Aristotle famously characterized the nature of law when he observed that “law is order, and good law is

good order.” It’s not that simple and law in the United States is complex, and the complexity is in the
rules themselves. Other times it is in their underlying policies or the motivations of politicians involved in
creating the laws. Select a current event or topic and examine it in relation to Aristotle’s observation
that “law is order, and good law is good order.”

Chosen topic: Applying antitrust laws such as the Sherman Antitrust Act to modern companies such as
Amazon, Facebook, or others etc. because they are becoming too powerful?

TITLE PAGE
Standard Oil and antitrust law: An Aristotelian view

In the holding of ancient Greek theorist Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E), the concept of “law”

is a form of order, providing an extensive set of norms and establishments by which the society

is formed. Laws, according to Aristotle, is a standard of behavior that is generally implemented

in that society, since the law applies to all parts of the society regardless of that person’s

economic or social stature. Aristotle was also the first philosopher to expound on the “rule of

law.” A common perception among the Greeks at the time; the law was a tool to restrain political

excesses. In this light, Aristotle was saying that if one were to demand for the “rule of law,” then

these are asking for Divine wisdom and dominion in that society, not human dominion (Leiter).

However, Aristotle seemed to discussing an uncodified natural system. There is a legal regime

that applies to all men everywhere and in all settings (Leyden 3). It can be thus stated that laws

are general statutes that create a form of order in the actions of society’s members which are

created in a logical and reasonable manner by the lawmaker. It can be stated that laws are rules

that ban certain actions; the universal nature of laws allows the ordinary citizen to learn the intent

of the law without the ambiguity attendant to the legal standard of the society (Law Explorer).

Aristotle posits that humans cannot ascend to any higher form of being, but in the context

of the law, humans can become like the worst of beasts. Aristotle argues that when man obeys

the tenet of the law, these can exhibit the best of humanity; outside the application of the law,

these can become the worst of beasts. Aristotle argues that humans are wretched and that this
depravity can be addressed by educating the person of the requirements of the law to guide them

away from their wretchedness. Simply put, laws, or the awareness of these laws, allows the

citizens of the society to acquiesce to the requirements and norms set down by that society. For

example, the law ‘educates’ citizens of their duties to pay taxes, follow regulations and

ordinances, and other needs. To sustain the operation of the society, people must be educated on

the need to follow all of its laws and rules to ensure the “supremacy of the law” in that society.

In this light, if one party breaks the law, it is contributing to destabilizing the “rule of law” that

sustains the existence of the society (Clayton).

Distortions of the law tend to create that instability in that society. In Standard Oil

Company of New Jersey v United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911), the U.S. government won their case

against Standard Oil for violating the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–

7. Though Standard lost in their case, Chief Justice Edward White, in penning the majority

decision, was able to change the language of the law in that the applicability of the law must only

apply to capricious contracts and other documents that would effectively strangle competition.

Thus, given that the Standard oil trust effectively restrained trade, it was deemed legally

unreasonable (Standard Oil).

The largest component of John Rockefeller and his associates’ business conglomerate, the

trust operated as a virtual monopoly from 1870 to 1911, working as a cartel that dominated the

nation’s oil sector from its production to transportation. Merging with Maurice Clark, Samuel

Andrews and Henry Flagler, the group formed the largest oil refinery facility in Cleveland,

which was eventually incorporated as the Standard Oil Company in 1870. A decade later, by

decimating its competition, mergers, and railroad incentives, the company monopolized pol

production in the United States. Two years later, the company was forged together as a cartel
created by the Standard Oil Trust Agreement. In the end, the trust managed 40 corporations.

Critics of the trust held that the monopoly exercised too much political and economic influence

that can destabilize commerce in the country. In 1906, the government sued Standard oil under

the tenets of the Sherman law. The Court ruled against Standard and was ordered to dismantle

the trust (Encyclopedia Britannica).

The remedy prescribed in the ruling was tow-pronged in its approach. The first mandated

the discontinuance of the prohibited actions and to dismantle the assailed combination to

abrogate the power of the illegal arrangement. However, the parties in the law must be allowed

to conclude legal contracts but must be barred from reacquiring the contested power in the future

(Justia). The phrases “restraint of trade” and “attempts to monopolize” within the context of

Sherman were derived in common law. The original canon that all agreements that restricted

commerce were in violation of the law was extensive. With this perception, it was revised to

reflect the canon that the agreement was legitimate if the produced limitation was not integral to

its operation and was judicious. Under common law, trusts were considered illegal owing to their

innate restraint on “individual freedom of contract” and their capacity to inflict harms on the

public and towards common law doctrine. Accords that also generated these ‘evils’ were also

included in the ban since these will work towards the restraint of commerce and competition

(Justia). The Standard Oil trust stifled competition in the oil sector by forging the nation’s

biggest oil company and rejected government efforts to illegalize contortions of the law that will

bring the same effect. In the early 1900s, a federal court ruled against Standard Oil, holding that

the company violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Given this ruling, it ordered that the monopoly

be dissolved (Standard).
United States Business Law (Antitrust Laws)

In the United States, antitrust laws were established to ensure that businesses are

prevented from engaging in acts that would go against the spirit of competition in business.

