“That there is inequality of ability or monetary income on the free market should surprise no one. As we have seen above, men are not ‘equal’ in their tastes, interests, abilities, or locations. Resources are not distributed “equally” over the earth.16 This inequality or diversity in abilities and distribution of resources insures inequality of income on the free market. And, since a man’s monetary assets are derived from his and his ancestors’ abilities in serving consumers on the market, it is not surprising that there is inequality of monetary wealth as well.
“The term ‘free competition,’ then, will prove misleading unless it is interpreted to mean free action, i.e., freedom to compete or not to compete as the individual wills.
“It should be clear from the foregoing discussion that there is nothing particularly reprehensible or destructive of consumer freedom in the establishment of a ‘monopoly price’ or in a cartel action. A cartel action, if it is a voluntary one, cannot injure freedom of competition and, if it proves profitable, benefits rather than injures the consumers. It is perfectly consonant with a free society, with individual self-sovereignty, and with the earning of money through serving consumers.
As Benjamin R. Tucker brilliantly concluded in dealing with the problem of cartels and competition:
‘That the right to cooperate is as unquestionable as the right to compete; the right to compete involves the right to refrain from competition; cooperation is often a method of competition, and competition is always, in the larger view, a method of cooperation … each is a legitimate, orderly, non-invasive exercise of the individual will under the social law of equal liberty….
‘Viewed in the light of these irrefutable propositions, the trust, then, like every other industrial combination endeavoring to do collectively nothing but what each member of the combination might fully endeavor to do individually, is, per se, an unimpeachable institution. To assail or control or deny this form of cooperation on the ground that it is itself a denial of competition is an absurdity. It is an absurdity, because it proves too much. The trust is a denial of competition in no other sense than that in which competition itself is a denial of competition. (Italics ours.) The trust denies competition only by producing and selling more cheaply than those outside of the trust can produce and sell; but in that sense every successful individual competitor also denies competition…. The fact is that there is one denial of competition which is the right of all, and that there is another denial of competition which is the right of none. All of us, whether out of a trust or in it, have a right to deny competition by competing, but none of us, whether in a trust or out of it, have a right to deny competition by arbitrary decree, by interference with voluntary effort, by forcible suppression of initiative.’
“This is not to say, of course, that joint co-operation or combination is necessarily ‘better than’ competition among firms. We simply conclude that the relative extent of areas within or between firms on the free market will be precisely that proportion most conducive to the well-being of consumers and producers alike. This is the same as our previous conclusion that the size of a firm will tend to be established at the level most serviceable to the consumers.”
—Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State
![4K] Kirishima took 20x 16-inch & 17x 5-inch hits from USS Washington (BB-56) before sinking off Savo Island, Nov 15, 1942. Ranges of 18.5k down to 8.4k yards. Flooding of the magazines prevented detonation. #BB56 had ability to penetrate both sides of Kirishima’s armor belts at the lower ranges. http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdf](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FqGvh28XgAAUNig?format=jpg&name=small)
