Javier Milei: Attacking Socialism & Defending Monopolists?
Having taken the time to research and cover (in this substack essay) the CV and anarcho-capitalist logic of Argentine President (and economist) Javier Milei, I was familiar with most of the points made during his speech at the WEF earlier this week.
However, his comments supporting monopolies were new to me, and have been nagging at me ever since.
What is a Monopoly?
A monopoly is a situation in which a single company has complete control over the market for a particular product or service. This means that the company is the only player in the market and has no competition. As a result, the company can control prices, limit supply, and exert significant power over consumers.
How do Monopolies Form?
Monopolies typically form when there are significant barriers to entry into a market. These barriers can include high start-up costs, regulatory requirements, or patents that protect a company’s intellectual property.
In many cases, existing companies may also engage in anti-competitive practices, such as price dumping, predatory pricing, or other tactics designed to push out potential competitors.
What do the US Constitution and Founding Fathers teach about Monopolies?
The US founding fathers expressed strong concerns about monopolies, and considered them detrimental to freedom and innovation. Thomas Jefferson, in 1787, wrote to James Madison expressing his dislike for the omission of a “restriction against monopolies” from the Bill of Rights.
He emphasized the “wretched spirit of monopolies,” and Madison also called monopolies “among the greatest nuisances in Government.” The founders’ aversion to monopolies led to the inclusion of the right to be free from government-granted monopolies in the Constitution.
For further information on the aversion to government-granted monopolies of the founding fathers, please see the following:
“Monopolies and the Constitution: A History of Crony Capitalism” Steven G. Calabresi
The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Julian P. Boyd et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. CHAPTER 14|Document 46. Thomas Jefferson to James Madison. 31 July 1788 Papers 13:442–43
I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our new constitution by nine states. It is a good canvas, on which some strokes only want retouching. What these are, I think are sufficiently manifested by the general voice from North to South, which calls for a bill of rights.
It seems pretty generally understood that this should go to Juries, Habeas corpus, Standing armies, Printing, Religion and Monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty in finding general modification of these suited to the habits of all the states.
But if such cannot be found then it is better to establish trials by jury, the right of Habeas corpus, freedom of the press and freedom of religion in all cases, and to abolish standing armies in time of peace, and Monopolies, in all cases, than not to do it in any.
The few cases wherein these things may do evil, cannot be weighed against the multitude wherein the want of them will do evil. In disputes between a foreigner and a native, a trial by jury may be improper.
But if this exception cannot be agreed to, the remedy will be to model the jury by giving the medietas linguae in civil as well as criminal cases. Why suspend the Hab. corp. in insurrections and rebellions?
The parties who may be arrested may be charged instantly with a well defined crime. Of course the judge will remand them. If the publick safety requires that the government should have a man imprisoned on less probable testimony in those than in other emergencies; let him be taken and tried, retaken and retried, while the necessity continues, only giving him redress against the government for damages.
Examine the history of England: see how few of the cases of the suspension of the Habeas corpus law have been worthy of that suspension. They have been either real treasons wherein the parties might as well have been charged at once, or sham-plots where it was shameful they should ever have been suspected.
Yet for the few cases wherein the suspension of the hab. corp. has done real good, that operation is now become habitual, and the minds of the nation almost prepared to live under it’s constant suspension.
A declaration that the federal government will never restrain the presses from printing any thing they please, will not take away the liability of the printers for false facts printed. The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished, does not give impunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error.
The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14. years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression.
If no check can be found to keep the number of standing troops within safe bounds, while they are tolerated as far as necessary, abandon them altogether, discipline well the militia, and guard the magazines with them.
More than magazine-guards will be useless if few, and dangerous if many. No European nation can ever send against us such a regular army as we need fear, and it is hard if our militia are not equal to those of Canada or Florida.
My idea o grtthen is, that tho’ proper exceptions to these general rules are desirable and probably practicable, yet if the exceptions cannot be agreed on, the establishment of the rules in all cases will do ill in very few.
I hope therefore a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government, as they are already guarded against their state governments in most instances.
Despite this fundamental position, the Constitution does direct the US Federal government to grant limited monopolies relating to patents and copyrights, in order to promote innovation.
This is codified in U.S. Constitution Article I Section 8 | Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
See more here substack.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Iris
| #
The goal of educational indoctrination is to crush creativity and prepare students to become employees rather than vibrant entrepreneurs:
John Taylor Gatto – A Short Angry History Of Modern Schooling
“A former New York teacher of the year, Gatto is probably the most interesting writer/speaker on education today. He shows that our bureaucratic schools and our bureaucratic society just get in the way of learning. He often contrasts modern America with 19th century America, where family, work, and democratic self-government let people educate themselves. His knowledge of the key players in the history of education is unparalleled.”
Reply
J Cuttance
| #
Dr Malone, I doubt you heard Milei voice support for monopolies. Ancap papers generally recognise the importance of competition, but resist ‘lawfare’ against monopolies. They suggest monopolies, in fact, struggle to stay monopolies without government intervention, because profit opportunities where there is an apparent lack of competition are clear.
Reply