeah? Let's leave aside foreign policy -- if you have a strong enough government to require one, of COURSE you're in trouble already. As for "economics", the fact that "economics" happens in a market without explicit control is enough for me -- you don't need to have "decided" in advance, or by a few, as you would with foreign policy. Environmental protection -- under 19th century "nuisance" laws, individuals were able to sue other for polluting. You may, of course, thank politics (and a government already attempting to attack property) for this: .... For if some of the modern pollutants have only recently become known, factory smoke and many of its bad effects have been known ever since the Industrial Revolution, known to the extent that the American courts, during the late -- and as far back as the early -- nineteenth century made the deliberate decision to allow property rights to be violated by industrial smoke. To do so, the courts had to -- and did -- systematically change and weaken the defenses of property right embedded in Anglo-Saxon common law. Before the mid and late nineteenth century, any injurious air pollution was considered a tort, a nuisance against which the victim could sue for damages and against which he could take out an injunction to cease and desist from any further invasion of property his property rights. [ Murray Rothbard, "For a New Liberty", pg 257.] >> 4. Power corrupts, either by attrition (the people with power become >> corrupt) or by attraction (corrupt people attempt to gain that >> power). > > True, but the problem is, what system is least corruptable? In a > system where the government didn't have most of the power then > a few strong individuals would eventually get it all, and they > would probably be more corruptable than the government we have now. No, Wayne. (I note in passing your curious phrase: "where the government didn't have most of the power") In a system where the government cannot be used by the rich to keep the poor from becoming rich, economic power tends to spread out. I'd love to hear the basis you have for believing that a few strong individuals would get it all. > >> 6. In a free market, only transactions desired by both parties to the >> transaction will take place. (This is a surprisingly deep concept, >> consider that it means that the whole structure of a free market will >> be determined, not by ideals, or designs of what people should be like, >> but what people ARE like -- what they desire and what they produce). > > That doesn't necessarily mean that a completely free market > will work very well. Look at what happened in the late 19th and > early 20th centuries, when markets simply became too big for > complete freedom to be a viable policy. There were massive > depressions and crashes, because of the lack of control of the > economy by the government. (I shouldn't talk about economics > though, because I really don't understand it...) You shouldn't talk about history, either, if you don't understand it, or even have a handle on it: The "massive" depressions you speak of were quite mild compared to the great depression of 1929, were they not? I suppose you think the great depression the result of "unbridled capitalism"? The result perhaps (dripping sarcasm, here) of "the lack of control of the economy by the government"? A (not very) few words by Milton & Rose Friedman ("Free to Choose", chapter 3) on the subject: How can a panic be stopped once it is under way, or better yet, how can it be prevented from starting? One way to stop a panic is the method adopted in 1907: a concerted restriction of payments by the banks..... After the war the [Federal Reserve] System continued to increase the quantity of money rapidly.... Belatedly the system discovered its mistake .... plunging the country into the sharp but short depression of 1920-21..... These depressing effects of the stock market crash were strongly reinforced by the subsequent behavior of the Federal Reserve System.... The combined effect of the aftermath of the stock market crash and the slow decline in the quantity of money during 1930 was a rather severe recession. Even if the recession had come to an end in late 1930 or early 1931 as it might well have done if a monetary collapse had not occurred, it would have ranked as one of the most severe recessions on record. But the worst was yet to come.... [ discussion here of the Fed allowing the "Bank of the United States", a private bank in New York owned by Jews, to fail] Had the federal Reserve System never been established and had a similar series of runs started, there is little doubt that the same measures would have been taken as in 1907 -- a restriction of payments. That would have been more drastic than what actually occurred in the final months of 1930. However, by preventing the draining of reserves from good banks, restriction would almost certainly have prevented the subsequent series of bank failures in 1931, 1932, and 1933, just as restriction in 1907 quickly halted bank failures then. Indeed, the Bank of the United States itself might have been able to reopen, as the Knickerbocker Trust Company had in 1908. The panic over, confidence restored, economic recovery would have very likely have begun in 1931, just as it had in early 1908. [Description here of other, repeated weird things the Fed