Antitrust Law is Inherently Unjust

Writes economist Richard Salsman in a letter to the Wall Street Journal:

"You continue to complain about specific, case-by-case injustices inflicted by trustbusters without recognizing that antitrust law is inherently unjust ('Who Defines a Market?' Review & Outlook, Feb. 23). The law is arbitrary and vague but has one clear effect: It penalizes the most successful firms for the (alleged) benefit of laggards and losers.

Nearly every firm trust-busted in the past century has boosted output, improved quality and lowered prices-- the opposite of 'monopolistic' behavior. For these achievements great firms and executives have been litigated, fined, jailed and vivisected. We need to recognize that producers have a right to their property--of which their 'market share' consists--and that they owe not a single, unpaid duty or scintilla of property to consumers or rivals.

Antitrust law does not 'preserve competition'; it shackles, sabotages and expropriates the winners of competitions. It is anti- competitive. Instead of chronicling case-by-case injustices, for once you might consider examining the case for abolishing antitrust entirely."