What Individualism Is Not • Frank Chodorov

a reply to: greencmp

I will admit that I am in no position to hold a firm stance on socialist economics. I cannot, I am too ignorant , have not had direct experience of it.

I can only limit my commentary to the value systems of collectivist thought and individualist thought, as cultural characteristics. I am living in a country that has socialist values culturally, but a capitalist economy.

There is a private sector, (which I have worked in for years, and found very little difference in the mindsets between my entrepreneur colleagues and those in the US- except a sort of comprehension of those who are different).

The public sector (which I now find myself in and faced with totally different ways of thought and value) actually competes with the private sector, so, it seems to work slightly different than what I know of socialist economic theory.

When I first came here, and witnessed my first big strike going on, I asked my husband, “Why don’t they just quit if they are not happy?” Seemed simple enough to me! If the company loses too many employees that way, they will change.

The theory is great. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work in a reality in which people have children to feed, and limited jobs available. Communication, and insisting upon re-negotiation, (while the company is legally not allowed to fire them while on strike, and they still get paid during that time) is what they value.

They recognize an interdependence there- the employees NEED their employer for survival, and vice versa, so it isn’t as simple as a fast split due to differences in intent.
But even more interesting was the point of view that there is a moral obligation, to the society, for people to not just let an employer get carried away with their greed, or ego, or some other way of “forgetting” to be ethical. Employees have a responsibility to “keep the higher ups in line”. Just walking out on the deal is being irresponsible.

That funny difference is the part where I saw individual entrepreneurs differ from the US ones- they actually accept that part. They have the money and the leadership to offer, and the workers have their energy and moral judgement.
Each appreciates that exchange as essential- it isn’t just about material exchange, it is about social obligation as equal citizens.

I doubt I am being very clear, (I can only write in the morning, it is too late in the day) and perhaps it doesn’t seem on topic anymore. As I said, I think Socialism and Collectivism is on the one end of the spectrum and no better than free market capitalism and Individualism on the other end. So arguing one is ideal by pointing out the negative aspects of the other doesn’t sway my view that balance is key.

I think the USSR remains a symbol and example of the failure of collectivism to an extreme, and next we’ll have the experiment in it’s opposite fall and the US will become the constantly referred to example of “what is wrong with Capitalism”. Maybe between trying one extreme, then the other, we’ll someday come to accepting that reality lies in between the ideals.

originally posted by: greencmp


I hear this claim all the time, that there has never been a free market in the US.

Well not in the United States, but before the Europeans got here the Natives had a totally free market.

The whole of the western part of the country was founded by people operating in a totally free market with almost no government oversight.

What? Are you crazy? What entity do you think kicked the Natives off their land so that settlers could expand west? Sure, maybe a case could be made for a free market economy for white people existing in the West (I find that doubtful as well), but it certainly wasn't a totally free market.

Most people thrived and traded with the native population as well as each other.

Yes, this is true, but the government was certainly involved in much of the economics as well.

When violence occurred, it was frequently between varied alliances of natives and settlers vs other alliances of natives and settlers much like Ireland when the vikings arrived. There was no overarching norse or celtic command structure and people made choices which resulted in relatively peaceful integration and relatively limited violence.

Actually, it was mostly settlers attacking natives and settlers making up stories about native atrocities. I'm not sure what you mean by no command structure. Even in the territories yet to be ratified as states, they had elected officials. Plus the Federal government still oversaw Federal stuff in the territories. Your version of history sounds strangely romanticized.

There are many other examples here in the US and elsewhere in the world but, in case the point is lost, even if a truly free market hadn't existed on our soil in the past, what makes you so sure that it couldn't exist now?

I think we'd have to restructure our entire government for such a thing to happen. For one, it would immediately cause a recession to hit. For two, it would cripple our government to be pretty much ineffective. I don't think any politician would vote for such a thing knowing that those two things would happen.

originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp
You can't minimize corruption, it is a function of human nature and exists wherever humans exist. That includes individuals, government and any other associations or businesses. However, you can provide ideal circumstances for it to thrive.

Knowing that it is inevitable is what makes free markets the best mechanism to drive production because only the least corrupt producers will prevail when all are allowed to compete.

I am shocked that these basic premises are lost on you as you have frequently claimed to be a libertarian.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't what you JUST suggested there "minimizing corruption"? If it can't thrive, then I'd say it is pretty minimized.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp


I hear this claim all the time, that there has never been a free market in the US.

