Of Paul and Paris, Redux

People are asking me questions and challenging me on my recent statements regarding Ron Paul's plans, excellent!

I'm certainly not an economist, but my reasons for not throwing my weight -albeit somewhat minuscule- behind his plans are simple; large American businesses have a history of treating their workers poorly, paying little or no attention to government controls, and of having generally deplorable morals. One only has to look at the horrid business practices of the early to middle 19th century to see this.

A -very- brief history of government controls in the form of anti-trust laws
The U.S began to institute anti-trust laws in approximately 1890, when they created the Sherman Anti-trust act. These laws were strong enough to break up the monopolies of the day, such as that of Rockefeller and The Standard Oil Company, but not strong enough to challenge many other institutions later on, further laws were required. (If you are unaware of how Rockefeller treated unions and the like back in those days -and later on- then it would make for some eye-opening reading.)

While the Sherman Anti-trust act worked against Rockefeller, it was also used as an anti-union tool. In 1914 it was revoked and replaced by the Clayton Anti-trust act. Those tricky corporations.

Why am I mentioning all of this? Well, as you can see, the U.S has a long history of corporations -needing- to be controlled. The fact that the Sherman Anti-trust act was abused shows us that they have a history of doing their best to stop workers having many rights; today, companies such as Wal-mart still attempt to stop the unionization of their workers, for what I believe to be the same reasons.

My reference to Paris Hilton, and the possible rise of others like her.
I am talking about the old-money heirs that did nothing to achieve their status, and nothing with that status to serve their contry and fellow man. I do believe that a completely free market will cause an increase in this kind of person over a period of time. Certainly Paris's are a small side-effect of a free market, but I believe it to be a reflection of a larger problem: the fact that there are individuals and corporations with so much money that they don't know what to do with it all. The idea of not taxing these people heavily, taking their money for public works, is ridiculous. Why, if people such as Hilton are able to live a life of luxury without any employment what so ever, should others who are working their asses off suffer and be unable to pay medical bills? Because their parents earned it? Pffh, ridiculous reasoning. Because they have a large corporation that earns millions a year, that they built up? Pfffh. Why exactly do they need so much and yet give so little?

The only thing that a completely free market economy would do is create more profits for the rich, and allow them to continue to oppress their workers (as Marxist as that sounds, I am not a socialist, Marxist, or communist, nor will I ever be one).