Anti-trust refers to the prevention of monopolistic growth. I’m reaching for a term that’s more accurate. If you have one when you get done reading this, I’m all ears. What I’m attempting to get at is that Ron Johnson believes government should have the power to decide when a business has become “too large”–while it may or may not be a trust in the sense of a monopoly.

Let me explain why I’m deeply concerned by Johnson’s position and believe strongly that others should be.

Increasing corporatism in this nation has created a culture in which sizable businesses like AIG and Fannie and Freddie and Amtrak and Citibank and Goldman Sachs–the list goes on and on–no longer behave responsibly because they know that the messes they create will be cleaned up and paid for not by them but rather by the American people.

By current government standards, all of the aforementioned entities would be “too big to fail.”

But let’s be clear: Size is not the issue. Rather, the issue is moral hazard–which Washington refuses to recognize but continually reinforces in precisely these large corporate enterprises. If you haven’t seen the documentary Generation Zero, I would highly recommend it. It paints this picture very, very well.

In truly progressive fashion, we keep throwing more money and pointless, business-choking regulation at the “too big to fail” problem–despite the fact that it’s not really a problem at all. In fact, the regulations tend not to constrain in any serious way those whom the government defines as “too big to fail”–even though a big show may get made about it. Rather the regulations tend to penalize most seriously law-abiding companies who are NOT in bed with the government. Bailouts? They DO, of course, benefit those who receive them. However, along with heavy regulation, they also penalize the rest of us.

Let’s consider for a moment the new financial regulation bill that just passed. According to those who pushed for it, it aims to control the size of business. The government will now, indeed, have the power to decide when and if a business has become “too big.” It will also have the power to step in “correct” the “problem.” That means it will be able to seize and/or redistribute property at will.

Really, that’s just a raw power grab and clear interference with the free market. The government will now, more than ever, have the power to pick winners and losers. The government should NEVER have that kind of control. The deciding of success and failure should be left to the market alone. The FREE market.

The new bill will also supposedly eliminate bailouts. That’s another lie. In reality, it will institutionalize them. Why? Because it’s all part of the same aim–to give government control over the market and allow it to choose winners and losers.

So, to summarize, what are the actual outcomes of the government having this kind of power?

1) More bailouts, followed by greater national debt and heavier taxation that everyone will feel
2) Increased cost of business, which will likewise get passed on to the American people
3) The hemorrhaging of jobs to other countries as business finds it increasingly difficult, expensive, and uncertain to operate here
4) An economic death spiral

That all seems like pretty major, burning-issue material to me since it affects our freedoms, our economy, the free market system, and our employment rate. If this issue wasn’t pressing in 2008, it certainly ought to be in 2010.

Now, while Ron Johnson may not think he’s for bailouts, he’s said absolutely unequivocally on at least two occasion that he’s 100% in favor of the federal government putting its foot down when something looks like it’s getting “too big.” That position alone is disturbing in the comfort it expresses with unconstitutional overreach.

But that’s not all.

Logically, saying that the government should step in to prevent something from getting “too big” also means Johnson believes that something CAN get “too big.” That means, whether he admits it now or not, he’ll ultimately support bailouts as a “necessary” measure if something “too big” looks like it’s going down the drain. He will view it as a protection of the people rather than what it actually is: A FURTHER INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF MORAL HAZARD.

“Too big to fail– and giving the government the power to “prevent” it, as Ron Johnson supports–is a very dangerous, slippery slope. It contributes to a vicious cycle that can only be detrimental to the American people and to our economy. It leaves favored corporatist entities in tact. And furthers government control and redistributionist policy–all depending on how “too big” is defined and to whom the term is applied. Disastrous!

While Westlake may not have it anywhere on his website, he has definitely explored this issue in depth at the two vetting sessions I’ve attended. Like me, he feels it’s imperative to reintroduce the concept of moral hazard. He’s very clear on the fact that government overreach and “too big to fail” are both part of the problem. Ron Johnson, on the other hand, has either not connected all of the dots yet or honestly believes that the government should be more powerful than the Founding Fathers ever intended.

Hopefully I’ve managed to clarify my thoughts. I apologize if I was previously using poor terminology.