Logical extension of anti-trust
 

Doesn't this seem like a logical extension of anti-trust?

I go to my neighbor and inform him that he MUST sell his car, within the week. I tell him the reason is that by not selling his car he is keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics high and I have deemed that keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics low is in the publics best interest. I tell him that for every week that he doesn't sell his car he must pay me $1000, and if he doesn't, I'm going to come over there and shoot him.

1. Is this acceptable behavior on my part?

2. Is there a non-arbitrary difference between this and our various anti-trust prosecutions? eg Microsoft, DeBeers, etc.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this seem like a logical extension of anti-trust?

I go to my neighbor and inform him that he MUST sell his car, within the week. I tell him the reason is that by not selling his car he is keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics high and I have deemed that keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics low is in the publics best interest. I tell him that for every week that he doesn't sell his car he must pay me $1000, and if he doesn't, I'm going to come over there and shoot him.

1. Is this acceptable behavior on my part?

2. Is there a non-arbitrary difference between this and our various anti-trust prosecutions? eg Microsoft, DeBeers, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. No.
2. Yes. In the U.S., antitrust lawsuits do not result in anyone being shot. Or imprisoned. It's not a criminal procedure at all. Maybe you should change "shoot him" to "confiscate his car".

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this seem like a logical extension of anti-trust?

I go to my neighbor and inform him that he MUST sell his car, within the week. I tell him the reason is that by not selling his car he is keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics high and I have deemed that keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics low is in the publics best interest. I tell him that for every week that he doesn't sell his car he must pay me $1000, and if he doesn't, I'm going to come over there and shoot him.

1. Is this acceptable behavior on my part?

2. Is there a non-arbitrary difference between this and our various anti-trust prosecutions? eg Microsoft, DeBeers, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. No.
2. Yes. In the U.S., antitrust lawsuits do not result in anyone being shot. Or imprisoned. It's not a criminal procedure at all. Maybe you should change "shoot him" to "confiscate his car".

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, not really much difference. What happens when he refuses to give up his car?

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this seem like a logical extension of anti-trust?

I go to my neighbor and inform him that he MUST sell his car, within the week. I tell him the reason is that by not selling his car he is keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics high and I have deemed that keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics low is in the publics best interest. I tell him that for every week that he doesn't sell his car he must pay me $1000, and if he doesn't, I'm going to come over there and shoot him.

1. Is this acceptable behavior on my part?

2. Is there a non-arbitrary difference between this and our various anti-trust prosecutions? eg Microsoft, DeBeers, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. No.
2. Yes. In the U.S., antitrust lawsuits do not result in anyone being shot. Or imprisoned. It's not a criminal procedure at all. Maybe you should change "shoot him" to "confiscate his car".

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, not really much difference. What happens when he refuses to give up his car?

[/ QUOTE ]
Something similar to what would happen to Bill Gates if he resisted? Otherwise there would be a "non-arbitrary difference"?

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

Probably not the best examples. I'm not a fan of antitrust laws either, especially after reading Dominick Armentano's book, Antitrust and Monopoly.

Here's an interesting hypothetical created by Judge Caffey during the U.S. v Alcoa case. Say you have two manufacturers, A and B. Over time, A, because it can somehow produce and sell its product cheaper than B, comes to gain all of B's customers, thus holding 100% of the market. Caffey says, "if the theory of the governmnet, stated by its counsel, as to what Section 2 of the Sherman Act means be accepted, then obviously A would be punished for what B, or what B's customers, or what B and is customers had done."

Hardly seems fair to be punished for what other people do...

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

Yeah maybe not the best example. The main point of my post was that anybody in the market has the ability to impact prices no matter how large or small. Even if one were to concede (which I don't) that government should act to maintain "competition", they seem to arbitrarily go after certain companies.

I don't know this to be the case, but I think I would probably be correct in saying that there has never been a natural monopoly that has been charged using anti-trust legislation.

My other point was kinda obvious, why is the company not sovereign over their property?

