|
|
#11
02-05-2007, 01:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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. 
|
|
#12
02-05-2007, 01:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#13
02-05-2007, 01:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#14
02-05-2007, 01:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#15
02-05-2007, 01:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#16
02-05-2007, 02:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#17
02-05-2007, 02:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#18
02-05-2007, 02:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#19
02-05-2007, 03:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#20
02-05-2007, 03:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
