Economic power vs. physical force

Tonya Harding has nothing on Netscape, Sun and the Justice Department. While the former maimed a superior figure skater, the latter group is on the verge of permanently crippling the world's wealthiest company. With U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Jackson's recent "finding of fact" identifying Microsoft as a monopoly that has harmed both competitors and consumers, a severe punishment is not far behind.

How is it that a successful company can be brought down by government hitmen when its jealous competitors complain? Antitrust laws should not exist. They are supposed to prevent monopolies and trusts, but they give no objective definition of what constitutes either. There is no way for a business owner to know whether his company is breaking antitrust laws. Microsoft's actions are illegal under antitrust law, just as any business's actions are, should the government choose to categorize them as such by an inconsistent standard.

In the case of Microsoft, the government has chosen harm as the standard by which the legality of the company's actions should be judged. It claims Microsoft has harmed others by preventing innovation, and therefore the company deserves to be punished, just as a man who physically abuses his wife should be punished for harming her.

The problem with the above analogy is the use of the word "harm" to portray the results of Microsoft's actions. Harm, properly used, describes what occurs as the result of forceful actions. For instance, a man is harmed if he is beaten or if his car is stolen. A precondition of harm is physical force.

Microsoft's accusers have used "harm" and its connotations of force when describing the effects of the company's actions without ever giving examples of real coercion on Microsoft's part. Microsoft has used its economic power to its advantage, but never resorted to force.

Physical force and economic power are not equivalent. The gun and the dollar are fundamentally different. The individual or government that initiates force gives the victim two options: Do as I say, or I will hurt you. A company with economic power gives the customer or potential employee entirely different options: Trade with me on my terms and you will benefit, or go on your way if my terms are not acceptable. All of Microsoft's actions fall into the latter category.

Microsoft's economic power allows it to produce affordable products consumers want to buy, but gives it no power to prevent competitors from creating innovative products. Any company can attempt to sell anything it wants to. Microsoft has no obligation to support other companies' new products, however, and consumers have no obligation to purchase them. Individuals and companies choose to deal with Microsoft over other companies because it benefits them-there is no harm involved. This bothers companies like Netscape that think that consumers should have to buy more of their products. Unfortunately, the guns of the government are on their side.

Due to their blurring of the distinction between economic power and physical force, the government and Microsoft's envious competitors will get away with using force to harm a great company. Microsoft has violated nobody's rights, but the government has. Its actions against Microsoft are an assault to right to one's own life and what one produces. Property rights allow individuals to use their minds independently to provide for their own survival and pursue their own happiness and allow them to trade with others on mutually agreeable and beneficial terms. When the fruits of one's labor can be taken away arbitrarily at the point of the government's gun, the government has gone from being the protector of rights to their greatest threat.