Antitrust Laws Are Immoral

[Takasen]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97D14D20130814

An antitrust law is a regulation that prevents individuals from conducting business because the government considers the intended business to negatively affect consumers.

The companies US Airways and American Airlines have been blocked by the US Department of Justice from merging because the "creation of the world's largest airline that would result would stifle competition, drive up airfares and reduce services." The merging airlines argue that they "would be weaker rivals if the merger did not take place, an outcome that would not be good for consumers who deserve more choices..." The airlines said "a merger would increase competition by adding a viable competitor to two dominant carriers, Delta and United Continental, both the result of recent megamergers."

I think it's a gross miscarriage of justice that a citizen has to argue for his social utility in order to maintain his liberty. These two companies have to argue that consumers could use them better if they merge. I wouldn't be surprised if Delta or United Continental paid the US Department of Justice to prevent the merger. Consider this exchange:

Defendant
"A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognized by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well. Do it."

Judge
"The law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle - the principle of the public good."

Defendant
"Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act."

----------

What do you think about antitrust laws?
Should you be required to prove to the government that your business should be justified by social utility?
That your RIGHT to sell a good or service rests on the principle that other people must benefit from them, whether you consent to their use or not?
That people have a right to your goods and services merely because they benefit from them?

Antitrust laws are widely popular among Congressmen and Senators, among Democrats and Republicans. There is a stench of cronyism around antitrust laws, where one business can pay a Senator to stop another business from being more competitive.

[starlord]

since you like books so much, you should try reading this one sometime:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

[Jermain]

atlas shrugged is a bad book

[Tradewind]

What's with all the Ayn Rand these days lol.

[Takasen]

What's with all the Ayn Rand these days lol.

Do you disagree with the principles in the excerpt I gave?

[Tradewind]

Do you disagree with the principles in the excerpt I gave?

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yeeeeeeeessssssss.

[Takasen]

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yeeeeeeeessssssss.

The principle that an individual's right to do business or even exist shouldn't rest on the premise that he must serve others at his own expense, but that an individual's right to exist rests on the premise that he be an end in himself, and not a tool to be used by other individuals?

[Underverse]

Immoral? What kind of morality are you coming from? Because the government protecting its citizens doesn't seem immoral to me at all.

Absolute freedom is not morality.

[Takasen]

Immoral? What kind of morality are you coming from? Because the government protecting its citizens doesn't seem immoral to me at all.

Absolute freedom is not morality.

What does the government protect its citizens from by passing antitrust laws?

[Tradewind]

The principle that an individual's right to do business or even exist shouldn't rest on the premise that he must serve others at his own expense, but that an individual's right to exist rests on the premise that he be an end in himself, and not a tool to be used by other individuals?

Who says it has to be at their own expense? AA and US Airways are failing because they're shitty airlines. Not because they have to bend over backwards. As a rule though a business cannot survive without customers. Conglomeration and collusion kill competition at expense of the consumer.

PS. Objectivism in general is just ridiculous.

[breadisfunny]

ayn rand's philosophies in general are terrible.

[Underverse]

What does the government protect its citizens from by passing antitrust laws?

Your definition of an antitrust law:

"An antitrust law is a regulation that prevents individuals from conducting business because the government considers the intended business to negatively affect consumers."

They're protecting consumers from being negatively affected?

[Takasen]

Who says it has to be at their own expense? AA and US Airways are failing because they're shitty airlines. Not because they have to bend over backwards. As a rule though a business cannot survive without customers. Conglomeration and collusion kill competition at expense of the consumer.

If the two companies do not merge, then both companies will die and customers will get NOTHING.

If the two companies do merge, then they will be able to compete better with Delta and United. Right now, they have no competition.

Merging would not be at the "expense" of the consumer because consumers purchase services from these companies voluntarily. No one is forcing them to buy plane tickets from these companies. They choose to buy tickets. Any individual who purchases a plane ticket does so because he believes that the plane ticket and service is worth more to him than the money it takes to buy it. If he didn't believe so, then why would he buy the service?

[Mormolyce]

Damn those parasites!

A man chooses!

P.S. What the US refers to as "antitrust" is competition law - ie government intervention in the market to prevent excessive monopolies.

There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another.

What time was this exactly?

Was it the fantasy version of the past that exists only in rhetoric?

- - - Updated - - -

What does the government protect its citizens from by passing antitrust laws?

Monopolistic behaviour, trade cartels and the like.

[Takasen]

Your definition of an antitrust law:

"An antitrust law is a regulation that prevents individuals from conducting business because the government considers the intended business to negatively affect consumers."

They're protecting consumers from being negatively affected?

So are you saying that consumers have a right to a business's services? That consumers may force businesses to provide them with goods and services, whether businesspeople want to provide those services or not?

- - - Updated - - -

Monopolistic behaviour

The only real monopolies in US history have been done through government sanction.

A monopoly has never existed without the help of the government's use of force.

[Mormolyce]

ayn rand's philosophies in general are terrible.

Not nearly as terrible as her writing.

Especially sex scenes. Good lord, I think that woman masturbated to pictures of railways.

[shimerra]

What does the government protect its citizens from by passing antitrust laws?

Take a kindergarten level economics course about the inherent inefficiencies of monopoly pricing. Or read a book other than the glorified coloring books that any rand publishes.

The only real monopolies in US history have been done through government sanction.

A monopoly has never existed without the help of the government's use of force.

Incorrect.

[Mormolyce]

The only real monopolies in US history have been done through government sanction.

A monopoly has never existed without the help of the government's use of force.

Yeah I've heard this shit before, from various libertarian forumbots. You may not have noticed but the rest of the world disagrees with you.

Please tell me more about your beliefs, and rattle off some more libertarian talking points. It's thrilling, especially the 300th time you hear it.

[Underverse]

So are you saying that consumers have a right to a business's services? That consumers may force businesses to provide them with goods and services, whether businesspeople want to provide those services or not?

Nope. There is no such thing as rights (because absolutism is false), which is coincidentally what's wrong with this statement:

"There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another."

Businesses can make wrong decisions. Consumers can make wrong decisions. You might have the ability to make a choice, but that doesn't mean your choice is correct or morally acceptable.

[Tradewind]

If the two companies do not merge, then both companies will die and customers will get NOTHING.

If the two companies do merge, then they will be able to compete better with Delta and United. Right now, they have no competition.

Merging would not be at the "expense" of the consumer because consumers purchase services from these companies voluntarily. No one is forcing them to buy plane tickets from these companies. They choose to buy tickets. Any individual who purchases a plane ticket does so because he believes that the plane ticket and service is worth more to him than the money it takes to buy it. If he didn't believe so, then why would he buy the service?

If the two companies die, it's their own fault really. Consumers will have alternatives...as you said, United and Delta are alternatives that already exist.

Using just US Airways and AA as an example as to why the entirety of Antitrust Laws are "Immoral" is kind of a silly starting point. It's a poor example and I actually agree with their lawyers that it really shouldn't be an antitrust issue. But that doesn't mean Antitrust Laws are immoral.

Microsoft and Netscape is a better example.