Lawrence Lessig Quotes

The one thing that I know government is good for is countervailing against monopoly. It's not great at that either, but it's the only force I know that is fairly reliable.

I'm not denying that monopolies are terrible things, but I am denying that it is readily easy to resolve them through legislation of that nature.

The only way you can stop the unregulated monopoly ... from gouging ... is to introduce competition.

I talked about the barriers created by monopolies. I said that it was the role of government to break up these monopolies and that we couldn't do it alone.

As premiums continue to skyrocket, we must ensure that health insurers are not engaging in anticompetitive behavior and unfairly driving up health care costs.

As someone with a deep faith in competition and the market, I also know that markets only work with tough enforcement of the rules that guarantee competition and fair play - and that the pressure to break those rules only gets stronger as the amount of money involved gets larger.

My politics are: I'm a trustbuster. Very focused. And yeah, I'm pro-efficiency. I want the most economic activity at the lowest price possible. It's good for everybody; it's not red or blue.

I do not expect monopoly to restrain itself.

Consumers depend on us to make sure that competition is fair and open, and it's my responsibility to make that happen.

Rules designed to ensure competition ensure that innovators with new ideas can challenge incumbents on a level playing field.

I'm for strong antitrust enforcement.

Antitrust law isn't about protecting competing businesses from each other, it's about protecting competition itself on behalf of the public.

I don't think we can go back to the old days. But I think that what the government needs to do is it needs to make sure that the pricing is fair, that you don't have monopolies out there, so that people don't have a chance to compete fairly.

The limit is not as narrow as it might be. I do not claim for this action, as it now goes on, an ideal degree of efficiency. What I do claim is that this type of competition already reveals its nature and its ultimate power to hold seeming monopolies in check.

With less competition to fear, companies are emboldened to raise their mark-ups and profits. That lifts share prices and thus the wealth of already wealthy shareholders.

We have protected our domestic industry far too long and they were happily dishing out substandard goods. Now, they see red when there is competition

Tough enforcement of the antitrust laws can help prevent a recurrence of inflation by attacking abuses of economic power.

Effective competition requires that traders have large freedom of action when conducting their own affairs.

Competition does a much more effective job than government at protecting consumers.

New York state's Donnelly Act gives power at least as great - many think greater - than that of the Sherman Act. We have strong consumer protection laws that can be used to protect against scams and frauds by corporate monopolists.

I'm a natural-born trust-buster.

It doesn't really matter who owns things so long there is enough competition, which means lower pricing, better quality goods, more variety, and an economy where the consumers are the big winners.

When the government mandates that everyone must buy a product, its sellers can, and will, increase its price, potentially without limit.

Incumbents have long promoted regulation in the name of protecting consumers when their actual goal is to block new entrants and stifle competition.

While control is needed, and perfectly warranted, our bias should be clear up front: Monopolies are not justified by theory; they should be permitted only when justified by facts. If there is no solid basis for extending a certain monopoly protection, then we should not extend that protection.