106 Chapter 5
Particularlyinterestingis the sortof terminologythatBrandeisrelieduponin his
argumentsfor antitrustlegislation.Moderngovernistspay homageto Brandeisespecially
on accountof Brandeispreparingthe expansionof antitrustregulationoverbusiness.
Whatcomesto my attentionis this. WhenBrandeiswroteon thismatterinCollier’s
magazine,he wrotethatthe usualcompetitionamonga multitudeof one-man-operation
businesseswas“the survivalof the fittest,” andthatthis“survivalof the fittest” was
actuallygood.
Yet Brandeisbroughtintothe old fallacythatthisnormalsortof competition,left
unregulated by the government,inevitablygave wayto a situationwherea single
monopolycoulddominatean industry.Allegedly,this monopolywouldariseby at least
oneof threemethods.First,variousfirmsin the sameindustrycouldagreeto restrict
outputand colludeon price,actingas a cartel.Secondly,thesefirmscouldofficiallyagree
to mergeinto a singlefirm.Thirdly,a single,highlycapitalizedfirmcouldunder-priceits
competitorsintoextinction,or purchasethe smallercompetitors.Thisassumptionabout
laissezfairecreatingmonopoliesdatesbackat leastas far as KarlMarx,and,as we have
witnessedin BookTwo,wasrepeatedby GeorgeOrwell.Andas we alsorememberfrom
BookTwo,thereis scanthistoricalevidenceof this actuallyoccurring.
Anyhow,Brandeisswallowedthis fallacyat facevalue,and thusconcludedthatanti-
trustwasrequiredto maintaina competitiveatmosphere.As BrandeiswroteinCollier’s,
“Thepurpose” of competitorscombiningintoa singlefirm“has oftenbeento curbeffi-
ciency,thusfrustratingthe naturallaw of the survivalof the fittest.”^20 As we recollect
fromLife in the MarketEcosystem, Hofstadteris quickto judgerailroadownerJames
JeromeHillas a socialDarwinistprimarilyon the basisof Hillhappilydescribinghis
industry’s competition as survival of the fittest. When Brandeis employs that same
phrase—withsimilarlypositiveconnotations,and in a similarcontext—he escapesbeing
labeleda socialDarwinist,on accountof his progressivepolitics.
Onemightmisconstruefromthe previousstatementsthat Brandeiswantscompetition
amongbusinessesin the sameindustryto be maximized.Yet Brandeispresumesthat
therecan alsobe too muchcompetition.On May27, 1913,he wroteto RobertM. La
Follette,“Theremustbe reasonablerestrictionsuponcompetitionelse we shallsee com-
petitiondestroyed.”^21 Givenhis presumptionthatallegedlytoo muchcompetitionwill
resultin monopoly,it followsthatBrandeisapprovedneitherof verylittlecompetition
nor too much;he simplypresumedthat the properamountof it couldplausiblybe set by
the State.Actually,Brandeisdeliveredratherincoherentstatementson severalothertop-
ics as well.He opined,“Unlicensedlibertyleadsnecessarilyto despotismandoligar-
chy.”^22 Andchauvinismwasimplicitin the argumentsthat Brandeisgavefor limitingthe
workinghoursof womeninMullerv. Oregon. As journalistDamonW. Rootphrases,
Brandeisargued“womenrequiredspecialprotectionfromthe state.In fact,Brandeis
argued,sincewomenwereresponsiblefor bearingfuturegenerations,theirbodieswere
in somesensecollectiveproperty.”^23 To quoteBrandeishimself,“Whenthe healthof
womenhas beeninjuredby longhours,not onlyis the workingefficiencyof the commu-
nityimpaired,but the deteriorationis handeddownto succeedinggenerations.... The
overworkof futuremothersthusdirectlyattacksthe welfareof the nation.”^24
The U.S.SupremeCourtagreedwithBrandeis’s sexism.As JusticeDavidJosiahBrew-
er (1837–1910)statedin the rulingopinion,“... historydisclosesthe fact thatwomanhas
alwaysbeendependentuponman.... As minors,thoughtnot to the sameextent,” every
woman
has beenlookeduponin the courtsas needingespecialcarethather rightsmaybe
preserved.... she is not an equalcompetitorwithher brother.... she is not uponan
equality.... It is impossibleto closeone’s eyesto the fact that she still looksto her brother