Friday, January 2, 2009

Lonely Freeman

Another case against “Trimopolies”

No, a “Trimopoly” is not an ancient country in Greece. The term is one I invented to cover all of “Big Business” generically. The “Big Three” in the auto industry comes to mind. Then I think of Home Depot, Lowes, and Menards. While the prefix Tri is not mandatory, the suffix “mopolie” (a corruption of my own for Monoply) is mandatory.
In Capitalism as in Politics, the crème rises to the top. In the course of human events we come to understand through brutal trial by fire that there must be limits on the power the crème can consolidate. In politics we came to America to fight that consolidation of power and the corruption it brings. We as an example accept that a President shall be limited to only two terms no matter how good a leader he or she or it is. We formed our nation in part to stop the idea of an all powerful king or dictator. In this country we had a chance to get away from the king idea and we violently seized it and have been hanging on to it for a few hundred years.
Capitalism or Free Enterprise was the tool we used as individuals to work towards our dreams in our pursuit for Happiness. Before long we found that unbridled pursuit by the strong left less available for the weak to pursue. Monopolies were formed in business, forcing out the smaller competitors until the entire market (steel for example) were crowded or bought out by one all powerful interest or company. (Conglomerate).

Just as is politics we limited The Presidency to two terms, we found that we needed to pass anti monopoly laws, breaking up those monopolies to stop the corruption of our Free Enterprise system. The idea was to break up the power they had gained over the market they controlled. What I have seen through the years is the skirting of the intent of the law by consolidating that power into three or more hands versus only one. Hence the word “trimopolies”.

The major point I have to make is that as a nation we realize that the consolidation of power leads ultimately to corruption. Out right corruption and also a basic corruption of the process of “Free” Competition. It is my contention that “Big” business and government climbed into bed a long time ago to the detriment of Individual Freedom as well as the Individual’s ability to enter into Free Enterprise. The cost is a loss of what individual efforts bring to the table, namely a wealth of new ideas and the trial and testing of those ideas in a free market place. The cost of failure is not born by others, but by the individual willing to put his idea and product to the test.

Try to build any new idea and produce it and market it. You will find that you will lack the funds needed. You may have the product but to satisfy all the required licenses permits, etc; you wallet will soon be bare.

The anti monopoly laws were made to stop the destruction of untold smaller manufacturers by one large one. It worked and now we have three large ones putting hundreds of others out of business by lobbying Big Government to enact and enforce restrictive regulations and fees.

This begs the question. Why do we like big. What is the universal appeal for unlimited control of what we are do? Efficiency seems the culprit.

We hear it all the time. It is the primary justification used to consolidate anything. The savings in manpower from cutting all the duplication of services in consolidation will be enormous. We will be able to purchase in bulk quantities with consolidation thus saving more money. With consolidated power at the top we will be able to pick the best method and not have a bunch of different approaches which by definition the majority of which will be at least not be as good as the one we pick.
Every head of a bureaucracy knows this to be true. Just as every dictator or tyrant knows. Just ask them if you dare. All bureaucracies leave room for innovation and new ideas. The process is long and arduous because it will mean things will have to change on a massive scale. But why go to all this extra trouble? What do we call this type of person. This must be where the term Troublemaker came from.

Every time I apply for a building permit to do something to my house. I feel as if I am applying for an exemption to do something on my own without the government helping me. I feel that I am putting undo pressure on the bureaucracy I am dealing with to do something so I can fix my house to justify the higher taxes they will charge me to keep them in raises.

Oh Well forget my wanderings. I just read this article in the Jan. Newsmax magazine titled “Remember the lonely Fisherman” by Jane Blakemore. I admit to finding some affinity to the Lonely Fisherman. lol

I found this link but you must give your email to view it. It also took me a while to figure out how to navigate the ezine. But it really is quite elegant.
The article explains an exquisite example of how “BigBusiness” is putting the screws to the little fisherman through the facilitating efforts of “Big Government. A careful read explains how all the Big issues of the day have been used as reasons to put laws and regulations into play that financially cause small fishermen out of the business and make it nearly impossible for new ones to enter the business without a huge out lay of ready cash and the other accouterments necessary to battle the bureaucracy. Basically if I had that much money, I’d buy a house on a lake along with a boat and fish at my leisure. I wouldn’t need to do it for a living. Not liking bureaucrats much I would be at home on the lake in my boat because as the article points out the owners of the boats are nowhere near to the actual work of fishing.

Plus the licenses are much cheaper.

Also the article brings into question the whole idea or reason behind the efficiency of Big, are they really more efficient? Do they really help the industry and the fish population as claimed. As usual the answer is no.

So what’s the answer? A bigger bureaucracy may just be the ticket.

Then again maybe NOT.

Does anyone think it’s time to set up a Freedom Party?

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

No comments: