OK, lets talk about antitrust law and the plight of persecuted Mormons. The basic gist of antitrust law is that you cannot use a monopoly to engage in anticompetitive activity such as price fixing. This seems like a sensible rule, but the devil is in the details. One of the major problems, of course, is to figure out what constitutes the relevant market. For example, Apple corporation has a monopoly over the production of iPods. Should they be subject to antitrust laws? What is the market in questions? iPods? MP3 players? Music players? Entertainment devices? Another example might be the McDonalds in the Kingstowne shopping center a couple of blocks from my house. It has a monopoly on fast-food hamburgers in the corner of Springfield wedged between Annandale and Burke. Is this the market? Or is the market fast food (there is a Subway in the shopping center), restaurants (there is a Chinese place there as well), or perhaps it is Fairfax County (there are a MacDonald’s down the road in either direction)? In short, the presence or absence of monopoly hinges entirely on how you define the relative market.
Both liberal and conservative Mormons like to claim the mantle of persecution. There seems to be a certain nobility in minority status, and it makes a nice rhetorical trump as well as providing a salve for certain emotional wounds. Liberal Mormons point out, quite correctly as it happens, that they are a minority in the Church. Most active Mormons seem to be political and theological conservatives. Hence, Kerry-voting Sunstone subscribers must swim against the stream in Sunday School class, etc. etc. Conservative Mormons point out, quite correctly as it happens, that they are a minority in the world at large. Most people are not conservative Mormons. Furthermore, if one picks a particular slice of the world at large — say academia or the “media elite” — then there are few people that share those ideas and commitments nearest and dearest to the hearts of conservative Mormons. They must swim against the stream. Minority status, like monopoly power, depends on the definition of the market.
If I were really ambitious, I would come up with some theory that defined what was the relevant market for each rhetorical situation. At this point, however, imagination fails me. I never took antitrust, and at work I avoid antitrust cases like the plague. (Would you want to spend hundreds of hours looking at memos on the price of pork bellies or textile fibers? Me neither.) Rather, I am inclined to think that attempts to claim the rhetorical high ground by asserting minority Mormon status are pretty vacuous. At the very least, this move tells us much less than our discussions might suggest.
Nate, you’re right. A friend of mine just finished his dissertation on rhetorical claims to “outsider” status in early Christianity. This rhetorical move is as old as the hills. It is interesting to see it in evangelical Christianity too. They claim outsider status in education, the media, culture, etc, all the while controlling congress and the presidency.
Having studied antitrust in law school, I must say it is an interesting subject, although not one in which I would like to be intimately involved in the discovery process for a lawsuit. But the crafting of arguments to successfully prosecute or defend an antitrust case is definitely an interesting and intellectually stimulating pursuit.
I think that a good portion of our attempts to classify ourselves as minorities comes from our long history of protectionist philosophy, particularly in the economic and political arenas. I’ve been reading a history of the British Empire and the historian argues that many of these attitudes are remnants of colonialism and the need to protect the fledgling colonies for their useful trade goods while utilizing them as a means of removing unwanted citizens from the core citizenry.
As Mormons (or gays, or liberals, or conservatives, or pro-lifers, or pro-choicers) we can claim the need for protectionism and tolerance for our ideas/choices by defining ourselves in such a way as to be the minority player in the “market”. We define ourselves as the fledgling colony with valuable trade goods which should be protected. We are the sole player outside the cartel of _____________ (Christiandom, organized religion, Molly Mormons, your pick) and thus should be protected from the anticompetitive leanings of the big players.
On the other hand, when it is useful to our personal “profits” (moral/ethical high ground), we can define ourselves as the majority player in the market and utilize all the arguments which require a laissez faire environment. We are the sole harbingers of truth, justice, mercy, the Gospel, etc. Our monopoly on religious truth should be sufficient for laws to change, people to follow what we believe, etc., etc.
I haven’t applied antitrust law to religious tolerance or moral/ethical arguments before, but there are definitely some correlaries between how we justify our practices based on how we define the market of religious/moral/ethical values.
As often as the oppressed minority, one hears the oppressed majority story. Where one’s views are actually very populist and popular among the heartland of the group in question, but a rich and vocal elite stifle truth and justice and the working man. Sometimes it is good to be a minority, but after a while you start to look like a wimp. Better to be the populist hero kept down by The Man.
“Better to be the populist hero kept down by The Man.”
No, Frank, the best option is to be The Man. Believe me, it has great benefits.
“Hence, Kerry-voting Sunstone subscribers must swim against the stream in Sunday School class, etc. etc.”
I love it.
Well, you’re the Man so I’d guess you’d know!
Let me rephrase– “Better to be perceived as the populist hero kept down by the Man”.
ML: fabulous. I like it; albeit I’m biased since I spend every day thinking about how to bring antitrust claims. is your practice antitrust based also?
Only antitrust based to the extent that people buy dirt. I’m a dirt lawyer.
I too studied antitrust in law school. Not sure how well it took, since I work for probably the largest monopoly in the world: the US Department of Defense. Our entire reason for existence is to discourage competition, and to destroy the competition if they try to challenge us.
alamojag: Priceless.
I, on the other hand, studiously avoided anti-trust, and any other business related course I could, in favor of ‘useful’ classes like Advanced Evidence, Crim., and PIL. Now, rather than having issues with anti-trust, I just don’t trust anyone. . .
Defining the relevant market can be not only difficult, but whimsical. GE used to say that they only competed in markets in which they could hold a dominant position, which they defined as #1 or #2 competitior. They prided themselves on preserving favorable economies of scale, market awareness, leverage with suppliers, etc. Then Jack Welck, new CEO, told his business-unit heads to redefine their markets so that they had a small minority — 10% or less, if memory serves — so that they would see huge potential to capture share in their marketand become the scrappy upstart.
Manaen (#11) – That GE example from Jack Welch’s book is a perfect illustration of what I was trying to capture in my earlier comment on how parties choose to define the market to gain the moral/ethical high ground. In GE’s case, for performance review purposes, given Jack Welch’s “Fire the bottom 10%” philosphy, you would define the relevant market to be one in which you were #1 or #2, but for budgetary purposes, I’m sure people defined their market as one which presented a huge upside. People do the same thing with moral/ethical choices, e.g. the “Liberal Media oppressor” rants of the majority conservatives, where they can highlight the dangers of the minority upstarts (See also 17th century Anglicans and their plans to rid England of Catholics by transporting them to Ireland and the U.S.) and the arguments that they are the minority underdogs in defending all that is good and wholesome in the country against the combined forces of EVEEEL! (Muahahaha!!!)
Perhaps I’m the only resident antitrust lawyer, then.
For Sherman Act purposes, a market is defined by what viable substitutes exist and how much consumers would be willing to pay (or drive, or whatever) to acquire those competing goods or services. One holds a monopoly only for so long as competitors are few. Since rhetorical postures (at least under the First Amendment) are free, there are, few to no constraints exist. So while minority status may be in the eye of the beholder’s narrowly defined market, monopolies, alas, are much harder to craft and even harder to hold.
(And, FWIW, price fixing (Sherman section 1) isn’t a function of monopoly (Sherman section 2). It generally occurs only when there are competitors, since it’s tough to enter into an unlawful agreement regarding a particular price with a competitor when there isn’t a competitor to agree with.)