Coercive monopolies outside of the state… well, for starters… Microsoft. And Apple has been going that route with their efforts to keep independantly produced apps off their iPads. Or cable service providers. As for collaborative monopolies, some years ago there was quite a scandal about cereal manufacturers such as Kellog’s and Post and the gradual increasing of prices until sugary breakfast cereals were more expensive than steak. (and I’m not surprised if none of you remember that, since forumites here tend to avoid high fructose corn syrup laden foods)[/quote]
Microsoft? How are they not outside the state?
Yes, the government does subsidize Microsoft directly, they do allow for Microsoft to hoard knowledge and to prevent people to use some knowledge through patents.
However, this was a question regarding inequal situations of all sorts, not just coercive monopolies. All sorts of inequalities caused by the disparity of wealth, including flouncing the rule of law with violence(try googling “Coca Cola assassinate union leaders” and see what you get). All of these things create a polarization, preventing the hard working poor from becoming wealthy (and there’s no reason why we can’t all be rich as hell. Especially when even the poorest forumite here enjoys luxuries that kings of europe would never have imagined centuries ago). The question is simple: how much regulation is required to assure a genuinely free market?[/quote]
When talking about unequal situations, you have to explain your point of view. Are you looking at it from the state or the citizen (law or economic). We’ll address each individually, first the state.
In America no one is equal, not even from the government point of view. With Rule of Law, the government has strayed from Rule of Law. Regulations are inherently a violation of Rule of Law, because they do not apply to everyone. Regulating a industry is telling a group of people that they cannot do what they wish with what they own, and when it comes to the State that is a violation of Rule of Law, and also making people unequal.
Further on the State, if it were to make everyone equal, it would first have to make everyone unequal to the State, as the State have the power and others do not, second they would not treat others equal because if one person is a businessman from the school of hard knocks who has the knowledge and ability to make a billion dollars a year for his business (Carnegie), and the other person the businessman is being made equal to is someone, is an idolater and of very little knowledge and ability, then they can by no means be treated equal. Even if from they from the external point of view look equal, they are not equal in ability, need, or want. And, they are definitely not treated equal. The businessman is being kept down, the other is being brought up, both not based on their ability but by the States opinion of their needs, which may actually not be correct of the individuals needs.
From the citizen’s point of view, if the Rule of Law is held they of course will not be equal economically, but they will be equal when it comes to the law. Therefore, the responsibility is held by the individual and not the State. Simple as that, I would rather not be equal to my neighbor, but treated equal with tolerance. If I choose to make a fortune for myself, then I can. Under regulation it now treats me either as a privileged person or an unprivileged person. I either am allowed to do something by the State, or I am not. And, as I said, with Rule of Law, or private law that is not the case. I may be halted from doing something, but so is everyone else.
So, I’ll restate what I said before, no regulation from the State is needed.