Well not in the United States, but before the Europeans got here the Natives had a totally free market.

The whole of the western part of the country was founded by people operating in a totally free market with almost no government oversight.

What? Are you crazy? What entity do you think kicked the Natives off their land so that settlers could expand west? Sure, maybe a case could be made for a free market economy for white people existing in the West (I find that doubtful as well), but it certainly wasn't a totally free market.

Most people thrived and traded with the native population as well as each other.

Yes, this is true, but the government was certainly involved in much of the economics as well.

When violence occurred, it was frequently between varied alliances of natives and settlers vs other alliances of natives and settlers much like Ireland when the vikings arrived. There was no overarching norse or celtic command structure and people made choices which resulted in relatively peaceful integration and relatively limited violence.

Actually, it was mostly settlers attacking natives and settlers making up stories about native atrocities. I'm not sure what you mean by no command structure. Even in the territories yet to be ratified as states, they had elected officials. Plus the Federal government still oversaw Federal stuff in the territories. Your version of history sounds strangely romanticized.

There are many other examples here in the US and elsewhere in the world but, in case the point is lost, even if a truly free market hadn't existed on our soil in the past, what makes you so sure that it couldn't exist now?

I think we'd have to restructure our entire government for such a thing to happen. For one, it would immediately cause a recession to hit. For two, it would cripple our government to be pretty much ineffective. I don't think any politician would vote for such a thing knowing that those two things would happen.

I can see that your knowledge of north american history is somewhat colored. I would recommend brushing up on the histories of the various european settlers across the continent of north america as well as the multitudes of truly diverse tribes.

As you say, the violence began en masse at the very instant that government arrived.

I want a corrective recession/depression to happen, the sooner it does the better off we will be in the long run.

I want our government to be crippled, the more it is occupied by its own internal dilemmas, the less it is able to molest people who simply wish to live their lives in peace. Given that it should be as ineffective as possible, dramatic funding reduction is the least wasteful way to achieve that.

I really do not care about or for politicians and, by my measure, they seem to reciprocate wholly.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp
You can't minimize corruption, it is a function of human nature and exists wherever humans exist. That includes individuals, government and any other associations or businesses. However, you can provide ideal circumstances for it to thrive.

Knowing that it is inevitable is what makes free markets the best mechanism to drive production because only the least corrupt producers will prevail when all are allowed to compete.

I am shocked that these basic premises are lost on you as you have frequently claimed to be a libertarian.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't what you JUST suggested there "minimizing corruption"? If it can't thrive, then I'd say it is pretty minimized.

So you agree that free markets are the only mechanism which is capable of generating the highest quantities and/or efficiencies of production allocation?

I was under the impression that you were defending interventionist economic policies.

originally posted by: greencmp
I can see that your knowledge of north american history is somewhat colored. I would recommend brushing up on the histories of the various european settlers across the continent of north america as well as the multitudes of truly diverse tribes.

As you say, the violence began en masse at the very instant that government arrived.

That's why I said BEFORE Europeans arrived there was a free market. Trust me, I recently DID just brush up on pre-Revolutionary America.

I want a corrective recession/depression to happen, the sooner it does the better off we will be in the long run.

I agree. It certainly would help in the long run.

I want our government to be crippled, the more it is occupied by its own internal dilemmas, the less it is able to molest people who simply wish to live their lives in peace. Given that it should be as ineffective as possible, dramatic funding reduction is the least wasteful way to achieve that.

I'd like that as well. There are quite a few things that government need not be involved with. Though you and I clearly differ on how much that is. The only time I agree with government intervention is when the corporate world makes it necessary. Look at the early 1900's with all the monopolies. Government intervention was necessary to put a stop to all that crap because corporations and businesses were destroying all competition and using the "free market" to do it too.

I really do not care about or for politicians and, by my measure, they seem to reciprocate wholly.

Well your question was why I don't think it will happen not what I believe. I don't think it will happen because it is political suicide for anyone who endorses it. Your and my beliefs be damned.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp
You can't minimize corruption, it is a function of human nature and exists wherever humans exist. That includes individuals, government and any other associations or businesses. However, you can provide ideal circumstances for it to thrive.

Knowing that it is inevitable is what makes free markets the best mechanism to drive production because only the least corrupt producers will prevail when all are allowed to compete.

