Anti-Anti-Trust

The idea behind anti-trust is that it gives us a more competitive society, i'm not denying that when these laws were made they had good intentions as most laws do. The first act was Passed in 1890, the Sherman Antitrust Act was the first major legislation passed to address oppressive business practices associated with cartels and oppressive monopolies. The Sherman Antitrust Act is a federal law prohibiting any contract, trust, or conspiracy in restraint of interstate or foreign trade. First and foremost I must say monopolies are not bad at least in a free market, for a monopoly to dominate in a free market it must offer a better product for a lower price. That does not sound evil to me, now since the enactment of this act we have even less competition. Lets talk about the government, since they think they must step in to improve competition they subsidize inefficient competitors. Yes the government thinks to help out they will give money to companies that are failing, so what would you do if the government was giving you money to fail? Oh yeah we have that with welfare but that's another topic. So what is competition? For me competition happens in a free society, where individuals compete for sales. If I have a garden and I grow carrots, and my neighbor also grows carrots I can try to offer a lower price and compete for it. If my neighbor does a better job I can keep trying or I can try something else, maybe ill grow potatoes Instead. When it comes to individuals making transactions voluntarily, this is the best way to have competition as I want the best product for the lowest price. Private property is being demolished by government, they dont respect it nor protect it, this will eventually lead to control by government as if were not there already. If we had a right to contract that would mean that for government to interfere in the voluntarily decision and favor one side over the other then government is breaking the law and should be punished. There was the Clayton Act of 1914, 1933 Fair trade laws, Robinson Pat-man Act 1936, these are just a few antitrust laws that make no sense to me, as they are supposed to prevent business from taking advantage of consumers, but I dont see who better to decide that then the consumers themselves. What these acts have actually done is subsidized inefficient business which as I said early gives companies an incentive to fail. Having Antitrust laws gives the government the authority to decide when to use these laws, we could look at the Northern Securities case which I am putting a link right here (https://mises.org/library/theodore-roosevelt-and-modern-presidency) I really encourage you to check it out! We need to look at why markets work in the first place, the market is where the best product for the lowest price wins simple as that. In a free market usually the only way for a monopoly to form would be to do just that offer the best product at the lowest price, even once he does monopolize the market if possible then he cant jack up prices, as someone will jump in and compete. Thanks for reading guys! Please upvote, follow, and check out the next post!