did to the money supply in the face of later banking crises in the '30s. The zigged, repeatedly, when they should have zagged]. One ironic result of the perverse monetary policy of the Federal Reserved board.... was a complete victory for the Board against both New York and the other Federal Reserve Banks in the struggle for power. The myth that private enterprise, including the private banking system, had failed and that government needed more power to counteract the alleged inherent instability of the free market, meant that the system's failure produced a political environment favorable to giving the Board a greater control over the regional banks. >> Given that a government does exist, if it wields power it will become corrupt. >> Unlike (say) a corrupt insurance corporation, it will not be destroyed by >> market competition with its (presumably less corrupt) competitors. >> Once corrupt, it will grow, if it can, in order to extend its power. > > The sort of corruption that occurs in private enterprise is not > the sort that makes them less competitive, it is things like > bombing their competitors and establishing monopolies, which > makes them more competitive. This is MOST interesting. The notion that government is the only way to prevent bombings is one that I suggest you argue with Pinkerton. As for "establishing monopolies", this is an interesting point, handled below. >> There are equilibrium forces, in a republic -- the government dare not >> offend enough to lose the popular vote. In a totalitarian society, it >> must avoid revolution. These strictures are so much less rigorous than >> the market forces that dictate moral behavior there that they allow for >> free play by the power-hungry, compared to what their scope would be in >> a private firm. > > What do you mean? I don't see how that follows. Why should a lack > of power hungry individuals in a private firm make it more > likely to succeed? > The individuals may be as power-hungry as they like, but as long as they must CONVINCE people to deal with them without the use of force or fraud, the power hungry remain hungry. Once in a government, particularly in the taxing part of the government, the power-hungry may act out their little desires on the heads of the people being taxed. American Express executives, for example, must be far more restrained in how they treat even the worst deadbeats. American Express can be sued for damages -- the government, except if it wants to be sued, may not be sued. >> Governments will claim to be doing what they do for the good of the people. >> The problem is that governments understand that good less well than the people >> involved. A truly beneficent government would be economically redundant >> (the market already assures that mutually agreeable trades will happen) >> and depending on what power the government owned, it would become a >> festering roost for the power-hungry (those who could not become powerful >> in a market because they don't serve human desires could become powerful >> in a government because they may oppress). > > In a free market, things aren't always as idyllic as you suppose. I do not suppose them to be idyllic -- merely free. > You can make an awful lot more money in the private sector than > in government, Not so. One makes the most money being closely associated with the government, though not on the government payroll, I admit: The largest owners of land were the emperors, the relatives of emperors, and the intimate associates of emperors. Livia, wife of Augustus and mother of Tiberius, became the largest property holder in the Roman Empire. It is said that in terms of acreage owned, she was the largest private landowner in the history of the world. [ Max Shapiro, "The Penniless Billionaires" pg 50] A little more recently, Hugo Stinnes assembled the largest industrial conglomerate in history. He did it with the collusion of the 1920's German government, which supplied him with low-interest loans (actually, its more complex than that, but it's what happened) during a period of hyperinflation. In the last nine months of 1923, the Stinnes concern made a PROFIT of over 428 QUADRILLION marks. His PERSONAL estate was estimated to be over $1 billion in 1923 (about 4 octillion marks). He was a member of the Reichstag. > In a completely > free market, life would be nasty, brutish, and short You're confusing "state of nature" with "free market". > (except > for the most ruthless, who establish monopolies and get incredibly > rich). Now this is a very often held, but quite puzzling idea. Certainly if one COULD establish a monopoly, one would. BUT -- find one. One NOT backed by government, regulated by government, encouraged by government. One that stays around for a long time. Let me know if you find one. I'm still looking. In the meantime, concede the monopoly point -- there's almost no indication that they are stable short of government intervention. For backing, see "Machinery of Freedom", by David Friedman. I'm also trying to get hold of a book called "Uncle Sam the Monopoly Man", but I haven't read it. To anticipate you: The phone company is not a natural monopoly, and was facing severe competition when it formed (you'll find reference for this in a Time magazine article written about the Bell breakup at about the time the breakup took effect).