One of the most ridiculous IMO was DeBeers. They sell diamonds FFS. If I were to put on my statist hat: How could a statist even argue that keep the price of DIAMONDS down is in the public interest?? They are completely unnecessary!!

I think a statist argument could be made that keeping the price of diamonds HIGH is in the publics best interest. The only value of the diamond is in demonstrating how rich you (or your spouse) is. If the government had been successful in destroying DeBeers, diamonds could be really cheap, and millionaire athletes would have to have gigantic tennis-ball sized earrings ripping through their cartilage.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this seem like a logical extension of anti-trust?

I go to my neighbor and inform him that he MUST sell his car, within the week. I tell him the reason is that by not selling his car he is keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics high and I have deemed that keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics low is in the publics best interest. I tell him that for every week that he doesn't sell his car he must pay me $1000, and if he doesn't, I'm going to come over there and shoot him.

1. Is this acceptable behavior on my part?

2. Is there a non-arbitrary difference between this and our various anti-trust prosecutions? eg Microsoft, DeBeers, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. No.

2. Yes. Your neighbor did not accept licenses and other benefits from you that oblige him to own the car only on your terms within those territories over which you have sovereignty by legal right.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
The main point of my post was that anybody in the market has the ability to impact prices no matter how large or small.

[/ QUOTE ]
You should check out Wickard v. Filburn if you want to see overreaching decisions regarding commerce.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this seem like a logical extension of anti-trust?

I go to my neighbor and inform him that he MUST sell his car, within the week. I tell him the reason is that by not selling his car he is keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics high and I have deemed that keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics low is in the publics best interest. I tell him that for every week that he doesn't sell his car he must pay me $1000, and if he doesn't, I'm going to come over there and shoot him.

1. Is this acceptable behavior on my part?

2. Is there a non-arbitrary difference between this and our various anti-trust prosecutions? eg Microsoft, DeBeers, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. No.

2. Yes. Your neighbor did not accept licenses and other benefits from you that oblige him to own the car only on your terms within those territories over which you have sovereignty by legal right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, before I do all that I declare all his land is mine. My explanation to him is "it's my legal right". I then oblige him to accept licenses allowing him to own a car on my terms.

Does this make the situation any better?

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this seem like a logical extension of anti-trust?

I go to my neighbor and inform him that he MUST sell his car, within the week. I tell him the reason is that by not selling his car he is keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics high and I have deemed that keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics low is in the publics best interest. I tell him that for every week that he doesn't sell his car he must pay me $1000, and if he doesn't, I'm going to come over there and shoot him.

1. Is this acceptable behavior on my part?

2. Is there a non-arbitrary difference between this and our various anti-trust prosecutions? eg Microsoft, DeBeers, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. No.

2. Yes. Your neighbor did not accept licenses and other benefits from you that oblige him to own the car only on your terms within those territories over which you have sovereignty by legal right.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you implying that the act of engaging in free enterprise is a "benefit" from government?

And would your answer to #1 above would change to a "yes" if those actions were "legal"?

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The main point of my post was that anybody in the market has the ability to impact prices no matter how large or small.

[/ QUOTE ]
You should check out Wickard v. Filburn if you want to see overreaching decisions regarding commerce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh boy, that is disturbing. It's this kind of logic that would allow them to enforce absolutely anything.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The main point of my post was that anybody in the market has the ability to impact prices no matter how large or small.

[/ QUOTE ]
You should check out Wickard v. Filburn if you want to see overreaching decisions regarding commerce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh boy, that is disturbing. It's this kind of logic that would allow them to enforce absolutely anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
Somehow the court couldn't stretch the commerce clause that far in U.S. v. Lopez, but went right back to that logic in Gonzalez v. Raich.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this seem like a logical extension of anti-trust?

I go to my neighbor and inform him that he MUST sell his car, within the week. I tell him the reason is that by not selling his car he is keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics high and I have deemed that keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics low is in the publics best interest. I tell him that for every week that he doesn't sell his car he must pay me $1000, and if he doesn't, I'm going to come over there and shoot him.

