Antitrust Laws Are Immoral

[Mormolyce]

Why should I care if the rest of the world disagrees with me? You might accept the logical fallacy that an idea is true if enough people accept it to be true, but I don't. Truth to me is not determined by majority rule.

Oh no, you can believe whatever nonsense you want.

Meanwhile back in the real world, companies with a monopoly or virtual monopoly are a bad thing.

[Crissi]

A government's job isn't to ensure a business succeeds OR fails. A government shouldn't help or hinder a business. Citizens are free to stop buying plane tickets. They aren't being "negatively affected" because no citizen has a RIGHT to an airline's service.

Which MAY hold water if there was no globalization, but there is, so air travel is a damn near necessity for people conducting business overseas.

[Takasen]

The idea I'm getting so far from posters here is that you all have the right to use my body, my business, my resources, my services, and my property for YOUR own benefit because YOU want it. Fuck my rights. If you can benefit from my shit, you have the moral right to take it from me. And if I complain, then I'm the one who's shitting on liberty.

I hope I got that message right.

[breadisfunny]

The best way to destroy capitalism in a country is to just allow all such mergers to happen. You end up with each industry powered by 1 or 2 effective monopolies. These monopolies are just bad for everyone not in that monopoly as it just concentrates too much power in one place.

On a micro level, you are correct. Putting restrictions on businesses so they cannot bankrupt or buy out all their competitors so they can keep overcharging people for low quality stuff is immoral. It restricts them from spending THEIR hard earned money in the way THEY wish to.

On a macro level, this is equivalent to saying the it is immoral to restrict people from killing whoever they want for whatever reason they want. And, for example, in the case of the factory that blew up in Texas recently, this IS often a matter of life and death for many people.

The long term practical results of allowing monopolies to dominate each industry in a country is that the country becomes a country of poverty. Countries that allow this, and many countries do, are called "third world" or "poor" countries. And usually very corrupt.


As far as cronyism in Congress... companies that have a monopoly situation, or even just an effective monopoly, are the most likely to buy members of Congress because they are the ones that can most afford to do so. They are also the most likely to be able to afford to buy positive media exposure and squelch anything negative that the media might have to say about them. If you like corruption, allowing all such mergers to happen is for you. After all, corruption benefits both the bribe giver as well as the bribe taker.

sounds a lot like the united states in its current state.

[Matchu]

A government's job isn't to ensure a business succeeds OR fails. A government shouldn't help or hinder a business. Citizens are free to stop buying plane tickets. They aren't being "negatively affected" because no citizen has a RIGHT to an airline's service.

That's not how countries work though and it has nothing to do with 'rights'.

Businesses can't just get away with doing crazy shit because they're businesses. If your plane company decided everyone is going to stand during flight, you'd expect legislation because health and safety, discomfort etc. The government would be negatively affecting the business (chairs are expensive, damn it) for perfectly legitimate reasons.

You haven't explained why monopolies are good yet.

[Tradewind]

The idea I'm getting so far from posters here is that you all have the right to use my body, my business, my resources, my services, and my property for YOUR own benefit because YOU want it. Fuck my rights. If you can benefit from my shit, you have the moral right to take it from me. And if I complain, then I'm the one who's shitting on liberty.

I hope I got that message right.

Not even close.

[Takasen]

That's not how countries work though and it has nothing to do with 'rights'.

Businesses can't just get away with doing crazy shit because they're businesses. If your plane company decided everyone is going to stand during flight, you'd expect legislation because health and safety, discomfort etc. The government would be negatively affecting the business (chairs are expensive, damn it) for perfectly legitimate reasons.

You haven't explained why monopolies are good yet.

People are FREE to decide whether they're better off flying on a plane standing up. If they decide for themselves that they don't want that risk, then they're FREE to walk away.

Monopolies only exist through government sanction. Because of that fact, monopolies are bad.

[Deleted]

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?

The principle that in order to be able to conduct business you need the protection from the society in several manners:
-You need society to comply and accept your claims of property.
-You need society to stablish a system that punishes whoever breaks a deal in order to create a minimum degree of trusts for business to even be possible.
-You need society to create a market where your business acquires a monetary value to others.

