NationStates Jolt Archive

I've re-proposed the Ban on Industrial Cartels as the Anti-Monopoly Act. For those of you who supported it previously, I ask you to endorse it again.

Why should the world be held at the mercy of uncompetitive practices, denying the possibility of free trade?

THe only way to create a harmful monopoly is through physical force -- any good drug dealer will tell you that.

Otherwise if you have anything near a monopoly, you either:
- Created a better product (Microsoft)
- Will be overtaken by innovation in a few years anyway (Standard Oil, before the government lawsuit)

THe only way to create a harmful monopoly is through physical force -- any good drug dealer will tell you that.

Otherwise if you have anything near a monopoly, you either:
- Created a better product (Microsoft)

HAH!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously, how many illegal operations have you performed today?

- Will be overtaken by innovation in a few years anyway (Standard Oil, before the government lawsuit)

You are aware that the oil companies brainwashed you into thinking you need to have clean oil and the oil needs to be changed every 3,000 miles, even though there are much more efficient oils out there that never need to be changed once in a car's lifetime. It's actually been like this for many years, but do you see any less people using normal oil?

Monopolies don't dissapear on thier own, they just get bigger and bigger until they are the one's running the country, that is until the government does something about them. I.E. Microsoft, even though it is one of the crappiest OS's on the market today, and the only way they got where they are is through corporate sabotage, business deals like teh one with the intel inside people, and censoring of all other products bett.... *computer self destructs*

I haven't had a problem with this computer since the worm. Not counting that, I haven't had a problem with a Windows OS since last March and even then it was rather minor.

Linux is probably superior to Windows for people who are really into computers, but in terms of being easier to use, Windows definitely wins out.

Monopolies DO go away on their own... it's called innovation. The only thing that can destroy that is PHYSICAL FORCE OR THE THREAT THEREOF, i.e. government intervention, as is the case with AT&T.

If you will notice, Standard Oil hit its heyday in the late 1800s... by the time the government sued it in the early 1900s, it's market share had ALREADY decreased from 90% to 60%.

I haven't had a problem with this computer since the worm. Not counting that, I haven't had a problem with a Windows OS since last March and even then it was rather minor.

Linux is probably superior to Windows for people who are really into computers, but in terms of being easier to use, Windows definitely wins out.

Monopolies DO go away on their own... it's called innovation. The only thing that can destroy that is PHYSICAL FORCE OR THE THREAT THEREOF, i.e. government intervention, as is the case with AT&T.

If you will notice, Standard Oil hit its heyday in the late 1800s... by the time the government sued it in the early 1900s, it's market share had ALREADY decreased from 90% to 60%.

But monopolies generally inhibit innovation--Microsoft is an exception because the field was and is so wide open for innovation, but to use one of your earlier examples, think of the innovation that's taken place since the AT&T breakup. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the monopoly, but the breakup, which was intensely unpopular at the time, paved the way for great advances in telecommunication.
AT&T had no incentive to made improvements in technology because no one was pushing it to do so. You couldn't go anywhere else for local or long-distance service, so the technology was essentially the same as it had been in the early sixties. But once the breakup occurred, you had options in long-distance service, you had fiber-optic technology, you had date transmission capability. Technology moved forward because the Bells had to get off their asses and fight for customers again. And what we are doing right now is an offshoot of that breakup.

I haven't had a problem with this computer since the worm. Not counting that, I haven't had a problem with a Windows OS since last March and even then it was rather minor.

Linux is probably superior to Windows for people who are really into computers, but in terms of being easier to use, Windows definitely wins out.

Monopolies DO go away on their own... it's called innovation. The only thing that can destroy that is PHYSICAL FORCE OR THE THREAT THEREOF, i.e. government intervention, as is the case with AT&T.

If you will notice, Standard Oil hit its heyday in the late 1800s... by the time the government sued it in the early 1900s, it's market share had ALREADY decreased from 90% to 60%.

