The Pros And Cons Of Technical Monopoly

Ends must always justify means, or they are not truly the ultimate ends.

A liberal's means are "free discussion and voluntary cooperation." The market's role is to promote unanimity without conformity. Politics tend toward enforced conformity; a vote is either yes or no.

Markets are full of free individuals; political fields are full of groups and factions. Political ends impose laws on all, regardless of who wins or the number of detractors.

But the political is inevitable. "I cannot get the amount of national defense I want and you, a different amount," writes Friedman. Such matters, argued and voted on, require some conformity.

This inevitability strains social stability, so it should be kept to a minimum and only to issues with broad

Most monopoly is caused by government support or collusion among individuals. "Technical" monopoly arises when it is technically efficient to have one single producer or enterprise. This happens less often then many think.

Technical monopolies have three alternatives: private monopoly, public monopoly or public regulation. "All three are bad so we must choose among evils," and Friedman "reluctantly conclude(s) that, if tolerable, private monopoly may be the least” evil. The others are too unresponsive to the changing conditions of society.

Railroads presented a technical monopoly in the nineteenth century, so the Interstate Commerce Commission was created. But times changed while the ICC did not. "If railroads had never been subjected to regulation in the United States, it is nearly certain that by now transportation, including railroads, would be a highly competitive industry," monopoly free.

Public monopoly cannot justifiably make it illegal for individuals to compete; technical monopoly exists because it’s impractical for individuals to compete. Giving public monopoly to the post office is unjustified; it is illegal for others to