The marriage issue is presented as a debate over the definition of marriage, but what is really at issue is what government does with and to the institution of marriage. If government did not violate the rights of some individuals or grant privilege to other individuals based upon their membership in the “married” group, then the issue would be moot.

Great article masked stranger.

Peace, liberty, justice and prosperity,
Bryan

http://bryandmorton.blogspot.com/

While I agree that the level of service a person wants when shopping for a product varies, and that the market should react to this demand, I am strongly skeptical of a court deciding who must/mustn’t sell to whom, at what price, or under what conditions.

The amount of capital allocated to designing and producing a product is based solely on an estimate of how profitable it will be. If (hypothetically) Microsoft guarantees WalMart that any money spent marketing the Xbox in WalMart commercials will not be in vain, the Xbox might be more profitable than it would otherwise be. (Naturally, this plan could backfire and the Xbox could lose ground to another console that is cheaper due to fiercer competition from online stores.)

Any cost/benefit analysis would take this into account and companies would make decisions about releasing new products based on this. If our courts set precedents that restrict buyer-seller contracts, then less resources will be allocated to creating products that might benefit from such contracts.

Restrictions on contracts/prices/trade can bring prices down, but they can also reduce the quality/quantity of products available by masking market demand. I understand that industries with monopolostic competition leave consumers with less choice than industries with lower costs of entry, and I can sympathize with trying to do something about it. I am, however, significantly more afraid of government regulations on freedom of contract. Let’s not cut off our face to cure our acne.

It is inredibly difficult to maintain an unfair monopoly. Even if the costs of entering an industry are great, investment capital can be raised to go up against a company that is running inefficiently, or has high profits (contrast “profit” vs. “income”). The prices of products naturally move toward the opportunity cost of the resources required to produce them. This, of course, does not apply to statutory monopolies (e.g. USPS, the old Bell System, Federal Reserve, public utilities, etc., etc.)

“Over time I have gradually come to the conclusion that antitrust laws do far more harm than good and that we would be better off if we didn’t have them at all. ” -Milton Friedman

Who are you voting for in 2008?
Draft Mark Green (D) President
An alternative to the usual suspects…

http://www.frstweb.org/draft_mark_green.htm