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/16/84)
> Let's leave aside foreign policy -- if you have a strong enough > government to require one, of COURSE you're in trouble already. > As for "economics", the fact that "economics" happens in a market > without explicit control is enough for me -- you don't need to have > "decided" in advance, or by a few, as you would with foreign policy. As I have said, I don't want to get into a big argument about the merits or lassiez-faire economics, but your arguments don't make much sense. Sure, economics happens all the time, but the question is whether it happens in the way we want it to happen. I also don't think that your comments on foreign policy are terribly well thought-out. >>> 4. Power corrupts, either by attrition (the people with power become >>> corrupt) or by attraction (corrupt people attempt to gain that >>> power). >> >> True, but the problem is, what system is least corruptable? In a >> system where the government didn't have most of the power then >> a few strong individuals would eventually get it all, and they >> would probably be more corruptable than the government we have now. > > No, Wayne. (I note in passing your curious phrase: "where the > government didn't have most of the power") In a system where the > government cannot be used by the rich to keep the poor from becoming > rich, economic power tends to spread out. I'd love to hear the basis you have > for believing that a few strong individuals would get it all. In the late 19th century, the government excercised very little control over the economy, and a few people got all the money. This happened all throughout the Industrial Revolution, and only ended when the government took an active part in regulating the economy and private enterprise. > This is MOST interesting. The notion that government is the only way > to prevent bombings is one that I suggest you argue with Pinkerton. Oh, you are advocating private armies to protect businesses. It is a very short step from protection to active harassment of competitors, and before long you have a small private war on your hands. > > You can make an awful lot more money in the private sector than > > in government, > > Not so. One makes the most money being closely associated with the > government, though not on the government payroll, I admit: > > The largest owners of land were the emperors, the relatives of > emperors, and the intimate associates of emperors. > Livia, wife of Augustus and mother of Tiberius, became the > largest property holder in the Roman Empire. It is said that in > terms of acreage owned, she was the largest private landowner in > the history of the world. > [ Max Shapiro, > "The Penniless Billionaires" > pg 50] > A little more recently, Hugo Stinnes assembled the largest industrial > conglomerate in history. He did it with the collusion of the 1920's > German government, which supplied him with low-interest loans > (actually, its more complex than that, but it's what happened) > during a period of hyperinflation. In the last > nine months of 1923, the Stinnes concern made a PROFIT of over > 428 QUADRILLION marks. His PERSONAL estate was estimated to be > over $1 billion in 1923 (about 4 octillion marks). He was > a member of the Reichstag. Please give contemporary examples of American millionaires getting rich through the government, please. > > In a completely > > free market, life would be nasty, brutish, and short > > You're confusing "state of nature" with "free market". Is there a difference? > > (except > > for the most ruthless, who establish monopolies and get incredibly > > rich). > > Now this is a very often held, but quite puzzling idea. Certainly > if one COULD establish a monopoly, one would. BUT -- find one. One > NOT backed by government, regulated by government, encouraged by > government. One that stays around for a long time. > > Let me know if you find one. I'm still looking. In the meantime, > concede the monopoly point -- there's almost no indication that they > are stable short of government intervention. For backing, see > "Machinery of Freedom", by David Friedman. I'm also trying to > get hold of a book called "Uncle Sam the Monopoly Man", but > I haven't read it. > To anticipate you: The phone company is not a natural monopoly, and was > facing severe competition when it formed (you'll find reference for this > in a Time magazine article written about the Bell breakup at about the > time the breakup took effect). During the Industrial Revolution, again, there were numerous monopolies that disappeared only when the government passed anti-trust laws. Now the government does support some monopolies, like the Postal Service, and I will agree with you that it should stop this. But without government intervention, monopolies are inevitable. Wayne