1. Is this acceptable behavior on my part?

2. Is there a non-arbitrary difference between this and our various anti-trust prosecutions? eg Microsoft, DeBeers, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. No.

2. Yes. Your neighbor did not accept licenses and other benefits from you that oblige him to own the car only on your terms within those territories over which you have sovereignty by legal right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, before I do all that I declare all his land is mine. My explanation to him is "it's my legal right". I then oblige him to accept licenses allowing him to own a car on my terms.

Does this make the situation any better?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, simulating legal process, not to mention fraud, can get you busted.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this seem like a logical extension of anti-trust?

I go to my neighbor and inform him that he MUST sell his car, within the week. I tell him the reason is that by not selling his car he is keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics high and I have deemed that keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics low is in the publics best interest. I tell him that for every week that he doesn't sell his car he must pay me $1000, and if he doesn't, I'm going to come over there and shoot him.

1. Is this acceptable behavior on my part?

2. Is there a non-arbitrary difference between this and our various anti-trust prosecutions? eg Microsoft, DeBeers, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. No.

2. Yes. Your neighbor did not accept licenses and other benefits from you that oblige him to own the car only on your terms within those territories over which you have sovereignty by legal right.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you implying that the act of engaging in free enterprise is a "benefit" from government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if you are doing so on the sovereign territory of the party for whom the government in question is acting as fiduciary.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, simulating legal process, not to mention fraud, can get you busted.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have missed the point. In my example "I" was acting as the government appears to act. I am merely questioning the legitimacy of such action. Especially in a country that is supposed to the "the land of the free".

Your argument seems to be: The government can do whatever it likes because it legitimately owns all the land we're on.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, simulating legal process, not to mention fraud, can get you busted.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have missed the point. In my example "I" was acting as the government appears to act. I am merely questioning the legitimacy of such action. Especially in a country that is supposed to the "the land of the free".

Your argument seems to be: The government can do whatever it likes because it legitimately owns all the land we're on.

[/ QUOTE ]

As with so many things, context is critical. The actions you describe are legitimate only if they are done according to due process of law.

The government does not own the land (with certain qualifications), it is only acting as fiduciary for the owners.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this seem like a logical extension of anti-trust?

I go to my neighbor and inform him that he MUST sell his car, within the week. I tell him the reason is that by not selling his car he is keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics high and I have deemed that keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics low is in the publics best interest. I tell him that for every week that he doesn't sell his car he must pay me $1000, and if he doesn't, I'm going to come over there and shoot him.

1. Is this acceptable behavior on my part?

2. Is there a non-arbitrary difference between this and our various anti-trust prosecutions? eg Microsoft, DeBeers, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. No.
2. Yes. Microsoft was charged for illegally maintaining its monopoly power, and, as far as I can tell, de Beers was charged with colluding to fix prices. Neither one of those offenses is remotely similar to your hypothetical.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, simulating legal process, not to mention fraud, can get you busted.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have missed the point. In my example "I" was acting as the government appears to act. I am merely questioning the legitimacy of such action. Especially in a country that is supposed to the "the land of the free".

Your argument seems to be: The government can do whatever it likes because it legitimately owns all the land we're on.

[/ QUOTE ]

As with so many things, context is critical. The actions you describe are legitimate only if they are done according to due process of law.

The government does not own the land (with certain qualifications), it is only acting as fiduciary for the owners.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe "acting" is the key word here. Since the U.S. government was never actually entrusted with this duty by the owners.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, simulating legal process, not to mention fraud, can get you busted.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have missed the point. In my example "I" was acting as the government appears to act. I am merely questioning the legitimacy of such action. Especially in a country that is supposed to the "the land of the free".

Your argument seems to be: The government can do whatever it likes because it legitimately owns all the land we're on.

[/ QUOTE ]

As with so many things, context is critical. The actions you describe are legitimate only if they are done according to due process of law.

The government does not own the land (with certain qualifications), it is only acting as fiduciary for the owners.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe "acting" is the key word here. Since the U.S. government was never actually entrusted with this duty by the owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear, when was this "U.S. government" you refer to established?

