Logical extension of anti-trust

ojc02 · #1 02-05-2007, 12:18 AM

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.

Al68 · #2 02-05-2007, 12:50 AM

[ 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".

ojc02 · #3 02-05-2007, 12:58 AM

[ 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?

Al68 · #4 02-05-2007, 01:07 AM

[ 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"?

BCPVP · #5 02-05-2007, 01:08 AM

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...

ojc02 · #6 02-05-2007, 01:23 AM

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.

BCPVP · #7 02-05-2007, 01:33 AM

[ 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.

ojc02 · #8 02-05-2007, 01:45 AM

[ 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.

BCPVP · #9 02-05-2007, 01:50 AM

[ 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.

Skidoo · #10 02-05-2007, 01:29 AM

[ 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.