So yes, because when providing all these to you, the rest of the society is serving the business at their own expense, it's not unthinkable that the business have to reciprocate.

[Takasen]

Not even close.

Then please explain what gives you the right to tell other people they can't voluntarily do business with other people.

[Garnier Fructis]

A government's job isn't to ensure a business succeeds OR fails. A government shouldn't help or hinder a business. Citizens are free to stop buying plane tickets. They aren't being "negatively affected" because no citizen has a RIGHT to an airline's service.

Why does someone need a right to something before they can be negatively affected?

Monopolies only exist through government sanction. Because of that fact, monopolies are bad.

This seems like a dubious claim in light of what Theodore Roosevelt spent his presidency doing.

[starlord]

I learned about Thomas Hobbes' philosophy in middle school. I'm not interested in a man who thinks all people are too stupid to be responsible for themselves, and that they should submit themselves to an autocratic monarch.

clearly you didn't pay enough attention. the smart people are the ones who realized "everyone for themselves" wouldn't get them far.

and if a business can't operate sucessfully within the bounds of its society and/or governance, tough cookies.

[Bakis]

A government's job isn't to ensure a business succeeds OR fails. A government shouldn't help or hinder a business.

Lets remove patents. We should not help business.

[Matchu]

People are FREE to decide whether they're better off flying on a plane standing up. If they decide for themselves that they don't want that risk, then they're FREE to walk away.

Wut. Do you understand how businesses work? If a plane company can make profits by making people stand and then faces no legislation, all plane companies will follow suit. Hey, it's free money! So...what then? Is your next argument "well people can...DRIVE" like the entire modern world didn't just happen? We have Health and Safety laws for a reason.

I don't care why monopolies exist (though you're wrong), the point was why you think they're good and want this one to occur. If monopolies are bad, why are you arguing one should be allowed to be created here?

[Crissi]

People are FREE to decide whether they're better off flying on a plane standing up. If they decide for themselves that they don't want that risk, then they're FREE to walk away.

Monopolies only exist through government sanction. Because of that fact, monopolies are bad.

and then the airline SHOULD go out of business. If they instead want to merge with another big airline, they are now making it so its even harder to avoid such practices. Eventually, they will get so big that they CAN dictate what practices the public must use. They will also end up in the "Too big to fail" category, which we all know how wonderful for the economy THAT is.

[Takasen]

Which is an unreality cos it would simply not work.

I'm not surprised you think this. You are apparently from Sweden, and you think Bradley Manning is a hero...

[Tradewind]

I'm not surprised you think this. You are apparently from Sweden, and you think Bradley Manning is a hero...

Someone's got a monopoly on ad hominems it seems.

[Bakis]

I'm not surprised you think this. You are apparently from Sweden, and you think Bradley Manning is a hero...

Updated with an example.

Lets remove patents. We should not help business.

[Takasen]

Wut. Do you understand how businesses work? If a plane company can make profits by making people stand and then faces no legislation, all plane companies will follow suit. Hey, it's free money! So...what then? Is your next argument "well people can...DRIVE" like the entire modern world didn't just happen? We have Health and Safety laws for a reason.

I don't care why monopolies exist (though you're wrong), the point was why you think they're good and want this one to occur. If monopolies are bad, why are you arguing one should be allowed to be created here?

Well, if people refuse (like you say they would) to flying while standing, and every plane company adopts that policy (like you say they would) then plane companies would go out of business overnight, and in order to avoid that, they would have to rethink their policies (maybe by installing seats in their planes). The market system already did what the government would have done, but more quickly and efficiently, and without using force.

[breadisfunny]

Updated with an example.

Lets remove patents. We should not help business.

lets remove copyright laws they protect business's too much.
also lets remove all government health and safety inspection programs they cause companies too many problems with their pesky inspections and regulations.

[Takasen]

Someone's got a monopoly on ad hominems it seems.

Ad hominems have already been thrown around plenty in this thread. Assuming shit is automatically bad because Ayn Rand said it, for example.