3 ms·
For the most part, yes. Would you mind explaining how that's relevant?
by tkahn6 16y ago
For the most part, yes. Would you mind explaining how that's relevant?
- jbooth 16y agoThe very, very short version: During the Gilded Age, as the industrial revolution was happening, a small number of people controlled all of the money and infrastructure. Then, there were no laws against collusion or antitrust or any of that. If you owned the railroad line to Denver, you could insist that you'll only ship your brand of widget to Denver, and everyone loses except you. You win big. So they routinely fucked everyone else over, and life is much better now that we don't have a few massive trusts dominating the whole economy.
- tkahn6 16y agoWell I appreciate the summary. It's interesting that you should bring up the railroad industry as an example of why anti-trust laws are necessary.... The railroad industry was extremely corrupt and was heavily subsidized by the government. They received special treatment and competition was forbidden. Corruption in America's Gilded Age http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/3614.html http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/3614.html Are you noticing a trend here?
- jbooth 16y agoYeah, I'm noticing a trend - you don't even know basic history, but you think you know all the answers and they're so obvious that you can be smug and condescending about them. Here's a hint: they aren't. Black and white proclamations about "government this" and "free market that" are used by 2 kinds of people : demagogues, and the useful idiots who follow them. Which are you?
- tkahn6 16y agobut you think you know all the answers and they're so obvious that you can be smug and condescending about them. With the exception of me stating my opinion that appropriating private property is immoral, I have simply been stating facts. In fact I can tell this discussion has degraded because you have resorted to ad hominem attacks. Black and white proclamations about "government this" and "free market that" are used by 2 kinds of people : demagogues, and the useful idiots who follow them. Which are you? Sometimes the extreme view is the correct one. Just because it is extreme does not make it inherently wrong. You are the one being dogmatic. And I'm not even saying that net neutrality is wrong. I very clearly stated that it should remain open for debate - it is not an cut and dry issue. "Freedom and equality for all" - I take the extreme view on that. Does that make me wrong? If you view the free market as a moral issue then this comparison does not seem so far-fetched.