|
Article Excerpt
Most economists support free markets--to a point. I chose that last word very carefully, for just as a geometrical point is a theoretical construct that does not exist in the real world, so is the textbook model of perfect competition. But most economists support free markets only insofar as they adhere to this idealized conception. Many economists go so far as to define "free market" to mean a perfectly competitive industry, as if an efficient outcome has anything to do with the word "free." Indeed, the term "market failure" has been coined to describe any deviation from perfect competition, including imperfect competition and monopoly (as well as externalities, public goods, etc.). (2) But the only sin of the market, in this case, is a failure to live up to an impossible example, a failure to do that for which it was never designed or intended. So according to dais view, market failure is everywhere--what to do about it?
The typical economist's first impulse is to bring in government to solve the problem: if the market fails (which it does almost by definition), then the government can fix it. There are, of course, many problems with this, and I will emphasize two in particular. One is that government is no less imperfect than the market (to be generous); therefore, it is by no means guaranteed to resolve any "market failure," and may indeed exacerbate the situation (making any "problem" worse). Examples of this include incentive problems, as highlighted by the public choice school, or informational problems, as emphasized by the Austrian school. The second problem, the one upon which I choose to focus, is not whether the government can do anything about so-called market failure, but whether the government should. In other words, is the government justified in using its coercive power to interfere with business operations for the purpose of (hypothetically) increasing some measure of social welfare?
In cases of monopoly, price-fixing, cartels, mergers, and other "anti-competitive" behavior, the prescribed government action is antitrust. As far as most economists are concerned, if monopoly is evidence of the devil in man, antitrust is the avenging angel. But in the real world, antitrust is far from perfect, as even its fiercest adherents admit. Though the "problem" of monopoly or monopolization is easy to identify in general, it is notoriously difficult to correct in specific cases. In fact, behavior that is used to support antitrust allegations can just as well be interpreted to show competitive behavior (as in cases of predatory pricing). The antitrust laws are vague, some extraordinarily so, and when combined with the changing tide of Supreme Court decisions, they result in a chaotic environment for business owners who have little idea what comprises legal activity and what does not. Finally, there are infamous problems with proper remedies for antitrust violations, including the possibility of second-best outcomes, efficiency-raising mergers, and other welfarist quandaries.
But the issue I plan to explore is not how well antitrust works or how it can be made better, but whether it should be used at all. Few economists have any reservations about the justification of antitrust, even if they do have doubt about its efficacy. Almost never do economists question the right of the government to use its coercive power to punish firms for not maximally promoting social welfare. (3) To most economists, the term "free market" describes a result of maximal efficiency, not an institution embodying secure property rights. In their view, antitrust is justified if it helps achieve that efficiency result: Richard Posner, a staunch defender of antitrust law and economics, writes that "the issue in evaluating the antitrust significance of a particular business practice should be whether it is a means by which a rational profit maximizer can increase its profits at the expense of efficiency" (2001, ix). In my view, antitrust is a violation of property rights with no parallel justification in other words, with no initial violation of property rights which antitrust action seeks to offset.
Richard Epstein (1982) forcefully makes this point, emphasizing that most conceptions of property rights include the right of disposition, meaning that property owners have the right to transfer some or all of their property to another party under whatever terms the parties agree to. The owner can give the property away, loan it to someone, or offer it for sale at whatever price he chooses. If the potential buyer does not judge that price to be worthwhile, she does not have to buy it. Consumers have no right to be sold an item at the price they would like to pay, for invoking such a right would involve a coercive transfer from the property owner.
I have no need to criticize the sincere concern that welfarist antitrust advocates have for the well-being of the intended beneficiaries of the antitrust laws (usually understood to be consumers, or sometimes less efficient or smaller competitors). I also have no desire to delve into the politics behind the antitrust statutes or decisions, to discover the "real" intentions of those who passed them, as studied by public choice theorists (McChesney and Shughart II, 1995). This paper is a critique of the standard academic justification of antitrust economics, not the actual implementation of antitrust law or the motivation behind its passage or enforcement.
As such, the initial approach in this paper will be very general and abstract, and will outline a philosophical argument based on a well-known anti-consequentialist ethical system, that of 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant wrote well before the time of antitrust, of course, but his moral and legal philosophy speaks well to the aims and purposes of antitrust laws. The central aspect of this critique is that the proper role of law precludes the type of intervention characterized by antitrust, which only serves to affect welfare and not to correct any wrongdoing in the sense of violations of rights or duties. I would hope that acceptance of this thesis does not hinge on one's acceptance of the precise details of Kantian ethics, but would appeal to anyone attracted to the principles of classical liberalism, such as minimal government and strong property rights. (4)
This chapter will cover two broad general topics, one focusing on firms, and the other focusing on the state, before turning to an actual antitrust case to illustrate the more abstract points of the analysis. First, I will explain why actions forbidden by antitrust do not involve any violation of rights or duties, as dictated by Kant's formalization of the moral law, the categorical imperative. Second, I will discuss the role of the law in Kant's political theory, showing that it exists only to enforce citizens' clearly defined rights against each other, and not to promote a consequentialist end such as welfare-maximization. Along these lines, I will argue that antitrust is best understood as a category of criminal law, and Kant has very strong views on criminal sanctions, which should only be used in cases of guilty wrongdoing. Finally, I will use the famous (or infamous) case against Microsoft to illustrate and elaborate upon the ethical points made in the first two sections of the chapter.
The Categorical Imperative and Duties
As described above, the standard justification for antitrust enforcement is based on preventing negative consequences of certain activities on the part of firms, placing the normative grounding of antitrust firmly in consequentialist ethics, or more precisely, a form of utilitarianism or welfarism. On the other hand, Kant's ethical system is generally regarded as deontological, which can be understood as "duty-based" or "nonconsequentialist." (5) To Kantians, a central concept in ethics is duty, which determines a person's moral obligations toward others as well as himself. These duties are determined by applying the categorical imperative, Kant's formalization of the moral law, to plans of action (or maxims). Kant outlined three formulations of the categorical imperative, the first two of which are most useful for our current purpose. The familiar Kantian concept of universalization is contained in the Formula of Autonomy or of Universal Law: "act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" (1785, 421). This formula clearly prohibits lying, for instance, by pointing out that if everyone commonly lied, statements would no longer be believed, and since lying depends on a presumption of honesty, lying would contradict its own efficacy. Another familiar Kantian concept, respect for other persons, is embodied in the Formula of Respect for the Dignity of Persons: "so act as to use humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other, always at the same...
|
