Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Isn't the "the standard oil trust" an example of a dangerous cartel or monopoly that was able to thrive without the help of government intervention? Didn't government aid in busting up this monopoloy instead of enhancing it???

Posted

The answer to the first (compound) question is "no," because SA was not a "dangerous cartel, " and in-fact had competiton who went and used the government as a means to become competetive again. Second "no," due to the fact this was an example of unscrupuous politically connected people using violence to solve their problems, not the tale of a benevolent state defending the public from a tyrant business. SA was great for consumers, terrible for it's competition, and yes, it had competition.

Posted

How wasn't it though, they used thugs threats and intimidation to get their needs. (Much like government does with everything) sorry I'm battiling with a statist, and I had trouble with this one.

 

Posted

Yes, the government used thugs and threats and pro-statist propaganda to get their needs. To the extent that 19th century industrialists also did this, is to the extent that they also purchsed government thuggery.

In both cases it is government power causing violence against the average person, with very little effect on the businessmen themeselves. Rockafeller died as one of the richest men in history.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.