4 ms·

>imagine if a train company, that owned all of the train tracks in the US, decided to retaliate against it competitors by banning some people from using their t

>imagine if a train company, that owned all of the train tracks in the US, decided to retaliate against it competitors by banning some people from using their trains. This is anti competitive. No it isn't. As long as the train company is not banning people based on a protected category (a local or federal civil right), a private corporation can choose who it does business with. A company has the right to refuse service. How does that even apply to competition? If anything, refusing some customers from using their trains means that it opens up competition for other companies to serve those banned customers. To take your analogy in another direction - if a private train company buys land across the US, lays down track with their labor and their material, they are not forced to let other companies use their tracks. That is what you're asking for here. Of course, if this were a public company or utility that was paid for with public funds, it is a different matter - because it belongs to the public. But a private company doing what it wishes with the private resources it acquired and manages is a right.

stale2002 7y ago
> a private corporation can choose who it does business with. A company has the right to refuse service This is not true. I would strongly encourage you to read up on the history of anti trust law. I chose the example of train lines for a reason. The reason being that this literal thing happened. It is the literal most famous example of antitrust law, of all time. The sherman anti trust act was created, for the literal purpose of prosecuting people, related to railroads, in the example that I just gave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_antit... > if a private train company buys land across the US, lays down track with their labor and their material, they are not forced to let other companies use their tracks. Yes they are. This happened. Literally this exact situation happened. It was called the Standard Oil Company. And they used the railroad system in the exact way that I described, and it was was broken up, in the most famous example in history of anti-trust law. Check it out here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey... So once again, this is not an argument about what could happen. This is instead an argument of literally what happened, in the most famous example of anti-trust law, in history. You cannot disagree with what happened, related to the most famous example of anti-trust law, in history. I am honestly not sure if you know what anti-trust law even is, if you don't understand anything about the most famous example of anti-trust law in history.
- eclipxe 7y ago
  You're connecting several tangential points at the margins and trying to make a larger argument, but you are missing several key components of the early history of the Sherman act. Maybe I missed it, but I'd love to understand how your specific example relates to Antitrust and the Sherman act (other than being tangentially related to railroad ownership).
  - stale2002 7y ago
    Alright, how about I post some official government resources on this general topic: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/refusal-deal https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... The TLDR is that if the refusal to deal with a competitor helps maintain the monopoly, then it might violated anti-trust law. Here are the main points: "In general, any business — even a monopolist — may choose its business partners. However, under certain circumstances, there may be limits on this freedom for a firm with market power. As courts attempt to define those limited situations when a firm with market power may violate antitrust law by refusing to do business with other firms, the focus is on how the refusal to deal helps the monopolist maintain its monopoly, or allows the monopolist to use its monopoly in one market to attempt to monopolize another market." "For instance, if the monopolist refuses to sell a product or service to a competitor that it makes available to others, or if the monopolist has done business with the competitor and then stops, the monopolist needs a legitimate business reason for its policies." There are absolutely cases where refusing to do business with competitors, can violate anti-trust laws. It says so right there, on an official government page related to this. This, and similar things were happening, related to railroad services and prices, related to standard oil, which is why I brought up that example. But that government page is a more general explanation of the problem.
    - eclipxe 7y ago
      Thank you for taking the time to reply and explain, I appreciate it. I was incorrect.

stale2002 7y ago

> a private corporation can choose who it does business with. A company has the right to refuse service This is not true. I would strongly encourage you to read up on the history of anti trust law. I chose the example of train lines for a reason. The reason being that this literal thing happened. It is the literal most famous example of antitrust law, of all time. The sherman anti trust act was created, for the literal purpose of prosecuting people, related to railroads, in the example that I just gave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_antit... > if a private train company buys land across the US, lays down track with their labor and their material, they are not forced to let other companies use their tracks. Yes they are. This happened. Literally this exact situation happened. It was called the Standard Oil Company. And they used the railroad system in the exact way that I described, and it was was broken up, in the most famous example in history of anti-trust law. Check it out here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey... So once again, this is not an argument about what could happen. This is instead an argument of literally what happened, in the most famous example of anti-trust law, in history. You cannot disagree with what happened, related to the most famous example of anti-trust law, in history. I am honestly not sure if you know what anti-trust law even is, if you don't understand anything about the most famous example of anti-trust law in history.

eclipxe 7y ago
You're connecting several tangential points at the margins and trying to make a larger argument, but you are missing several key components of the early history of the Sherman act. Maybe I missed it, but I'd love to understand how your specific example relates to Antitrust and the Sherman act (other than being tangentially related to railroad ownership).
- stale2002 7y ago
  Alright, how about I post some official government resources on this general topic: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/refusal-deal https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... The TLDR is that if the refusal to deal with a competitor helps maintain the monopoly, then it might violated anti-trust law. Here are the main points: "In general, any business — even a monopolist — may choose its business partners. However, under certain circumstances, there may be limits on this freedom for a firm with market power. As courts attempt to define those limited situations when a firm with market power may violate antitrust law by refusing to do business with other firms, the focus is on how the refusal to deal helps the monopolist maintain its monopoly, or allows the monopolist to use its monopoly in one market to attempt to monopolize another market." "For instance, if the monopolist refuses to sell a product or service to a competitor that it makes available to others, or if the monopolist has done business with the competitor and then stops, the monopolist needs a legitimate business reason for its policies." There are absolutely cases where refusing to do business with competitors, can violate anti-trust laws. It says so right there, on an official government page related to this. This, and similar things were happening, related to railroad services and prices, related to standard oil, which is why I brought up that example. But that government page is a more general explanation of the problem.
  - eclipxe 7y ago
    Thank you for taking the time to reply and explain, I appreciate it. I was incorrect.