There are different anti-competitive activities that businesses engage in, and these prevent fair

competition in the industries in which the businesses operate. Some of the anticompetitive

activities could include hostile takeover, price-fixing, and market segmentation, among others.

The United States developed legislation aimed at ensuring that businesses are prevented from

engaging in these activities. The antitrust laws can be applied to any business within the United

States that is deemed to be engaging in activities that are considered anti-competitive. It would

be important that the government applies these laws in private businesses when there is evidence

that the business is disrupting the market and effectively becoming a monopoly.

There are businesses that have substantially dominated the American market because of

the position they have taken within their industries. Specifically, businesses in the technology

industry have been seen to engage in practices that effectively eliminate fair competition within

the markets. In recent reports, it has been noted that major technology corporations are bearing

significant amounts of monopoly power, preventing startups and small companies in the industry

from competing effectively (Rogoff). The companies have, in some cases, arm twisted smaller

competitors or startups into selling their businesses to the major corporations. As a result of their

dominance, these companies have disrupted the market and ensured that they enjoy monopoly

powers. It is when businesses get to this point that the United States government should apply

the antitrust laws to the private businesses operating within the country.

Modern-day companies such as Amazon are effectively becoming monopolies and

getting too powerful. It is essential to note that major and modern-day companies such as
Amazon are becoming dominant in the markets where they operate. This is based on the fact that

these companies have significantly relied on convenience and reduced prices to establish

themselves as market giants. It is essential to understand that a monopoly is a business that is

having complete control of the supply of services or goods in a specific market or area (). This

means that the company has the capacity to destroy all competition and dictate prices in that area

of the market. Modern-day companies such as Amazon have become significantly dominant in

their markets. Amazon, for instance, has ensured that most businesses join forces with it, as

opposed to attempting to compete with it (Faherty et al. 9). This is because of the fact that the

company has established a number of barriers to market entry, making it difficult for businesses

to enter the market independently.

Additionally, modern-day companies have also been involved in the establishment of

business standards that prevent others from easily competing with them. It is essential to

understand that most of the major corporations such as Amazon have been involved in the

development of private label brands. Specifically, major players in the e-commerce industry have

been seen to actively disrupt the market through the use of quality and price. The companies

have often offered low prices to their consumers, making startups and small businesses less

competitive. It should be noted that one of the central characteristics of monopolies or anti-

competitiveness is that of price-fixing (Capobianco 31). This involves the company developing

platforms that dictate the prices by working with retailers to set specific prices that are lower

than the prices offered in the market.

Based on the above, it would be important that the Government of the United States

apply the antitrust laws on these companies as it was done in the case of Standard Oil Co. In the

case of Standard Oil, the monopoly became significantly strong and raised concerns over the
possibility of influencing political and economic factors in the country. This is one of the most

important reasons why the United States should apply the laws in the case of modern companies.

There is a need for the government to exercise control over the political and economic influence

of companies. This is because a disruption in the two fields could significantly impact the

position of the United States in global economy and politics. As such, it would be critical for the

country to apply these laws.

However, the most important reasons why antitrust laws should be applied to modern

companies are to ensure that the market is opened up to the fair competition. There is a need to

understand that fair competition is critical to business growth, which effectively translates to

economic development. Small businesses and startups provide important opportunities for

employment to individuals in the United States. The reduced rates of employment are critical

indicators of economic growth. In applying these laws, the government will effectively

accomplish its legal responsibility for ensuring that fair competition is promoted within the

different industries. In addition to that, applying these laws to modern businesses will be vital in

ensuring that an environment is established in which small businesses and startups can thrive,

grow, and become effectively competitive in the market. It is on this basis that it would be

important for the Government of the United States to apply antitrust laws to modern companies.

Works Cited

Clayton, Edward, Aristotle: politics, https://iep.utm.edu/aris-pol/, Accessed 16 February 2021

Encyclopedia Britannica, Standard Oil, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Standard-Oil,

Accessed 16 February 2021

Justia, Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911),

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/221/1/, Accessed 16 February 2021

Law Explorer, Aristotle’s philosophy of law, 2015, https://bit.ly/2Zk0p5t, Accessed 16 February

2021

Leyden, Wolfgang, “Aristotle and the concept of law” The Journal of the Royal Institute of

Philosophy, Volume XLII, number 159, 1967, pp. 1-19

Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1900-

1940/221us1. Accessed 16 Feb. 2021.

Capobianco, Antonio. Implications Of E-Commerce For Competition Policy - Background Note.

Organisation For Economic Co-Operation And Development, 2019.

Faherty, Emily, Kevin Huang, and Robert Land. "The Amazon Monopoly: Is Amazon’s Private

Label Business the Tipping Point?." (2017).

Rogoff, Kenneth. "Big Tech Has Too Much Monopoly Power – It's Right To Take It On |

Kenneth Rogoff". The Guardian, 2019,

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/02/big-tech-monopoly-power-

elizabeth-warren-technology. Accessed 23 Feb 2021.