I am shocked that these basic premises are lost on you as you have frequently claimed to be a libertarian.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't what you JUST suggested there "minimizing corruption"? If it can't thrive, then I'd say it is pretty minimized.

So you agree that free markets are the only mechanism which is capable of generating the highest quantities and/or efficiencies of production allocation?

Of course the free market achieves the best efficiency. That is one of its strongest assets, but that efficiency also tends to come at a greater and greater cost of freedom for more and more people.

I was under the impression that you were defending interventionist economic policies.

Only when business makes it necessary. Unfortunately, the government is bad at ceding that interventionist policy once the problem has been fixed. It is truly a dilemma that I wrestle with all the time.

originally posted by: Bluesma
a reply to: greencmp

I will admit that I am in no position to hold a firm stance on socialist economics. I cannot, I am too ignorant , have not had direct experience of it.

I can only limit my commentary to the value systems of collectivist thought and individualist thought, as cultural characteristics. I am living in a country that has socialist values culturally, but a capitalist economy.

There is a private sector, (which I have worked in for years, and found very little difference in the mindsets between my entrepreneur colleagues and those in the US- except a sort of comprehension of those who are different).

The public sector (which I now find myself in and faced with totally different ways of thought and value) actually competes with the private sector, so, it seems to work slightly different than what I know of socialist economic theory.

When I first came here, and witnessed my first big strike going on, I asked my husband, “Why don’t they just quit if they are not happy?” Seemed simple enough to me! If the company loses too many employees that way, they will change.

The theory is great. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work in a reality in which people have children to feed, and limited jobs available. Communication, and insisting upon re-negotiation, (while the company is legally not allowed to fire them while on strike, and they still get paid during that time) is what they value.

They recognize an interdependence there- the employees NEED their employer for survival, and vice versa, so it isn’t as simple as a fast split due to differences in intent.
But even more interesting was the point of view that there is a moral obligation, to the society, for people to not just let an employer get carried away with their greed, or ego, or some other way of “forgetting” to be ethical. Employees have a responsibility to “keep the higher ups in line”. Just walking out on the deal is being irresponsible.

That funny difference is the part where I saw individual entrepreneurs differ from the US ones- they actually accept that part. They have the money and the leadership to offer, and the workers have their energy and moral judgement.
Each appreciates that exchange as essential- it isn’t just about material exchange, it is about social obligation as equal citizens.

I doubt I am being very clear, (I can only write in the morning, it is too late in the day) and perhaps it doesn’t seem on topic anymore. As I said, I think Socialism and Collectivism is on the one end of the spectrum and no better than free market capitalism and Individualism on the other end. So arguing one is ideal by pointing out the negative aspects of the other doesn’t sway my view that balance is key.

I think the USSR remains a symbol and example of the failure of collectivism to an extreme, and next we’ll have the experiment in it’s opposite fall and the US will become the constantly referred to example of “what is wrong with Capitalism”. Maybe between trying one extreme, then the other, we’ll someday come to accepting that reality lies in between the ideals.

It sounds cliché but, admitting ignorance is in fact the only way to learn.

You are doing just fine and I thank you for your perspective, you know plenty.

The principal that underlies all non-economic activity is political. That is, anything which denies economics is necessarily a morally or ethically motivated action and is therefore political.

Since private property in the means of production and economics alone unencumbered by the necessity of impetus, justification or explanation has proven to be the most productive mechanism, any society which embraces it benefits enormously. It is simply amoral.

Philosophy, science, machining and myriad other advancements are the direct result of having made the decision not to attempt to artificially manipulate the economy. All indications are that our current state of interventionism is failing to come close to the known achievements of laissez-faire because of the ethical and moral judgements which pervade the quasi capitalist interventionist (and even mercantilist) model.

What I am suggesting is that we try that other extreme, the completely free economy. It does not require us to be immoral at all rather, it is the only system that by its very nature automatically discourages foul play.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
I can see that your knowledge of north american history is somewhat colored. I would recommend brushing up on the histories of the various european settlers across the continent of north america as well as the multitudes of truly diverse tribes.

As you say, the violence began en masse at the very instant that government arrived.

That's why I said BEFORE Europeans arrived there was a free market. Trust me, I recently DID just brush up on pre-Revolutionary America.

I want a corrective recession/depression to happen, the sooner it does the better off we will be in the long run.