But monopolies generally inhibit innovation--Microsoft is an exception because the field was and is so wide open for innovation, but to use one of your earlier examples, think of the innovation that's taken place since the AT&T breakup. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the monopoly, but the breakup, which was intensely unpopular at the time, paved the way for great advances in telecommunication.
AT&T had no incentive to made improvements in technology because no one was pushing it to do so. You couldn't go anywhere else for local or long-distance service, so the technology was essentially the same as it had been in the early sixties. But once the breakup occurred, you had options in long-distance service, you had fiber-optic technology, you had date transmission capability. Technology moved forward because the Bells had to get off their asses and fight for customers again. And what we are doing right now is an offshoot of that breakup.

The AT&T monopoly was CREATED BY GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. The government subsidized AT&T and granted it special privileges over certain areas, etc.

THe way I see it there are GOOD monopolies (Microsoft) and BAD monopolies (AT&T and the various East India Companies... these are maintained through government assisstance)

Baudrillard, and all others who support this bill have caught the eye of some powerful and influencial corporate powers. Be forewarned.

Premier CEO President John Silver

The AT&T monopoly was CREATED BY GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. The government subsidized AT&T and granted it special privileges over certain areas, etc.

THe way I see it there are GOOD monopolies (Microsoft) and BAD monopolies (AT&T and the various East India Companies... these are maintained through government assisstance)

So how does that change my point--how it was created makes no difference; what happened afterwards is the point. The monopoly was broken up and the amount of innovation afterward was astounding.

The problem with a monopoly in general is the same as the problem with one-party rule--the concern shifts from what got the group into a dominant position--innovation and risk-taking--to consolidation of power, which usually manifests itself in going with proven methods instead of taking risks.

Otherwise if you have anything near a monopoly, you either:
- Created a better product (Microsoft)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaa... *sigh*.

Cheers, GM, I haven't laughed that hard in months.

Baudrillard, and all others who support this bill have caught the eye of some powerful and influencial corporate powers. Be forewarned.

Premier CEO President John Silver

:shock: Ooh, I'm so scared. You big bad bully you.

Anyway, here's the text of the act:

That in understanding that the development of national, regional, or international monopolies or cartels of raw or finished goods reduce competition and thereby injure the premise and practice of free trade;

That members of the United Nations pledge to remain non-aligned with industrial cartels of raw or finished products;

That members of the United Nations pledge to closely self-regulate their industries so that monopolies, interlocking directorates, or cartels be dissolved;

That members of the United Nations practice embargoes with any existing monopoly or cartel, including those who are sponsored by nations not affiliated with the United Nations.

:arrow: Now, the act is worded so that BOTH government subsidy and regulation is possible, trade agreements can be made (beneficial to one or both parties), etc. More importantly, the act requires SELF-REGULATION through whatever means individual nations feel necessary.

We have no reason to be slaves to a massive industry (Microsoft, et. al.), a cartel (OPEC, etc.,) and there must be procedures put in place that allows nations to regulate such cartels and monopolies to allow for innovation and competition (even if via subsidy and tarriff.)

There is no valid reason to punish people for being good at what they do.

There is no valid reason to punish people for being good at what they do.

:!: Being good at what? Manipulating the world?

:shock: Ooh, I'm so scared. You big bad bully you.

Glad to hear it. Expect to hear from CoVar soon. When we get around to you that is. Oh and thanks for you raving compliments.

*Add Baudrillard to the List*

Premier CEO President John Silver

Monopoly is a negative word. Surely evryone uses it so, where a company controls everything?

DID YOU KNOW...
1. Monopoly has been played with real money?
2. It is banned in Cuba?

The AT&T monopoly was CREATED BY GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. The government subsidized AT&T and granted it special privileges over certain areas, etc.

THe way I see it there are GOOD monopolies (Microsoft) and BAD monopolies (AT&T and the various East India Companies... these are maintained through government assisstance)

So how does that change my point--how it was created makes no difference; what happened afterwards is the point. The monopoly was broken up and the amount of innovation afterward was astounding.

The problem with a monopoly in general is the same as the problem with one-party rule--the concern shifts from what got the group into a dominant position--innovation and risk-taking--to consolidation of power, which usually manifests itself in going with proven methods instead of taking risks.

How it is created and maintained makes all the difference.

When the government creates or maintains a monopoly it does it through PHYSICAL FORCE (not directly of course, but government power derives from physical force). A government-sponsored monopoly is a ZERO-SUM SITUATION because of this.

