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.”