I had been meaning to write a post for awhile now about the ongoing dispute between Amazon and the publisher Hachette. The dispute centers largely on how much Amazon can discount physical books published by Hachette and how to set the price for e-books. Initially I was going to write about the rather absurd claims about Amazon’s actions in the dispute – they are like Russia massing troops on the Ukraine border, like a repressive regime, like a totalitarian state or the mafia or that they are censoring authors and publishers they don’t like – but after a small blurb in Investor’s Business Daily I have a bit of a different take.

In this dispute, Amazon has not been able to come to the terms they would prefer with Hachette and so they are dealing less favorably with this publisher. I have read that they are not taking pre-orders for Hachette books, even those by such an author as J.K. Rowling, not offering discounts and apparently shipping these titles more slowly than those from other publishers. This is entirely right and proper for them to do. Amazon does not exist to benefit any other company, and no company has any right to benefit from the services Amazon can provide if they cannot reach terms agreeable to Amazon.

Amazon’s sole responsibility is to their shareholders and customers, and by serving their customers, getting them the best value they can, they can generate the most profit which serves their shareholders at the same time. If Amazon pushes too hard they will suffer in the long run as publishers seek out, or create for themselves, other ways to sell their books on terms that are acceptable to them. This is how a free market works.

So I applauded Amazon’s negotiating for the terms they wanted, trying to do the best for their customers and their shareholders, and then I read the following little blurb on the cover of July 15th IBD:

The Internet Assn., representing Google, Netflix and Amazon, urged the FCC to curtail Internet providers’ ability to cut deals for quicker delivery of certain Web traffic. The FCC is mulling “net neutrality” rules aimed at how ISP manage traffic without unduly limiting consumers’ access. The association wants equal rules for wireless and wired networks.

So Amazon recognizes that they should have the right to negotiate freely the terms under which others can use the services they provide, even slowing shipment of goods in some cases, but seeks government intervention on their behalf when it comes to ISPs doing the same in regards to their services? (To remove any doubt you may have, I support completely Amazon’s right to negotiate freely for the use of their services, and I completely oppose net neutrality which attempts to remove this right from internet service providers. In both cases, the market should be left free as long as their is no physical force or fraud involved.)

One can easily imagine what Amazon’s reaction would be, I should say will be as I think this will happen sooner or later, if a publisher should appeal for government intervention claiming that Amazon has a near monopoly and are restricting their trade.

One has to wonder, given the “free trade for me but not for thee” attitude that a successful, innovative company like Amazon is displaying, if in today’s mixed economy, edging ever closer to some form of collectivism and government control, are we all cronies now? Is government intervention into the economy so wide spread now that it seems natural to appeal to the government to advance your business at the expense of another?