However a non-government monopoly isn't a zero-sum game and does not involve the use of physical force. This may temporarily stifle innovation, but it cannot EFFECTIVELY do so for any meaningful period of time. It is justified, unlike the government monopolies.

Go to www.capitalism.org and click on anti-trust. It's very good.

Next thing we know, you want to ban, Scrabble and Risk as well!!! :x

The AT&T monopoly was CREATED BY GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. The government subsidized AT&T and granted it special privileges over certain areas, etc.

THe way I see it there are GOOD monopolies (Microsoft) and BAD monopolies (AT&T and the various East India Companies... these are maintained through government assisstance)

So how does that change my point--how it was created makes no difference; what happened afterwards is the point. The monopoly was broken up and the amount of innovation afterward was astounding.

The problem with a monopoly in general is the same as the problem with one-party rule--the concern shifts from what got the group into a dominant position--innovation and risk-taking--to consolidation of power, which usually manifests itself in going with proven methods instead of taking risks.

How it is created and maintained makes all the difference.

When the government creates or maintains a monopoly it does it through PHYSICAL FORCE (not directly of course, but government power derives from physical force). A government-sponsored monopoly is a ZERO-SUM SITUATION because of this.

However a non-government monopoly isn't a zero-sum game and does not involve the use of physical force. This may temporarily stifle innovation, but it cannot EFFECTIVELY do so for any meaningful period of time. It is justified, unlike the government monopolies.

Go to www.capitalism.org and click on anti-trust. It's very good.

There can be no monopoly without threat of physical force or government intervetion. When considering intellectual property the monopoly would never occur in the first place, without government intervention, because people on the ends would modify and remarket the product faster than the centralized structure of a monopoly could(i.e Linux). Thus, a company, in order to obtain a monpoly, needs to ensure that others cannot innovate from their product through patents and copyright, which are forms of government granted monopolies.

Next thing we know, you want to ban, Scrabble and Risk as well!!! :x

:( Nah, Scrabble and Risk are too much fun.

THe only way to create a harmful monopoly is through physical force -- any good drug dealer will tell you that.

Otherwise if you have anything near a monopoly, you either:
- Created a better product (Microsoft)

HAH!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously, how many illegal operations have you performed today?

None. I think some people just suck with computers.

I think that saying "physical" force is a bit narrow here. Rather, it is INTIMIDATION that is what makes a monopoly "bad". That is to say, the monopolist will not come in and personally beat you up or trash your office, but they will threaten to use their market share to have you blacklisted from the industry if they don't like you. For example, let's say that some company does come out with an operating system that is both more powerful AND easier to use than Windows. Microsoft, interested in protecting its market share, will want to prevent sales of this new system. For example, Microsoft may announce that they will not allow any company that makes software for the new system to also port their software to Windows, in effect saying "if you side with these new guys, then you can forget having access to Windows users".

OK, well, then, the companies will have to decide what they think will make them more money, won't they?

Microsoft makes Windows, it has every right to decide who it will open its APIs to (although they're available for free from Microsoft itself on the Internet for anyone who cares to look) and to base that decision on whatever conditions it likes. No one has a right to access to something that belongs to or was created by someone else unless the owner or creator grants permission to do so.

OK, well, then, the companies will have to decide what they think will make them more money, won't they?

Microsoft makes Windows, it has every right to decide who it will open its APIs to (although they're available for free from Microsoft itself on the Internet for anyone who cares to look) and to base that decision on whatever conditions it likes. No one has a right to access to something that belongs to or was created by someone else unless the owner or creator grants permission to do so.

:arrow: This resolution does not include a provision on copyright at all; therefore, copyright will be left to individual nations.

You're missing the point, which is that the fact that life may be made more difficult for some companies is not a valid reason to punish people for being successful.

I haven't had a problem with this computer since the worm. Not counting that, I haven't had a problem with a Windows OS since last March and even then it was rather minor.

Linux is probably superior to Windows for people who are really into computers, but in terms of being easier to use, Windows definitely wins out.

Monopolies DO go away on their own... it's called innovation. The only thing that can destroy that is PHYSICAL FORCE OR THE THREAT THEREOF, i.e. government intervention, as is the case with AT&T.

If you will notice, Standard Oil hit its heyday in the late 1800s... by the time the government sued it in the early 1900s, it's market share had ALREADY decreased from 90% to 60%.