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, simulating legal process, not to mention fraud, can get you busted.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have missed the point. In my example "I" was acting as the government appears to act. I am merely questioning the legitimacy of such action. Especially in a country that is supposed to the "the land of the free".

Your argument seems to be: The government can do whatever it likes because it legitimately owns all the land we're on.

[/ QUOTE ]

As with so many things, context is critical. The actions you describe are legitimate only if they are done according to due process of law.

The government does not own the land (with certain qualifications), it is only acting as fiduciary for the owners.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe "acting" is the key word here. Since the U.S. government was never actually entrusted with this duty by the owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear, when was this "U.S. government" you refer to established?

[/ QUOTE ]
1789/1792. Depends on what you mean by established. The U.S. government was delegated many powers by the Constitution. "Fiduciary for landowners" was not one of them.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, simulating legal process, not to mention fraud, can get you busted.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have missed the point. In my example "I" was acting as the government appears to act. I am merely questioning the legitimacy of such action. Especially in a country that is supposed to the "the land of the free".

Your argument seems to be: The government can do whatever it likes because it legitimately owns all the land we're on.

[/ QUOTE ]

As with so many things, context is critical. The actions you describe are legitimate only if they are done according to due process of law.

The government does not own the land (with certain qualifications), it is only acting as fiduciary for the owners.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe "acting" is the key word here. Since the U.S. government was never actually entrusted with this duty by the owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear, when was this "U.S. government" you refer to established?

[/ QUOTE ]
1789/1792. Depends on what you mean by established. The U.S. government was delegated many powers by the Constitution. "Fiduciary for landowners" was not one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're misrepresenting what I said. I never claimed that exact phraseology, which you put in quotes, was used.

The sovereign entity, i.e. the People, established a government under them with certain duties of performance for their benefit.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, simulating legal process, not to mention fraud, can get you busted.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have missed the point. In my example "I" was acting as the government appears to act. I am merely questioning the legitimacy of such action. Especially in a country that is supposed to the "the land of the free".

Your argument seems to be: The government can do whatever it likes because it legitimately owns all the land we're on.

[/ QUOTE ]

As with so many things, context is critical. The actions you describe are legitimate only if they are done according to due process of law.

The government does not own the land (with certain qualifications), it is only acting as fiduciary for the owners.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe "acting" is the key word here. Since the U.S. government was never actually entrusted with this duty by the owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear, when was this "U.S. government" you refer to established?

[/ QUOTE ]
1789/1792. Depends on what you mean by established. The U.S. government was delegated many powers by the Constitution. "Fiduciary for landowners" was not one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're misrepresenting what I said. I never claimed that exact phraseology, which you put in quotes, was used.

The sovereign entity, i.e. the People, established a government under them with certain duties of performance for their benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, I didn't mean the quotes to signify an exact phrase. But no power even resembling that is delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, simulating legal process, not to mention fraud, can get you busted.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have missed the point. In my example "I" was acting as the government appears to act. I am merely questioning the legitimacy of such action. Especially in a country that is supposed to the "the land of the free".

Your argument seems to be: The government can do whatever it likes because it legitimately owns all the land we're on.

[/ QUOTE ]

As with so many things, context is critical. The actions you describe are legitimate only if they are done according to due process of law.

The government does not own the land (with certain qualifications), it is only acting as fiduciary for the owners.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe "acting" is the key word here. Since the U.S. government was never actually entrusted with this duty by the owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear, when was this "U.S. government" you refer to established?

[/ QUOTE ]
1789/1792. Depends on what you mean by established. The U.S. government was delegated many powers by the Constitution. "Fiduciary for landowners" was not one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're misrepresenting what I said. I never claimed that exact phraseology, which you put in quotes, was used.

The sovereign entity, i.e. the People, established a government under them with certain duties of performance for their benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, I didn't mean the quotes to signify an exact phrase. But no power even resembling that is delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, simulating legal process, not to mention fraud, can get you busted.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have missed the point. In my example "I" was acting as the government appears to act. I am merely questioning the legitimacy of such action. Especially in a country that is supposed to the "the land of the free".

