Monopoly
The trust busting days of Theodore Roosevelt are days that I
can barely remember. People have told me that great injustices were inflicted on
the innocent poor. Competition in business was stifled and prices were raised. Some
firms gained a monopoly and had the public at their mercy. The evil hearts of the
greedy owners showed no mercy toward their unfortunate workmen. Perhaps it was not
all as bad as it is painted for propaganda purposes. Much of the advance in the
standard of living is due to inventions that were made since that day. But very
few people doubt that monopoly in business is a bad thing.
Today we are faced with monopoly in labor. The AFL-CIO is a gigantic
organization, and it has little competition. Anti-monopoly laws do not apply to
labor unions. To restrain trade is illegal for management, but not for labor. Labor
enjoys privileged class legislation. If business executives tied up the port of
New York for their own profit, the nation would howl for their hides; but when a
union does this very thing, there is only a low grumble of annoyance. Yet is not
monopoly a bad thing?
There is also another form of monopoly, and that is governmental
monopoly. In one sense there cannot of course be competition among several national
governments in one country. In this sense a monopoly is inevitable. But there can
be a certain form of competition among the state, city, and national governments.
The more the national government takes over the functions of the state and the city,
the greater a monopoly it becomes. Local affairs come ta.be controlled from Washington
and farmers cannot raise their own corn to feed to their own animals without the
central government's approval.
Not only does the increasing power of the central government
tend to extinguish the local governments, but what is worse, the central government
gains a monopoly over the activities of the individual. Instead of regulating only
a few phases of human life, the monopolistic government tries to regulate life totally.
This is about the worst form that monopoly can take.
Or is there still a more evil form of monopoly? I rather think
there is. It would be an ecclesiastical monopoly. Imagine a church organization
that
had absorbed all the
present churches. No competition allowed. The privilege of building a church building
could be granted only by the executive council. Zoning laws would prohibit any "sects"
from appearing in public. Even worship in private homes would have to conform or
be judged a public nuisance.
Divisive elements, for even in a totalitarian state there are
some divisive elements, would be regarded not merely as irreligious but as traitorous.
And so blessed unity would prevail.
Is there no danger of monopoly in religion? Is monopoly evil
only in business and not in labor or in the church? Is ecclesiastical monopoly impossible?
Well, it prevailed for a long time in Europe, and it is difficult to see that its
return is literally impossible. Then should we not stand with those who are opposing
ecclesiastical monopoly?
— G.H.C.
No comments:
Post a Comment