: Uh, Gee, I finally got around to looking at this, and it appears to be a bunch of name calling.
Take the easy way out.
: quoting a few selected "folks back then" on anti-trust legislation to support one's opinion hardly counts an objective method of inquiry.
The 'folks back then' were the ones making the rules silly.
: Obviously, right-thinking libertarian economists are against anti-trust legislation, whereas evil, socialist business losers like anti-trust because it uses that big daddy government to bail them out
LOL-ing doesnt make an argument.
: This appears to be on the level of claims that government "overspending" during the period 1929-1932 -- when the actual level of such spending during that period was hardly a drop in the bucket when compared to the demand for government assistance during such a period, as it was characterized by widespread business failure, 25% unemployment, bread lines, and charities stretched to the limit.
Are you going to pretend the free market caused the depression now.
: Analogously, we might argue that the government should give a starving man no food, as a criticism of current policies granting the same man an insufficient diet.
You can give food, I can give food. Neither of us has the rigght to force Mr Jones next door to do so.
: An objective inquiry into monopolies would examine all opposing sides of the monopoly issue -- proposing hard-core libertarian gospel
trying to paint an 'libertarian' viewpoint as quasi religious?