Macintosh is better than windows, the only good thing about windows is the fact that everything is designed for it, which is because of monopoly tactics. Windows isn't better, it's just bigger, that is the only reason it is more use friendly. And it will continue to get bigger and bigger, with nothing to stop it, it will have an unbreakable monopoly.

And Monopolies do not go away on thier own, are you familiar with the QWERTY?

You're missing the point, which is that the fact that life may be made more difficult for some companies is not a valid reason to punish people for being successful.

Yes it is. Just because you have some wierd conception of absolute morals (which I already proved wrong, it can be noted by your fleeing of the thread) does not mean they are right.

OK, well, then, the companies will have to decide what they think will make them more money, won't they?


I am not contesting this at all. Rather, my point is that a monopolist will devote large amounts of resources towards pre-emptively destroying any potential competitors, which short-circuits the normal market mechanisms. An environment of "support us or be locked out of the market" is not conductive to competition.

But again, if it is their product why shouldn't they be allowed to require whatever terms they wish of those to whom they allow to use it?

But again, if it is their product why shouldn't they be allowed to require whatever terms they wish of those to whom they allow to use it?

Again, I am not disputing their right to use their product in the most profitable way possible. The point I am trying to make is that a monopoly is self-sustaining--the monopolist will do everything possible to maintain its own dominance, thus preventing effective competition. Thus, the scenario in which a competitor with a superior product will gain enough market share to break the monopoly is less likely because the monopolist will seek to destroy a competitor BEFORE the competing product has the chance to break the monopoly.

i'm all for monopolies - all the different streets, and the top hat. i always wanted to be the shoe. now i like smelling shoes. it makes me do a sex wee.

But again, if it is their product why shouldn't they be allowed to require whatever terms they wish of those to whom they allow to use it?

Again, I am not disputing their right to use their product in the most profitable way possible. The point I am trying to make is that a monopoly is self-sustaining--the monopolist will do everything possible to maintain its own dominance, thus preventing effective competition. Thus, the scenario in which a competitor with a superior product will gain enough market share to break the monopoly is less likely because the monopolist will seek to destroy a competitor BEFORE the competing product has the chance to break the monopoly.

That'll be too bad, won't it? It ultimately comes down to what individuals choose to buy.

I haven't had a problem with this computer since the worm. Not counting that, I haven't had a problem with a Windows OS since last March and even then it was rather minor.

Linux is probably superior to Windows for people who are really into computers, but in terms of being easier to use, Windows definitely wins out.

Monopolies DO go away on their own... it's called innovation. The only thing that can destroy that is PHYSICAL FORCE OR THE THREAT THEREOF, i.e. government intervention, as is the case with AT&T.

If you will notice, Standard Oil hit its heyday in the late 1800s... by the time the government sued it in the early 1900s, it's market share had ALREADY decreased from 90% to 60%.

Macintosh is better than windows, the only good thing about windows is the fact that everything is designed for it, which is because of monopoly tactics. Windows isn't better, it's just bigger, that is the only reason it is more use friendly. And it will continue to get bigger and bigger, with nothing to stop it, it will have an unbreakable monopoly.

And Monopolies do not go away on thier own, are you familiar with the QWERTY?

First of all I like Windows more than Macintosh.

I think the best OS personally is Linux, but Windows is much easier to learn and it's more general purpose...

I'm aware of the whole QWERTY incident. The original keyboard people were subsidized by the feds. MONOPOLIES ONLY STAY AROUND FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME IF THEY RECIEVE GOVERNMENTAL AID.

Otherwise, a monopoly has to fend for itself.

Any first-year business student will tell you that the larger a comapny is, the proportionally higher its operating costs are.

Large companies that do not CONSTANTLY INNOVATE become inefficient and are eventually destroyed. It's the natural cycle of economics, that is only screwed up when the government intervenes, as is the case with AT&T.

If you look at Standard Oil, it's peak control of the market was about 90% in the 1880s/1890s. Standard Oil was created FROM A SINGLE REFINERY in 1863. The space of less than a generation, it became one of hte largest corporations in history. Why? Rockefeller was a great leader who was very good at making deals. His innovations also allowed Standard Oil to run much more efficiently than other oil and coal companies. But by the time the government sued it in teh early 1900s, it's share of the market had dropped to less than two-thirds.