Your argument seems to be: The government can do whatever it likes because it legitimately owns all the land we're on.

[/ QUOTE ]

As with so many things, context is critical. The actions you describe are legitimate only if they are done according to due process of law.

The government does not own the land (with certain qualifications), it is only acting as fiduciary for the owners.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe "acting" is the key word here. Since the U.S. government was never actually entrusted with this duty by the owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear, when was this "U.S. government" you refer to established?

[/ QUOTE ]
1789/1792. Depends on what you mean by established. The U.S. government was delegated many powers by the Constitution. "Fiduciary for landowners" was not one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're misrepresenting what I said. I never claimed that exact phraseology, which you put in quotes, was used.

The sovereign entity, i.e. the People, established a government under them with certain duties of performance for their benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, I didn't mean the quotes to signify an exact phrase. But no power even resembling that is delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't know what the point is here. This section does not list which powers are delegated to the federal government. What does this have to do with being fiduciary for landowners, or anything similar?

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, simulating legal process, not to mention fraud, can get you busted.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have missed the point. In my example "I" was acting as the government appears to act. I am merely questioning the legitimacy of such action. Especially in a country that is supposed to the "the land of the free".

Your argument seems to be: The government can do whatever it likes because it legitimately owns all the land we're on.

[/ QUOTE ]

As with so many things, context is critical. The actions you describe are legitimate only if they are done according to due process of law.

The government does not own the land (with certain qualifications), it is only acting as fiduciary for the owners.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe "acting" is the key word here. Since the U.S. government was never actually entrusted with this duty by the owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear, when was this "U.S. government" you refer to established?

[/ QUOTE ]
1789/1792. Depends on what you mean by established. The U.S. government was delegated many powers by the Constitution. "Fiduciary for landowners" was not one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're misrepresenting what I said. I never claimed that exact phraseology, which you put in quotes, was used.

The sovereign entity, i.e. the People, established a government under them with certain duties of performance for their benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, I didn't mean the quotes to signify an exact phrase. But no power even resembling that is delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't know what the point is here. This section does not list which powers are delegated to the federal government. What does this have to do with being fiduciary for landowners, or anything similar?

[/ QUOTE ]

The preamble underlies and interprets the delegation of specific powers which follows by making explicit the intended relationship between the sovereign People (the "landowners" if you like) and the government they were establishing to act on their behalf.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, simulating legal process, not to mention fraud, can get you busted.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have missed the point. In my example "I" was acting as the government appears to act. I am merely questioning the legitimacy of such action. Especially in a country that is supposed to the "the land of the free".

Your argument seems to be: The government can do whatever it likes because it legitimately owns all the land we're on.

[/ QUOTE ]

As with so many things, context is critical. The actions you describe are legitimate only if they are done according to due process of law.

The government does not own the land (with certain qualifications), it is only acting as fiduciary for the owners.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe "acting" is the key word here. Since the U.S. government was never actually entrusted with this duty by the owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear, when was this "U.S. government" you refer to established?

[/ QUOTE ]
1789/1792. Depends on what you mean by established. The U.S. government was delegated many powers by the Constitution. "Fiduciary for landowners" was not one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're misrepresenting what I said. I never claimed that exact phraseology, which you put in quotes, was used.

The sovereign entity, i.e. the People, established a government under them with certain duties of performance for their benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, I didn't mean the quotes to signify an exact phrase. But no power even resembling that is delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't know what the point is here. This section does not list which powers are delegated to the federal government. What does this have to do with being fiduciary for landowners, or anything similar?

[/ QUOTE ]

The preamble underlies and interprets the delegation of specific powers which follows by making explicit the intended relationship between the sovereign People (the "landowners" if you like) and the government they were establishing to act on their behalf.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, so your saying the government's power is "delegated" by the people. In the same way as a fiduciary is delegated power? I agree.

But the use of the word "landowner" implies that the specific power being delegated is related to property rights or some power that only a landowner would have. Instead of powers delegated by landowners and non-landowners alike.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]

1. Is this acceptable behavior on my part?


[/ QUOTE ]

Ethically, no. Legally, yes, provided you are an employee of the DOJ and the government has arbitrarily declared your neighbor's refusal to sell his car to be "artificially" driving up prices, which is against the "public good."

