Government Intervention

It is not only unnecessary for the government to intervene to maintain a free market, it is extremely wrong. Intervention by any outside party in corporate matters is inappropriate and basically contradicts the meaning of a free market.

There are some positive effects government intervention could produce. These pros are, in fact, few, and questionable, at that. Take for instance, the situation with Microsoft. The government is sticking its nose in where it doesn\'t belong. Let\'s try and get passed that point for a moment and examine the good that could come out of government intervention.

One possible pro to this intervention is that it would most likely create a more equal market (not "fair market.") The term "fair market" is like an oxymoron in this case because basically the government is saying, "Hi, we\'re the United States government and we\'re sorry but we cannot let you continue to run your business. Although you have spent your life working to improve and simplify the computer industry, we simply feel you have made too much money." How is this in any way fair? In some people\'s eyes it is for the best of the economy and the computer industry, but it is definitely not fair. For the government to break down Microsoft, a multi-billion dollar company would be ridiculous. True, maybe the market would be more equal. No more mammoth company, just moderately sized companies. This could be a pro. But who is the government to decide that a company is too large? And if so where is the line drawnone billiontwo billiontwenty billion?

One other possible pro to government intervention in the Microsoft case would be that smaller, newer companies would have a "fairer" shot at being recognized. Once again, the term "fair" is open to discussion. What is considered to be fair to some can be completely unfair to others. Smaller computer companies would undoubtedly have a better chance at becoming popular. However, people are free to do whatever they want. No one forces people to use Microsoft applications. They are simply put, the most user-friendly, simple but efficient programs that happen to be compatible with a great deal of PCs. Microsoft was that small, unknown company once too. They had no help from the government in their quest for fame and fortune, why should other companies?

The few pros to government intervention are arguable. Now let us discuss the cons to government intervention. Government intervention is in no way necessary to maintain a fair market. Economic power is not as dangerous as people think. Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. What does that mean? It means that I am struggling to buy a 1994 Ford Explorer, and Bill Gates, wellhe can buy Ford (and GM and Daimler Chrysler and anything else he wants.) Big deal. He has economic power. Economic power is the power to produce and it requires intellect. Bill Gates works hard and is a very wealthy man. He still has no political power. He still has no military power. Political and military powers are the power to enforce and punish. Gates has no such power. He is a smart man who found Harvard boring and dropped out to start a small computer business out of a garage. Bill Gates made it to the top and now the government wants to take it away from him. It is morally wrong. That is a con to government intervention. It is just plain wrong. How can the government take something that someone worked hard to earn? I know what you\'re thinking"don\'t they do that to me every April?" Very funny but lets be serious here. There is no reason for the government to intervene in cases like this. Bill Gates did not use hostile takeovers, price gauging or any cut throat tactics to get to where he is. He simply had the best product around and it caught on incredibly well. Gates provides all of his applications- a web browser, a word processor, a database, a spreadsheet and more at a fair price (about 5% of the cost of a PC.) Maybe smaller companies can\'t afford to give so much away at a competitive price, but that\'s not Bill Gate\'s problem, nor is it the government\'s place to intervene. The