I agree. It certainly would help in the long run.

I want our government to be crippled, the more it is occupied by its own internal dilemmas, the less it is able to molest people who simply wish to live their lives in peace. Given that it should be as ineffective as possible, dramatic funding reduction is the least wasteful way to achieve that.

I'd like that as well. There are quite a few things that government need not be involved with. Though you and I clearly differ on how much that is. The only time I agree with government intervention is when the corporate world makes it necessary. Look at the early 1900's with all the monopolies. Government intervention was necessary to put a stop to all that crap because corporations and businesses were destroying all competition and using the "free market" to do it too.

I really do not care about or for politicians and, by my measure, they seem to reciprocate wholly.

Well your question was why I don't think it will happen not what I believe. I don't think it will happen because it is political suicide for anyone who endorses it. Your and my beliefs be damned.

The monopolies of the 19th century were in fact authorized by the government in anticipation of supposed future private monopolies. The mechanism was very similar to the logic behind the net neutrality power grab and the existing franchise monopolies which were all sanctioned by local governments.

In any case, a monopoly on a product or service alone is no threat to the free market, only monopoly prices are and only if they are realized.

a reply to: Boadicea

I agree... but it's only an idealistic position because the free market has been so corrupted via legislation and regulation that attempts to thwart free will and control our economic choices. Our basic nature hasn't changed, only the means of control. We have economic chaos and destruction because of the interference. Left alone, the free market would serve and reflect our needs and consumer choices, not that of those controlling our purse strings.

And I agree with you here that the free market has been corrupted by legislation and regulation. AND I also agree that our basic nature has not changed. However... just what IS our basic nature? For me this is the main issue here.

Are we the free willed who are loosing our free will because of the stunted market place as the article suggests? Is this our basic nature? Or, as neurological studies from the last few decades are pointing out, that a lot of what we considered to be our free will is really, and always has been not so much free will as, rather, unconscious patterned behavior.

The author of the article lived decades before these recent studies and was speaking out against the 'behaviorist' philosophies from the early 1900s, and in this I consider it to be a valiant stand for freedom, but in a market sense, a huge mistake.

While most people rebelled against behaviorism, Pavlovian responseism, those who did not, found ways to test out the theory. They invented advertising and marketing and all manner of ways to manipulate the behaviorist, the Pavlovian responses within people. And while people were saying confidently to themselves that"I am an independent person endowed with free will by my Creator, these manipulators were proving otherwise. Which of course was and still is denied by the consumer.

Actually Boadicea you sum up my position on this when you said

It's only the means and method of control by others that has changed.

And that means and method, is based in some ways on a more fundamental understanding of human nature than was available eighty or so years ago. And in all of this, the laws and regulations have little effect. Those in the positions of economic power, who do little to abide by these rules in the first place would run rampant over the rest of us in any event. They prefer us as unthinking consumers, blind to our real nature and the means by which they control us.

But for me, the main issue is free will. What is it. Actually,,,, is it? There has been the thought that we have free will. The school of behaviorism says that we do not, as the author stands against in his article. And in light of neuro and consciousness studies over the last decade or so which find that the behaviorists understood more about human nature than the free willers would admit, just where, and to what extent to we, if we do at all, have free will?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

My first thought is pretty simple on this and it is just that people mature.

Children develop through various degrees of dependence and defiance, rebellion and compliance. Adults appear to be no different.

Would any of you try to tell me that your lives are currently being directed by advertising?

originally posted by: gosseyn

originally posted by: greencmp

The best economic system which provides the most useful commodities to the greatest number of people is the free market.

If it is the best interests of people that motivates you, you must acknowledge that fact.

If you have some other goal than the best interests of everybody, the world is your oyster until you spoil it and get a hold of another one.

What you are basically saying is "my religion is better than any other, and if you don't believe like I do, you'll go to hell". How do you know that it's the "best system" ? Where is your data ? Where are your scientific arguments ? Oh but here is the problem of your "best system", it doesn't have any scientific basis, but is based on pure ideology : it talks about a "creator" and "god given free-will", and "invisible hand" which is really just another word for "the creator".

