“Monopolies” on Charity
Bill Gates is facing another antitrust case, this time regarding his charitable foundation. Apparently, it’s influence in the philanthropy sector has become so great that government entities like FEMA (we all recall how FEMA saved the day during Katrina) and other charities like the United Way and the Salvation Army have been eager for the Justice Department’s antitrust division to launch an investigation.
The investigation, cheered on by Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain, has bipartisan support. Both McCain and Clinton released a joint statement, averring that, “The free market is a wonderful thing, but how can we expect the government and other organizations to match the giving power of Gates? The free market in philanthropy is going to give us the same results as the free market in computers and electronics: exploitation.”
Indeed, Microsoft has been exploiting us through its innovative, life-improving technologies. I am being exploited as I type this post on a PC with freshly installed Vista operating system, which I chose to purchase because I wanted the product more than I wanted to keep my money. Would anybody buy Microsoft products if they felt exploited? Would Microsoft make any profits if consumers thought that their products were not good enough for them to part with their money? Is Microsoft a hindrance to any other company wanting a piece of the pie? Well, if you are not smart and innovative enough, sure, but is that Microsoft’s fault? Is Microsoft not rather inspiring businesses through its success seek to enter into competition by offering similar or better products for lower prices (think of open source products).
Likewise, is it Microsoft’s fault that people choose to give money to support its charity’s causes rather than another’s? Perhaps the Bill and Melinda Gates’ foundation gets the job done better than other charitable organizations. If so, it is being punished for exactly that, for being more productive, just as Microsoft’s antitrust woes show how it is punished for being more innovative than others. In effect this investigation reveals a thoroughly collectivist premise: that every charity has the right to stay in the business to do to good regardless of whether they are competitive and profitable enough.
No business has the right to stay in business indefinitely if it is not competitive and profitable enough. The only right a business has is the right to take the actions necessary to sustain itself by becoming and remaining competitive without violating someone else’s rights (whether consumer or rival), by producing and selling its products and services for the price it sets and to the people willing to purchase them for that price. It does not have a right to an equal or any share of the market it has not earned through production and trade.
The free market does not establish coercive monopolies. Governments do. Only the government can outlaw competition through legislative action (think of the U.S. Post Office). Only the government can give businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors by rewarding their lobbying efforts with legislative favors.
The fight against any monopoly held by businesses in a free market is a fight against the superior, more able, smarter, stronger and more innovative producers. It is a fight for the mediocre, the less able, the dumber, weaker and unimaginative producers crying foul because they cannot keep up. The destruction of businesses due to antitrust laws means the stifling and destruction of those creative minds that improve this world, whether in computer technology or charity.
