The other day I introduced the Whole Foods/Wild Oats merger issue, described the central media narrative surrounding it…

…and remarked–somewhat inflammably, I’ll admit–that the implicit “obvious conclusion” part of the narrative was straight out of the Internet Libertarian Playbook.

What’s that, you ask?

Dollars to donuts you’ve already run into a self-appointed spokesperson for the Libertarian Ideology. It goes something like this:

• I Gots Guns
• Taxation Is Theft
• Market Forces Ensure Benevolent Business Practices

Which is kind of an oversimplification, only not by much. But others have thoroughly analyzed and debunked the ideology far more capably than I have, so I’ll try to stick to the point, which is antitrust regulation and why, as the central narrative would have it, the mean old FTC is preventing the nice CEOs of Whole Foods and Wild Oats from doing what they want.

Simply put: Antitrust regulation is there to prevent monopolies. Preventing monopolies preserves choice in the marketplace. Choice in the marketplace helps ensure quality products, high levels of service, and less chance of price-jacking.

On an aesthetic and personal preference level, I like having a choice between the two earth-friendly supermarkets. Their stock doesn’t entirely overlap. They have slightly different tolerances for mainstream brands. Their proprietary treats differ. They use different vendors. The two groceries simply aren’t interchangeable. (They certainly aren’t interchangeable with, say, Safeway and its expanded organics department, or a grower’s market that runs from 8:00 AM to 2:00 PM on Saturdays.)

The differences between the stores inform the way the two brands compete. What will Whole Foods do to prevent customers having to flee to the competitor for products they don’t carry or can’t get on a timely basis? What will Wild Oats do to prevent having their prices undercut? Will each brand try to appeal to the others’ customer base by doing what the other does better or for cheaper, or will they simply redefine their own customer base by strengthening those products and ideals unique to themselves?

When two brands struggle to outdo each other in service to the customer, it doesn’t take a genius to see that the customer benefits. Choice good! Monopoly bad.

And, contrary to what some might tell you, market forces alone aren’t enough to preserve choice and prevent monopoly. The Invisible Hand isn’t exactly stepping in and preventing the Whole Foods buyout of Wild Oats. And what’s more, even if they were enough, we’d still need regulation to ensure fair competition, because market forces are never the only forces in play.

Have you been reading BoingBoing like I told you? Stay tuned.