Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

Like I said before, reread the ENTIRE thread, and what I wrote. One out of context quote only shows a desire not to understand what I said. What I wrote in that post was that business can't function without government nor government without business, when government doesn't perform its function correctly bad things happen. I also wrote, that it doesn't really make sense to blame either a business or a government for (most) monopolies since the collusion of business and government includes 2 parties colluding. I don't think there is one single way that a monopoly can be formed, government could collude against its citizens through inaction or by tilting the playing field, either way its collusion, not just government being an evil entity.

But, since you wanted one, here is an example where one company had a monopoly for a hundred years or so: Debeers Diamonds. They inflated prices hundreds of times what the things are actually worth. They controlled diamond mines accross the globe until a really big one was found in Canada a few years ago. It can't really be said that governments formed this monopoly since, while Debeers of course had do deal with multiple governments, it was Debeers' coercion of governments, not governments' coercion of people that allowed the global monopoly to exist for so long.

Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said before, reread the ENTIRE thread, and what I wrote. One out of context quote only shows a desire not to understand what I said. What I wrote in that post was that business can't function without government nor government without business, when government doesn't perform its function correctly bad things happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

You claimed that without government oversight, monopolies form, when all of the available evidence shows the exact opposite. What "context" changes that? Spell it out for me.

[ QUOTE ]
I also wrote, that it doesn't really make sense to blame either a business or a government for (most) monopolies since the collusion of business and government includes 2 parties colluding.

[/ QUOTE ]

For this discussion, there's no meaningful difference between "businesses" and "individuals". There's really just government and non-governmental actors. It IS right to blame government, because the collusion is only possible because of government existence. The collusioin is precisely an extension of the governmental coercive power.

Individuals (and businesses) exist without government, but not vice versa.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there is one single way that a monopoly can be formed, government could collude against its citizens through inaction or by tilting the playing field, either way its collusion, not just government being an evil entity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? So there's multiple ways the goverment can create monopolies? So what?

[ QUOTE ]
But, since you wanted one, here is an example where one company had a monopoly for a hundred years or so: Debeers Diamonds.

[/ QUOTE ]

HAW HAW HAW!!! Are you serious? Debeers' involvement with the South African government is very well-documented. All diamond mines in South Africa were nationalized a long time ago. DeBeers rise was almost *completely* dependent on governmental influence.

Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

If you would consider a company that has made a region, city or town dependant upon them as an employer a sort of monopoly (since they have defacto control over the supply of wages) then many many business come to mind. But that is neither here nor there, most of what I was writing about had to do with power and exploitation and whether or not one elected to blame monopolies on the government was marginal, since a monoploly is only one small form of exploitations that a business might undertake.

[ QUOTE ]
For this discussion, there's no meaningful difference between "businesses" and "individuals". There's really just government and non-governmental actors. It IS right to blame government, because the collusion is only possible because of government existence. The collusioin is precisely an extension of the governmental coercive power.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have got to be kidding me. Without governments, what would we have? just other governments. To think that corporate governance of people's actions and the world's resources is not government is having your cake and eating it too... it's like calling democracy not really a government because its the people who are in charge, or poker not really gambling.

[ QUOTE ]
Individuals (and businesses) exist without government, but not vice versa.


[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, name one, come on, one example of a person or a business existing without a government.

[ QUOTE ]
Huh? So there's multiple ways the goverment can create monopolies? So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

So government can creat a monopoly by creating one or by not stopping one... therefore it's always government's fault? What kind of sense does that make?

But I will concede in totality this point, one cannot have property without government and one cannot have a monopoly without property, therefore, one cannot have a monopoly without government.

Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

[ QUOTE ]
HAW HAW HAW!!! Are you serious? Debeers' involvement with the South African government is very well-documented. All diamond mines in South Africa were nationalized a long time ago. DeBeers rise was almost *completely* dependent on governmental influence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Debeers and the CSO were involved with governments, but that is NOT why they were able to maintain their cartel. They did (do) this by aggressively buying or buying back any excess diamonds that might cause a price decrease and advertising in order to make diamonds appear rare. Just because an exploitative company is involved with the government does not mean the government is the place from which they derive their coercive power. If involvement with the government is the test, then, that automatically includes any reasonably sized business.

Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You have got to be kidding me. Without governments, what would we have? just other governments. To think that corporate governance of people's actions and the world's resources is not government is having your cake and eating it too... it's like calling democracy not really a government because its the people who are in charge, or poker not really gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's completely different. Corporations, like individuals, can legitimately own the resources they control. Governments cannot.

[ QUOTE ]
Alright, name one, come on, one example of a person or a business existing without a government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a serious question? Are you really suggesting that if all governments around the world spontaneously disbanded, that I, as a human being, would cease to exist? Did governments pre-exist when humans appeared on the scene? Does evolution (or creation, if you're into that) require government as a prerequisite?

[ QUOTE ]
But I will concede in totality this point, one cannot have property without government and one cannot have a monopoly without property, therefore, one cannot have a monopoly without government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. One certainly can have property without government. In fact, it's much, much harder to have property with government, since it can't really be said that I really own, say, a piece of land if the government can restrict what I do with it (zoning, etc) or can tax me on it.

Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just because an exploitative company is involved with the government does not mean the government is the place from which they derive their coercive power.

[/ QUOTE ]

While that's true in general, in the case you chose, it's not applicable, since DeBeers clearly derived the vast majority of their position from governmental force.

Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

Your first fallacy is BS. We would be immeasurably worse off without intellectual property laws. The entire foundation of our society is based on property rights, of which intellectual property protection is an integral part. Your third fallacy is also correct but your reasoning is wack. Walmart has lower price because they have a lower cost structure, not becuase of imperfect information.

Although I think your arguments are kind of weak I generally agree that most anti-trust laws are nothging more than needless gov't intervention. I do believe that price fixing should be illegal. Although you have to be a complete idiot to get busted for it.

Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

This is no long even worth responding to. I don't know if you were just baiting me before, but I can no longer take anything you say seriously. Assuming you mean what you say, you need more help than I could possibly give, and either way, it is not worth a response.

Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your first fallacy is BS. We would be immeasurably worse off without intellectual property laws. The entire foundation of our society is based on property rights, of which intellectual property protection is an integral part. Your third fallacy is also correct but your reasoning is wack. Walmart has lower price because they have a lower cost structure, not becuase of imperfect information.

Although I think your arguments are kind of weak I generally agree that most anti-trust laws are nothging more than needless gov't intervention. I do believe that price fixing should be illegal. Although you have to be a complete idiot to get busted for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that their prices are low because of their cost structure, I think that is pretty much implied. I was just pointing out reasons why they would not want to participate in predatory pricing -- a practice which so many people seem to fear.

As for IP laws, I was ignorant as to the distiction between copyrights and patents. Generally, I think that IP laws are unfeasible unless their theft can be proven. As pvn pointed out in a previous post , that is possible with copyrights. So I am partially changing my position.

Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your first fallacy is BS. We would be immeasurably worse off without intellectual property laws. The entire foundation of our society is based on property rights, of which intellectual property protection is an integral part . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

. . .

As for IP laws, I was ignorant as to the distiction between copyrights and patents. Generally, I think that IP laws are unfeasible unless their theft can be proven. As pvn pointed out in a previous post , that is possible with copyrights. So I am partially changing my position.

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't be so easily persuaded. Copyright laws represent an erosion of property rights, not an extension of them.

Property rights exist to prevent and resolve conflicts over scarce resources. Ideas are not scarce. My "taking" of "your" idea does not prevent you from using that idea.

A "copyright," an exclusive right to copy, implies that *I* cannot take *my* blank pages and *my* pen and write *your* words. And every other person on the planet, and on every other kind of property that could possibly be used to record those words, and an unimaginably huge set of other words. Hence your supposed intangible property right represents a diminishment of every other person's tangible property right. In fact, since they had a more full right in their own property before your wrote your magical words and a less complete "bundle" of rights afterward, your "copyright" constitutes a taking of their property which cannot be morally justified.

The argument that innovation, invention, creation, etc. depend on copyright and patent is mere handwaving and cannot be shown, either empirically or logically. I invite anyone to try.

Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

Yeah I realize that. In fact, I made the same exact point earlier in the discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
How are we supposed to draw the line when we are talking about ideas? Ideas are not scarce like tangible property is. If I create a song, and someone copies it, they have not taken anything from me. I still have my song. Knowing this, how is it possible to consider an idea property? By making ideas property you are creating scarcity where there was once infinity. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that this is a bad thing.

“He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”

-Thomas Jefferson – First US Patent Examiner


[/ QUOTE ]

I am going to have to do some more reading on this before I formally take a position.

Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

Here's what I will grant the proponents of intellectual property rights: It just feels wrong that I could work and slave over a novel for 10 years, and then you can just "take" it, print it, and sell it. However, I have been unable to turn that into a justification for IP, any more than I can accept the socialist's feeling that it is wrong that people should have to pay for their own health care (for example). Furthermore, because we've had IP laws for quite some time now, the concept is ingrained in our culture. IP laws actually create a kind of economic scarcity of ideas that would not otherwise exist. This leads to ever more vigorous application and extension of those laws. I can't say that people would feel "robbed" if culturally they did not have the expectation of IP protection.

Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Property rights exist to prevent and resolve conflicts over scarce resources. Ideas are not scarce. My "taking" of "your" idea does not prevent you from using that idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Copyright doesn't protect ideas. It protects creations. Patents protect ideas.

[ QUOTE ]
A "copyright," an exclusive right to copy, implies that *I* cannot take *my* blank pages and *my* pen and write *your* words.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. You can do that all you want. You just can't distribute it.

Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

Technically speaking, the mere act of copying is a violation of copyright. (See 17 USC § 106). In the real world, no one is going to go after a person who is merely copying (without distribution).

Re: Antitrust: Is there really a point?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Copyright doesn't protect ideas. It protects creations. Patents protect ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no difference between the two. In either case what is being protected is a pattern, and arrangement of symbols, in short, an idea.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A "copyright," an exclusive right to copy, implies that *I* cannot take *my* blank pages and *my* pen and write *your* words.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. You can do that all you want. You just can't distribute it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless, such a right diminishes my rights to my tangible property, which I can distribute in any fashion that I see fit to do so.