I'm aware of the whole QWERTY incident. The original keyboard people were subsidized by the feds.

Source? Not that I'm saying it isn't true, I've just never heard it before.

I'm aware of the whole QWERTY incident. The original keyboard people were subsidized by the feds.

Source? Not that I'm saying it isn't true, I've just never heard it before.

It was this book that I had to read for school... maybe it was the Tipping Point by Gladwell but I've had to read so many obscure books that I forgot for sure...

First of all I like Windows more than Macintosh.

I think the best OS personally is Linux, but Windows is much easier to learn and it's more general purpose...

Windows is only easy to learn because you have nothing to compare it to, up until v98 it was improving, but at around the time they came out with ME they were already a huge monopoly and had no competition. XP is only good because it's pumpoed up on steriods that n00blars think make it better, when really if you took the technology in XP and implemented it to a format such as 98 [generally less user (nooblar) friendly] it would be quite possibly the best OS out there. I'm getting off track though.

The point is, if mac or linux had the commercial support that windows has (almost all programs being only compatible with windows) nobody would buy windows. Windows was good in the beginning, but now that they know they have no competition they are basically pumping out the same product, except with a thousand add ons and a new trendy name to go with it.

I'm aware of the whole QWERTY incident. The original keyboard people were subsidized by the feds. MONOPOLIES ONLY STAY AROUND FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME IF THEY RECIEVE GOVERNMENTAL AID.

Otherwise, a monopoly has to fend for itself.

I wasn't aware of any subsidizing, are you sure you are talking about the same time period as I am? I'm speaking of when QWERTY was the leading design for typewriters, and even though another one that was some odd 50% more efficent (no more teh's and jsut's) the QWERTY was just so popular that the other one was ignored, and by the time people started caring about efficiency it was just more cost effective to buy a QWERTY.

Any first-year business student will tell you that the larger a comapny is, the proportionally higher its operating costs are.

Large companies that do not CONSTANTLY INNOVATE become inefficient and are eventually destroyed. It's the natural cycle of economics, that is only screwed up when the government intervenes, as is the case with AT&T.

Instead of constantly innovating they can just use corporate sabotage, subliminal messages in advertisements give the bigger company the upper hand. And there are always special circumstances, they are different depending on what the product is but I'm going ot use microsoft for an example again. Microsoft can simply pay companies like intel inside to not sell to macintosh, macintosh will have to buy proccessors from another company that is much smaller and more inneficient, macintosh will have to raise thier prices or cut funding from advertising, microsoft (beign able to afford more advertisement already) simply raises thier prices to pay for the costs but still keeps an upper hand because of thier huge advertisement budget. You can talk about better product all you want, but all it takes is a good marketing department to make a good product.

If you look at Standard Oil, it's peak control of the market was about 90% in the 1880s/1890s. Standard Oil was created FROM A SINGLE REFINERY in 1863. The space of less than a generation, it became one of hte largest corporations in history. Why? Rockefeller was a great leader who was very good at making deals. His innovations also allowed Standard Oil to run much more efficiently than other oil and coal companies. But by the time the government sued it in teh early 1900s, it's share of the market had dropped to less than two-thirds.

I'm not going to debate you on standard oil because I'm not much of a history buff on that particular subject, but I will say that just because you have one example does not mean your point is right. You cannot be sure when or if the monopoly will go away, and as long as it exists it is a risk to the economy. An economy with no regulations on business is very likely to fluxuate greatly, sometimes reaching great highs, and sometimes depression era like lows. Which is why America has been steadily turning more and more socialist ever since the depression, the fact is the more socialism, the more controlled the economy. Now, you may be fine with being able to make huge amounts of money at one time, and barely any at another, but I for one am not too fine with that, mostly because people are stupid, and if you give them alot of money they are going to spend it not save it.

So unless you force the workers to save money for more troubled times, the employee's of that monopoly and companies effected by that monopoly will be screwed as soon as anything goes wrong.

But again, if it is their product why shouldn't they be allowed to require whatever terms they wish of those to whom they allow to use it?