Your "best system" advocates for the competition of everyone against everyone for nearly everything. And when something bad and unwanted happens you say "but hey, it's because the market is not free, what we need is more competition". The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Your "best system" is based on dogmas, it doesn't take into account reality just like any system of beliefs based on dogmas. It doesn't try to understand human beings in a scientific and precise manner, which is the first thing any social system should do, instead it throws at you old and obsolete values and ideological principles. Your "best system" doesn't take into account the technological possibilities or our time, is not interested in the fact that today we could automate 80% of any production process. This is how dogmas function, they are allergic to reality.

Humans when they are born are basically blank slates, and while growing they learn from their environment, this is proven in so many ways that I think I would insult the intelligence of any reader if I gave examples. What you don't seem to understand - and again why would you because you believe in an ideology that is not interested in reality - is that this free-market ideology teaches humans to be competitive and greedy, and then you say "look how humans are greedy, we really have the best system to accommodate that greedy human nature". You teach humans to give much importance to owning property and then you say "look how humans are attached to their property, we really have the best system to accommodate that greedy human nature". You teach humans that competition is the only way and then you say "look how humans are aggressive, we really have the best system to accommodate that aggressive human nature". And this is why you believe the free-market ideology is devoid of any values, you just don't see them anymore because those values are so intrinsically integrated into the system that they become invisible, just like the air you breathe.

Yes, humans have needs, but have you assessed those needs in a scientific manner ? Where is the line drawn between needs and wants ? How would you know if your ideology is not interested in facts and in reality ? Needs are needs, they are with us the second we are born and even before, but what are wants ? Where do wants start and end ? Here is an anecdote : at a state dinner, Napoleon gave his soldiers silver utensils and his court gold. But the guest of honor, the king of Siam, was given utensils of aluminium. Despite its relative abundance, aluminum was one of the rarest elements on Earth because it was hard to extract. But today we cover takeout food in foil and toss it away without a thought. This is what wants are made of, they are a creation. What if I wanted the whole of Africa as my backyard and I had the monetary means to afford it ? Would it be ok ? Where is the limit then ?

If I had to connect a "religion" to the concept of laissez-faire it would have be the Tao Te Ching, the earliest known example of conscious intentional libertarianism/individualism that I am aware of.

The highest rulers, people do not know they have them
The next level, people love them and praise them
The next level, people fear them
The next level, people despise them
If the rulers' trust is insufficient
Have no trust in them

Proceeding calmly, valuing their words
Task accomplished, matter settled
The people all say, "We did it naturally"

The Tao is constant in non-action
Yet there is nothing it does not do

If the sovereign can hold on to this
All things shall transform themselves
Transformed, yet wishing to achieve
I shall restrain them with the simplicity of the nameless
The simplicity of the nameless
They shall be without desire
Without desire, using stillness
The world shall steady itself

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

So basically, you are saying that everything I buy I do so because it was advertised to me. If that were the case, there ought to be no single thing in my house that does not have a brand name of some kind on it. There ought to be no single thing in my possession that I have no previously seen on TV in a commercial or heard of on the radio or read about in a periodical. I ought to be wearing the very latest and trendiest gear, eating only the latest in fad diet food, be replacing my automobile as soon as I can swing the new loan for another one and I it will be the one I see advertised as the VERY BEST one.

That's a lie.

I'd invite you over to prove it, but you likely live nowhere near me.

I don't even like pop music.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
I can see that your knowledge of north american history is somewhat colored. I would recommend brushing up on the histories of the various european settlers across the continent of north america as well as the multitudes of truly diverse tribes.

As you say, the violence began en masse at the very instant that government arrived.

That's why I said BEFORE Europeans arrived there was a free market. Trust me, I recently DID just brush up on pre-Revolutionary America.

I want a corrective recession/depression to happen, the sooner it does the better off we will be in the long run.

I agree. It certainly would help in the long run.

I want our government to be crippled, the more it is occupied by its own internal dilemmas, the less it is able to molest people who simply wish to live their lives in peace. Given that it should be as ineffective as possible, dramatic funding reduction is the least wasteful way to achieve that.

I'd like that as well. There are quite a few things that government need not be involved with. Though you and I clearly differ on how much that is. The only time I agree with government intervention is when the corporate world makes it necessary. Look at the early 1900's with all the monopolies. Government intervention was necessary to put a stop to all that crap because corporations and businesses were destroying all competition and using the "free market" to do it too.

I really do not care about or for politicians and, by my measure, they seem to reciprocate wholly.

