The argument for free markets is historically very strong.

It did not begin with complex theory but with a simple delineation of the rights of man and not only the moral, but the logical reasons to assure and safeguard them. John Locke was one of the pioneers in this thought when he began to question the moral and logi cal justifications of government as an authority and an institution, and found t hat a government should exist to artificially protect the natural rights of man to the safety and security of himself, his possessions and his labor: natural ri ghts that man would assume in a natural, anarchical environment, but not necessa rily essentials that he would respect others' rights to, especially if it lay wi thin his utility to violate them (Velasquez 130), since, according to Adam Smith , the desire of people to maximize their own, personal utilities is their primar y motive (Velasquez 136). Locke, who qualified not as an economist but as a phys ician, is interpreted to have tied the freedom of the markets to the freedom of the self to live and let live, and to a government whose role and moral and logi cal raison d'tre are restricted to solely protecting people against one anothers' invasive utility seeking. Adam Smith went farther than John Locke by truly tying between the nature of hum an beings and what should be the nature of human markets. Smith was perhaps the first intellectual to argue a strong case for the unlikely correlation between i ndividual selfishness and social utility. The right to be self seeking, he argue d, was a positivity and not a negativity for the economy, for buyers, for price setting, for product quality, etc. Velasquez (136, as citing Book 1, Chapter 2 o f Smith's "The Wealth of Nations"): "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the baker, and ethe brewer that we expect our dinner, but from their regard for their own self interest. We addr ess ourselves not to their humanity, but to their self love, and never talk to t hem of our own necessities, but of their advantages." This brings to mind the equally well known quote by Benjamin Franklin that "If y ou would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect." Smith's trademark, however, was to demonstrate real economic value in the rights of man that had been argued for by Enlightenment philosophers such as Locke. Sm ith was the first to argue for the value of tight free fall competition among pe ople and businesses, and for the tendency of price setting by the government or other apparatuses, even with truly charitable motives, to decrease economic grow th, first by serving as a disincentive for people who would not be able to have full say in the sale of their own hard labor and work, and second by ruining the equilibrium balance of the market that the market, in its real tendency dynamic s and complexity, showed a tendency to do all on its own (Velasquez 136). David Ricardo (Velasquez 144) added the ultimate firepower to the Locke and Smit h pyramid of thought. He was able to mathematically prove that trade is in the i nterest and utility of all parties involved, even if one party has no visible ne ed to trade with another party because of its superiority in producing all exist ant goods. Thus, trade was sealed as an almost absolutely successful economic en gine and a driver of economic growth, that should be allowed to grow and grow, a need that is much more easily met by Smith's argument for "laissez faire" than in an environment where a government would carefully control the growth and natu re of trade to make sure the trade met the demand for social justice. Thus, this tripartite model (rights; natural tendency; motive) has driven the traditional Western economic system based on the freedom of the markets and on the rule of l aw solely to prevent the violation of the property rights of some people by the invasive utility seeking of others. However, it has been difficult for governments espousing the freedom of the mark ets, to allow all situations that could possibly manifest from this freedom, alt hough Smith might have argued for this. What happens when the freedom of the mar

kets, all on its own, somehow becomes a microcosm of a planned economy? Sometime s this is done not by governments, but by businesses, creating a monopoly or an oligopoly, and the freedom of the markets, meant to maximize competition, actual ly leads to the intentional destruction of competition and all its justices and utilities for society. A monopoly creates a microcosm of a planned or controlled economy by vastly redu cing the number of business factors, and making one desired, unilateral directio n in a market possible. Unlike a planned or controlled economy, however, a monop oly need not even profess to be in pursuit of equity for society. That direction is, of course, abused as much as it can be in the name of personal profit. It a mounts to extorting not only buyers, but also bullying smaller, weaker businesse s (Velasquez 176). Although a monopoly can be a product of the freedom of the markets, it ends up h urting the markets and disabling all of the argued advantages of that freedom (V elasquez 176). For this reason, in such a situation, a government may legislate texts that ban, and penalize, anti - competitive measures taken by organizations . This is against Smith's argument for an absolute minimum of action from a gove rnment into a free market, which makes the balance awkward. However, it is impor tant to keep in mind that Smith's was a powerful but not a failsafe theory. In s ome situations that are not the norm, its premises are their own undoing when ma nipulated by businesses. There are several examples of monopolized industries in our world, whether in th is country, clusters of countries, or on a global reach. However, one of the sta rkest and most blatant examples is that of the drug industry. It is a simple matter to understand how a product that is "special" and protecte d, can be monopolized. This is the case with the official recognition of intelle ctual property (Velasquez 154). This can lead to patents (Velasquez 156). Essent ially this is enforced government protection, against most businesses, in favor of one, as far as a special product is concerned. While this is acceptable in th e rights, natural tendency, motive model because it concurs with Locke's identif ication of property recognition and protection both as a natural right and as so mething that would increase the worker's motivation to further produce and contr ibute to society, the space it has for abuse is limitless, especially regarding necessities or inelastic goods that are a matter of life and death for some cust omers. By working together and interflowing their business strategies instead of compet ing and allowing for other competitors, the largest drug producers in the United States are able to effectively lock the market and realize undreamt of profits for their products, earning up to half a million dollars for every dollar spent (Velasquez 178-179). Most drugs, once they are mobilized into mass production, w ill be extremely inexpensive to produce in very large volumes. For example, the per unit manufacturing cost of Prozac pills declines to approximately one tenth of a cent (Velasquez 179). Yet the great dispensability of these products for dr ug producers does not equate with the urgent need and great value that customers have for and put in them. Because competition that may sell drugs extremely che aply because of a willingness to profit less and control a larger market share, is locked out, the monopoly is able to fix exorbitantly high market prices for t heir products, with no accompanying decrease in demand. A patient with a choice between any of many health problems and paying for a product half a million time s what it is really worth, will choose the former. The rights; natural tendency; motive model, accepted for centuries, has not yet incorporated a powerful theoretical mechanism for opposing monopolies and oligop olies in the market. These situations should be opposed not because they violate rights, which is a vague argument that could be made for many other situations,

but because they are economically harmful.