[ QUOTE ]
2. Is there a non-arbitrary difference between this and our various anti-trust prosecutions? eg Microsoft, DeBeers, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

None whatsoever, other than the cases you cite were given the facade of due process before legal sanctions were imposed. I say 'facade' because the very nature of anti-trust laws are such that it's impossible, even in principle, for a company to objective know in advance whether it's breaking one of these laws. Observe that if a company sets prices too high, it can be judged guilty of "price gouging," if it sets prices too low, it's guilty of "intent to monopolize," and if it sets prices equal to competitors, it's guilty of "price fixing."

The anti-trust laws are in fact completely arbitrary, and in practice they are used to persecute companies for political reasons.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

Doesn't this seem like a logical extension of anti-trust?


No, it seems like a pointless straw man that accomplishes nothing.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]


Doesn't this seem like a logical extension of anti-trust?


No, it seems like a pointless straw man that accomplishes nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, here we go.. I saw the bolded quote and rightly ignored the rest of the post. Thank goodness you don't use normal quotes or I'd actually have to read the name to identify the troll.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this seem like a logical extension of anti-trust?

I go to my neighbor and inform him that he MUST sell his car, within the week. I tell him the reason is that by not selling his car he is keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics high and I have deemed that keeping the price of '03 Honda Civics low is in the publics best interest. I tell him that for every week that he doesn't sell his car he must pay me $1000, and if he doesn't, I'm going to come over there and shoot him.

1. Is this acceptable behavior on my part?

2. Is there a non-arbitrary difference between this and our various anti-trust prosecutions? eg Microsoft, DeBeers, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. No.
2. Yes. Microsoft was charged for illegally maintaining its monopoly power, and, as far as I can tell, de Beers was charged with colluding to fix prices. Neither one of those offenses is remotely similar to your hypothetical.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was that they are accused of deciding when and how to sell their own product. Ultimately that's what all these cases boil down to and I don't see why they should be punished for this.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

Ah, here we go.. I saw the bolded quote and rightly ignored the rest of the post. Thank goodness you don't use normal quotes or I'd actually have to read the name to identify the troll.

As trolls go, starting a topic intentionally to foster meaningless debate when you know full well that your example is patently ludicrous would seem to apply much more accurately than me answering the question you posed accurately and concisely.

When in doubt, though, throw labels around and pray you save face, I guess.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point was that they are accused of deciding when and how to sell their own product. Ultimately that's what all these cases boil down to and I don't see why they should be punished for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, almost all antitrust cases arise when a company tries to influence how or whether someone else prices, produces, or sells their product.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, simulating legal process, not to mention fraud, can get you busted.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have missed the point. In my example "I" was acting as the government appears to act. I am merely questioning the legitimacy of such action. Especially in a country that is supposed to the "the land of the free".

Your argument seems to be: The government can do whatever it likes because it legitimately owns all the land we're on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. It's the standard circular argument. The status quo is justified by virtue of it being the status quo. Also note that he's attempting to counter your normative argument with descriptive arguments, which is like countering an argument that pot should be decriminalized with an observation that pot is illegal.

Re: Logical extension of anti-trust
 

[ QUOTE ]
As trolls go, starting a topic intentionally to foster meaningless debate when you know full well that your example is patently ludicrous would seem to apply much more accurately than me answering the question you posed accurately and concisely.

When in doubt, though, throw labels around and pray you save face, I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, actually, I happen to *not* think it's patently ludicrous, that's why I posted it. I believe I am the world's authority on why *I* started this thread. I assume it's not a surprise for you that many people here actually agree with my point of view.

I started this thread by asking if the situation I proposed is reasonable to compare to the anti-trust prosecutions of Microsoft and DeBeers etc. In effect, I was asking if people thought my situation was a straw man. I also asked, if you think it is, could you give me a non-arbitrary reason why.

You just posted a moranic one-liner and now you have the gall to criticize my posting??