Well your question was why I don't think it will happen not what I believe. I don't think it will happen because it is political suicide for anyone who endorses it. Your and my beliefs be damned.

The monopolies of the 19th century were in fact authorized by the government in anticipation of supposed future private monopolies. The mechanism was very similar to the logic behind the net neutrality power grab and the existing franchise monopolies which were all sanctioned by local governments.

In any case, a monopoly on a product or service alone is no threat to the free market, only monopoly prices are and only if they are realized.

And what's to prevent them from being realized besides the good will of the business owner?

a reply to: greencmp

What does laissez faire free market capitalism say the nature of law should be, or no laws at all? How does the nature of law be born of and related to and exist beneficially with laissez faire free market capitalism? Does law and the nature of law come into existence via free market commerce?

I'm fairly well read and educated but will not even pretend to understand what is being said here:

The predisposition to vituperate laissez-faire is engrained in the miseducated but, hardly dogma yet. The near immediate failure of nearly every socialist policy is grating on even the most mindless state sycophants.

Sorry, but you're going to have to dumb it down a tad if you want folks like me to get the gist of your thread. On the other hand if your goal was to talk over the heads of most of your readers then you've had a smashing success.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

The statement is a quote from the author of the book presented in the OP, not the OP's original words.

In essence, the claim is made that anyone who doesn't believe the point of faith that "free market forces always self-regulate and negate the need for any addition controls" is poorly educated at best and mindless at worst.

Also implied is that idea that you're either for free-market capitalism, or, you're a socialist, which again, makes you a mindless state sycophant.

All of which disregards the basic facts proven by the world's national economies of the last century or so, that clearly have demonstrated that a mixed economy, with elements of both free-markets and government controls, are the most successful.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Semicollegiate

This quote really says more about Churchill's than it does about anything. Its a quote from the inside looking out.

Once again, a working definition of what socialism actually is:

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

Socialism is not equivalent in meaning to mixed economy, welfare state, communism, totalitarianism, etc.

Generally, the varieties acknowledged are reformism versus revolutionary socialism, and state socialism versus libertarian socialism.

For an early declaration of the merits of state socialism, see Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
I can see that your knowledge of north american history is somewhat colored. I would recommend brushing up on the histories of the various european settlers across the continent of north america as well as the multitudes of truly diverse tribes.

As you say, the violence began en masse at the very instant that government arrived.

That's why I said BEFORE Europeans arrived there was a free market. Trust me, I recently DID just brush up on pre-Revolutionary America.

I want a corrective recession/depression to happen, the sooner it does the better off we will be in the long run.

I agree. It certainly would help in the long run.

I want our government to be crippled, the more it is occupied by its own internal dilemmas, the less it is able to molest people who simply wish to live their lives in peace. Given that it should be as ineffective as possible, dramatic funding reduction is the least wasteful way to achieve that.

I'd like that as well. There are quite a few things that government need not be involved with. Though you and I clearly differ on how much that is. The only time I agree with government intervention is when the corporate world makes it necessary. Look at the early 1900's with all the monopolies. Government intervention was necessary to put a stop to all that crap because corporations and businesses were destroying all competition and using the "free market" to do it too.

I really do not care about or for politicians and, by my measure, they seem to reciprocate wholly.

Well your question was why I don't think it will happen not what I believe. I don't think it will happen because it is political suicide for anyone who endorses it. Your and my beliefs be damned.

The monopolies of the 19th century were in fact authorized by the government in anticipation of supposed future private monopolies. The mechanism was very similar to the logic behind the net neutrality power grab and the existing franchise monopolies which were all sanctioned by local governments.

In any case, a monopoly on a product or service alone is no threat to the free market, only monopoly prices are and only if they are realized.

And what's to prevent them from being realized besides the good will of the business owner?

I assume you are conceding the point on monopolies.

For instance, I will give you an everyday example:

Bread may be best produced by a particularly innovative bakery which manages to produce a high quality product at a price that is unimaginable to compete with. In a true free market (without the regulatory burden and monopolistic patent and copyright laws) that company will be a monopoly until and unless someone does them one better or they attempt to invoke their presumed monopoly power. In either case, competition will eliminate their products from the market altogether.

An artist may have the monopoly on their artwork but, that doesn't cause any ill effects whatsoever. In that case, even if they do invoke their monopoly powers, would you argue that it is necessary for the state to intervene and force a price regulation on that artist?