Again, I am not disputing their right to use their product in the most profitable way possible. The point I am trying to make is that a monopoly is self-sustaining--the monopolist will do everything possible to maintain its own dominance, thus preventing effective competition. Thus, the scenario in which a competitor with a superior product will gain enough market share to break the monopoly is less likely because the monopolist will seek to destroy a competitor BEFORE the competing product has the chance to break the monopoly.

That'll be too bad, won't it? It ultimately comes down to what individuals choose to buy.

AH, now THERE's the rub. My point in all of this is that the monopolist seeks to PREVENT the consumers from having the option of buying a rival product, often by blocking the rival product from ever reaching the open market.

They can choose to do without altogether, can't they?

[snip]

And Monopolies do not go away on thier own, are you familiar with the QWERTY?

That's a STANDARD, not a MONOPOLY. Learn the damned difference.

[snip]

And Monopolies do not go away on thier own, are you familiar with the QWERTY?

That's a STANDARD, not a MONOPOLY. Learn the damned difference.

He's talking about something else.

Back in the late 1800s there were two competing keyboard designs the QWERTY and the ABCDEF etc...

Eventually the QWERTY won out because the government subsidized the comapny that was sponsoring QWERTY. The QWERTY company had more resources to begin with.

The rationale was that typing too fast would break the keyboard so the government had to step in and prevent fast typing.

I'm serious, that's what happened.

Honestly, I've never been in any danger of being elected President of the Microsoft Fan Club. I use Firebird (rather than IE) and Eudora (rather than "Look-Out"). I still use WordPerfect.

So, when a friend gave me an old PowerMac 8600, I desperately wanted to like it better than my Win XP computer. But, unfortunately, I can't quite come to that conclusion. In almost every respect, I find the Windows computer to be a lot easier to use. Even granted the fact that my Win Computer is newer, I can't help but feel that Windows is easier, more intuitive, and generally better than the Mac OS. About the only point where the Mac seems to have an edge is stability--but XP is tremendously better in that respect than Win 98SE. Of course, when it comes to the amount of software available, there is just no contest--a difference made even more extreme by the lack of compatibility between the different versions of the Mac OS.

There may be a certain logic to having a degree of monopoly in the personal computer field. I don't want to go back to the days when there were 5 or 6 different OS's in common use, and when you couldn't be sure whether a particular piece of software would work with your BIOS.

[snip]

And Monopolies do not go away on thier own, are you familiar with the QWERTY?

That's a STANDARD, not a MONOPOLY. Learn the damned difference.

He's talking about something else.

Back in the late 1800s there were two competing keyboard designs the QWERTY and the ABCDEF etc...

Eventually the QWERTY won out because the government subsidized the comapny that was sponsoring QWERTY. The QWERTY company had more resources to begin with.

The rationale was that typing too fast would break the keyboard so the government had to step in and prevent fast typing.

I'm serious, that's what happened.

Really? I had no idea of that, I had only heard of the QWERTY thing on the history channel. And I don't think the other one was ABCDEF format, the other one was a format that was highly researched, not just alphabetical.

What would be wrong with permitting a monopoly to exist which came into being simply because it was able to make the relevant product a better value than its competitors could? If entry into the market by potential competitors only doesn't happen because no one can do it better than the monopoly producer, then why is there value to society in intervening? I agree that monopolies that exist because either government enforces them, or because the company uses violence to quash potential competitors are bad, but these two do not describe all monopolies.

What would be wrong with permitting a monopoly to exist which came into being simply because it was able to make the relevant product a better value than its competitors could? If entry into the market by potential competitors only doesn't happen because no one can do it better than the monopoly producer, then why is there value to society in intervening? I agree that monopolies that exist because either government enforces them, or because the company uses violence to quash potential competitors are bad, but these two do not describe all monopolies.

Ah, here we come to the heart of the matter. Monopolies which use intimidation or other unethical practices to quash competition rather than relying on the superiority of their product are the true danger. What we need is not a ban on monopolies, but a watchdog with the power to investigate allegations of unethical corporate conduct and the authority to enforce penalties on those found guilty thereof.

Use of fraud and physical force against other individuals is already illegal (and rightly so) regardless of who commits the act. The police already in place are quite capable to investigate any allegations of such and make arrests if necessary.