3 ms·

Of course it won't pass. With enough money, you can pay lawyers to either make things legal, convince a court that what you're doing is legal, or hide your ille

Of course it won't pass. With enough money, you can pay lawyers to either make things legal, convince a court that what you're doing is legal, or hide your illegal activities. I'm not sure whether TurboTax and the like are doing #1 or #2, but they're the ones making sure simple tax filing never passes, which would put them out of business.

artursapek 11y ago
A sad example of capitalism holding back progress.
- ancap 11y ago
  When I compare my life to those of people who lived 50, 100, or more years ago, the majority of the things I value most came from capitalism.
  - sdegutis 11y ago
    The majority of things I find convenient came from capitalism. The majority of things I value were already there and have been for quite a long time.
awakeasleep 11y ago
If the government could take on Standard Oil it probably has a chance at Intuit.
- ancap 11y ago
  You say that as if government action against Standard Oil was some noble act. Standard Oil helped facilitate great improvements to the average Americans standard of living.
  - jonathankoren 11y ago
    And do you believe that monopolies offer choice, and drive down prices as well? via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Monopoly_charges_and_anti-trust_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Monopoly_charges_... "In 1904, Standard controlled 91 percent of production and 85 percent of final sales." "The federal Commissioner of Corporations studied Standard's operations from the period of 1904 to 1906[31] and concluded that ``beyond question... the dominant position of the Standard Oil Co. in the refining industry was due to unfair practices—to abuse of the control of pipe-lines, to railroad discriminations, and to unfair methods of competition in the sale of the refined petroleum products''" From the DOJ complaint, "The evidence is, in fact, absolutely conclusive that the Standard Oil Co. charges altogether excessive prices where it meets no competition, and particularly where there is little likelihood of competitors entering the field, and that, on the other hand, where competition is active, it frequently cuts prices to a point which leaves even the Standard little or no profit, and which more often leaves no profit to the competitor, whose costs are ordinarily somewhat higher."
    - ancap 11y ago
      You probably didn't read the article because two sections below the one you linked (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Legacy_and_criticism_of_breakup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Legacy_and_critic...) states: > Some economic historians have observed that Standard Oil was in the process of losing its monopoly at the time of its breakup in 1911. Although Standard had 90 percent of American refining capacity in 1880, by 1911 that had shrunk to between 60 and 65 percent, due to the expansion in capacity by competitors. Which would clearly be impossible if Standard Oil was a monopoly. Your quote from a politician with ulterior motives does not prove a monopoly and even sounds economically dubious.
      - jonathankoren 11y ago
        No I read it. It's irrelevant. If anything, it argues they should have been broken up earlier. Monopolies are market failures.

artursapek 11y ago

A sad example of capitalism holding back progress.

ancap 11y ago
When I compare my life to those of people who lived 50, 100, or more years ago, the majority of the things I value most came from capitalism.
- sdegutis 11y ago
  The majority of things I find convenient came from capitalism. The majority of things I value were already there and have been for quite a long time.

awakeasleep 11y ago

If the government could take on Standard Oil it probably has a chance at Intuit.

ancap 11y ago
You say that as if government action against Standard Oil was some noble act. Standard Oil helped facilitate great improvements to the average Americans standard of living.
- jonathankoren 11y ago
  And do you believe that monopolies offer choice, and drive down prices as well? via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Monopoly_charges_and_anti-trust_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Monopoly_charges_... "In 1904, Standard controlled 91 percent of production and 85 percent of final sales." "The federal Commissioner of Corporations studied Standard's operations from the period of 1904 to 1906[31] and concluded that ``beyond question... the dominant position of the Standard Oil Co. in the refining industry was due to unfair practices—to abuse of the control of pipe-lines, to railroad discriminations, and to unfair methods of competition in the sale of the refined petroleum products''" From the DOJ complaint, "The evidence is, in fact, absolutely conclusive that the Standard Oil Co. charges altogether excessive prices where it meets no competition, and particularly where there is little likelihood of competitors entering the field, and that, on the other hand, where competition is active, it frequently cuts prices to a point which leaves even the Standard little or no profit, and which more often leaves no profit to the competitor, whose costs are ordinarily somewhat higher."
  - ancap 11y ago
    You probably didn't read the article because two sections below the one you linked (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Legacy_and_criticism_of_breakup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Legacy_and_critic...) states: > Some economic historians have observed that Standard Oil was in the process of losing its monopoly at the time of its breakup in 1911. Although Standard had 90 percent of American refining capacity in 1880, by 1911 that had shrunk to between 60 and 65 percent, due to the expansion in capacity by competitors. Which would clearly be impossible if Standard Oil was a monopoly. Your quote from a politician with ulterior motives does not prove a monopoly and even sounds economically dubious.
    - jonathankoren 11y ago
      No I read it. It's irrelevant. If anything, it argues they should have been broken up earlier. Monopolies are market failures.