Logical extension of anti-trust

[Smasharoo]

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.

[bobman0330]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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.

[ojc02]

[ 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??