The Argument Reconstructed
Arguing structural incentives, economists say that monopolies are the natural result of free-market mechanics. The argument conforms to Objectivist philosophy in which the incentive to act is driven by environmental conditions–natural laws that determine the difference between right and wrong, success or failure, rewards and deprivations.
When economists refer to “perverse incentives” they mean that incentives abnormally operate to produce a “moral hazard.” When we pay people for not working, providing unemployment insurance, for example, the incentive is not to work. The natural value of work is converted into something unnatural, and that moral value–its strength transformed into weakness–manifests in the form of a price support that unnaturally inflates, or perverts, the cost of labor.
Natural law is compelling. We are naturally bonded to the law. There is no escape, and manipulating the law to fit a need, a want, a desire, does not escape it. Manipulation of the law, like “making markets” for a particular purpose, is not a divine, god-like attribution with a naturally limited liability, but confirms being bonded, inextricably conforming to it. Instead of exculpating the probable risk, manipulation of the risk will always render the result fully culpable, demanding the conditions (the method) that yields to it.
Instead of modifying behavior to fit the free-market model, economists argue entrepreneurs naturally modify the free market to modify behavior. People naturally reveal preferences, modifying their environment to fit the commonly divisible concept of self.
Trying to manipulate the natural environment to modify the behavior of others may be pathological, the Objectivist explains, but it’s only natural. Naturally, we try to dominate our environment. It can be to the point of self-destruction, but demanding the destruction discovers the imperative value of self–the “noumenon” Kant, for example, talks about.
Let’s face it. If the structural incentives of a free market did not work to control the behavior of want-to-be gods, there would be no incentive to change it.
Keep in mind, if there is nothingness, as nihilists explain, then there is no moral measure. There is only natural law. Might (the act of self-determination) makes right.
Objectivists explain that moral measure naturally reduces to natural law. Being the final, absolute measure, “the law” is what defines “objective reality.” Kant agrees, saying that morality is an observable measure, well defined by nature, “categorically imperative.”
“If” we devise the means of self-destruction “then” the utility of “the risk” naturally exists the measure of its non-attainment over time.
Being right exists the measure of what might exist on demand, naturally intended, fully culpable.
Having a free and unconsolidated marketplace in priority does not destroy the value of natural monopolies. What the entrepreneur values so much–having a monopoly, naturally existing the utility of natural law as the final moral measure–fully obtains.
An entrepreneur in a free and unconsolidated marketplace naturally wants to monopolize your demands in priority, but the incentives are reversed. Reversing the risk flow reverses the rents. Instead of you renting a job in the marketplace from the “job creators” (who gain tax incentives, and create tax-inversion schemes, to collect the rents on the demand for jobs), the entrepreneur must rent your space and gain your loyalty to naturally monopolize the risk.