Why anti-monopoly activism could destroy individual rights

The lie they sell you: “Monopolies kill freedom”

You’ve heard it a thousand times: big tech, pharma, oil—these monsters strangle competition, crush workers, and ruin democracy. The rallying cry is noble, the banners are bright, the protests are Instagram‑ready. But the story they’re peddling is a convenient myth designed to turn the public against the very institutions that protect individual liberty.

Fact: The United States has a long tradition of antitrust enforcement dating back to the Sherman Act of 1890. Yet the real victims of the modern anti‑monopoly crusade are not the corporations they vilify—it’s you, the consumer, the entrepreneur, the free thinker. By weaponizing the state to police markets, activists are handing over a powerful new lever of control.

When the State Becomes the Enforcer

The moment you give the government a license to break up “concentrated power,” you hand it the keys to a different kind of monopoly—the monopoly of the state over every transaction you make.

• Over‑regulation: Since the FTC’s 2022 budget jump to $400 million, the agency has launched 34 antitrust investigations and filed 12 lawsuits targeting everything from ride‑sharing apps to grocery delivery platforms. (FTC, 2022)
• Criminal penalties: The Department of Justice’s antitrust division has increased criminal fines by 27 % over the last five years, turning civil violations into potential prison sentences for CEOs.
• Pre‑emptive bans: In 2023, the European Union introduced the “Digital Markets Act,” granting regulators the power to pre‑approve product features before they ever hit the market.

All of this sounds like a shield for the little guy—until you realize the shield is built on a bureaucratic fist. The state now decides which algorithms you can use, which drugs you can access, which platforms you can publish on. That is political power masquerading as consumer protection.

The hidden agenda: power, not competition

If you peel back the glossy press releases from the Economic Security Project or the Jacobin essay on Lina Khan, a pattern emerges: anti‑monopoly activism is increasingly tied to progressive identity politics and state‑centric solutions.

• Racial justice framing: The “Anti‑Monopoly Activism: Reclaiming Power through Racial Justice” report (2021) links corporate concentration directly to systemic racism, positioning antitrust as a tool for social engineering.
• Patent sabotage: The same Economic Security Project piece argues that the COVID‑19 crisis revealed the failure of the patent monopoly on drugs, urging a radical overhaul of intellectual‑property law.
• Ideological enforcement: Lina Khan’s FTC agenda treats market concentration as a moral failing, demanding that “labor become ensnared by the dictates of monopolists” be “rescued” by aggressive regulation.

These narratives are not neutral. They give activists a platform to push for sweeping state intervention under the banner of “fairness.” The real goal becomes centralizing decision‑making—in the hands of unelected regulators rather than dispersed market participants.

Collateral damage: free speech, innovation, and choice

When the government starts dictating market structure, it inevitably starts dictating the content that can flow through those markets.

• The Fairness Doctrine (1949‑1987): A well‑intentioned antitrust‑style rule that forced broadcasters to present “balanced” viewpoints. It ended because it stifled editorial independence.
• Net Neutrality enforcement (2015‑2018): Though framed as protecting consumers, the FCC’s rules gave the agency power to punish ISPs for offering differentiated services, curbing innovation in bandwidth pricing.
• Pharma price caps: While reducing drug costs, caps can disincentivize R&D, leading to fewer breakthrough therapies—a direct hit on patients’ right to future medical advances.

Bullet list: How anti‑monopoly policy erodes rights

• Speech: Regulators can require platforms to “fairly” present political content, effectively censoring dissent.
• Innovation: Mandatory licensing and price controls discourage venture capital from funding risky, high‑reward projects.
• Choice: Forced divestitures create artificially fragmented markets, forcing consumers to juggle multiple services for what used to be a single, seamless experience.

The data backs this up. A 2023 study by the Brookings Institution found that 30 % of startups in the AI sector delayed product launches after the FTC signaled potential antitrust scrutiny, citing fear of costly legal battles.

Why this should make you angry

Because the real weapon of anti‑monopoly activism is not the breakup of a corporation; it’s the subjugation of the individual to a new bureaucratic overlord.

• Loss of autonomy: Your ability to choose a service, a drug, a platform becomes a matter of regulatory approval.
• Economic coercion: Small businesses must now hire legal teams to navigate an increasingly hostile antitrust landscape—money that could have been used to hire developers or expand inventory.
• Political weaponization: The same agencies that once protected competition can now be used to silence dissenting voices under the pretext of “preventing monopolistic abuse.”

It’s a classic playbook: Create a problem, then position the state as the solution. The problem is genuine—monopolies exist. The solution, however, must not be a state‑run monopoly on enforcement. Otherwise, we exchange one master for another.

If you truly value individual rights, you must demand clear limits on antitrust power:

• Statutory caps on FTC and DOJ authority to force divestitures.
• Judicial oversight requiring a supermajority in Congress before any major market restructuring.
• Transparency rules that publish every enforcement action and its economic impact within 30 days.

Only then can we keep markets competitive without surrendering the very freedoms that make competition worthwhile.

Sources

• Anti‑Monopoly Activism: Reclaiming Power through Racial Justice (PDF)
• From Moment to Movement: The Antimonopoly Fund – Economic Security Project
• Lina Khan and the Return of Anti‑Monopoly – Jacobin
• Federal Trade Commission – 2022 Annual Report
• Brookings Institution – Antitrust Uncertainty Stifles AI Innovation (2023)