5 ms·

The unfortunate/fortunate truth is that law must always be altered in letter or interpretation to work against those that would willingly circumvent it. What i

The unfortunate/fortunate truth is that law must always be altered in letter or interpretation to work against those that would willingly circumvent it. What if we state that a monopoly that makes up 75% of market is worthy of being broken up? Then some wealthy business owner will gladly split their company into two companies which they both own before hitting the 75% mark. And that doesn't solve monopolies as we know it - it just hides it from public view. Enforcing the law and producing the law simply becomes a big cat and mouse game. If we were smart, we would simply state that we know someone is not following the spirit of the law and we have evidence to that effect and that should still be punishable, though maybe not to the same extent until it's been established in caselaw.

sharemywin 7y ago
Diversification of ownership and change in management. The larger an organization is the more it becomes a social institution. Over some multiple of the poverty line an individual should only be allowed to own so much of a company and industry. I own company A and lists company B as a competitor Then you can only own so much of the competition. The largest companies and institutions should have term limits on upper management, board seats, and consulting arrangements. Also, the larger it is the more shareholders it needs. And there should be only one class of stock.
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  Or communism 2.0? But who am I? I haven't even read the Gulag Archipelago!
  - sitkack 7y ago
    There is nothing socialist or communist about the parents proposal. Capitalism needs controls, we as a civilization are clearly failing at that.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> What if we state that a monopoly that makes up 75% of market is worthy of being broken up? Then some wealthy business owner will gladly split their company into two companies which they both own before hitting the 75% mark. That's a "trust". That's explicitly what "anti-trust" is for.
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  But anyone knows how this works. If high income is taxed, the rich will figure out how to get benefits without the high income. Humans are all somewhere between the compliance/noncompliance spectrum. In game theory, much of the time, the evaders win, but it's never a guarantee. If it was, everyone would do it.
toyg 7y ago
> we know someone is not following the spirit of the law and we have evidence to that effect and that should still be punishable Uh, that's pretty much how Common Law works already. The problem is typically not the law, but finding someone who really wants to enforce it. Aka, political will.
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  Is that why there's a law against having an ice cream in your back pocket?
  - toyg 7y ago
    No, that's because Kentucky is Kentucky.
xg15 7y ago
The job of judges to a large extent is in protecting (their interpretation of) the spirit of the law - as can be seen with the recent situation on Brexit: Boris Johnson was apparently entertaining the idea of sending an extension request, then immediately follow up with a "disregard that, I didn't mean it!" letter to technically fulfill the extension law without really asking for an extension. When a Surpreme Court judge was asked about that in an interview, the response was the diplomatic version of "you really don't wanna fuck with us". I think the DAO fiasco also illustrated the opposite case: A community believing that the letter of the law is enough and deliberately not enforcing the spirit at all - until someone found a loophole and the community had to scramble to protect the spirit in an ad-hoc fashion. My feeling is that situations like the above where laws are interpreted opposite to their intended goal are more a sign of regulatory capture and of groups gaining power that are fundamentally opposed to the goal - and not so much a fundamental property of laws.

sharemywin 7y ago

Diversification of ownership and change in management. The larger an organization is the more it becomes a social institution. Over some multiple of the poverty line an individual should only be allowed to own so much of a company and industry. I own company A and lists company B as a competitor Then you can only own so much of the competition. The largest companies and institutions should have term limits on upper management, board seats, and consulting arrangements. Also, the larger it is the more shareholders it needs. And there should be only one class of stock.

not_a_cop75 7y ago
Or communism 2.0? But who am I? I haven't even read the Gulag Archipelago!
- sitkack 7y ago
  There is nothing socialist or communist about the parents proposal. Capitalism needs controls, we as a civilization are clearly failing at that.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

> What if we state that a monopoly that makes up 75% of market is worthy of being broken up? Then some wealthy business owner will gladly split their company into two companies which they both own before hitting the 75% mark. That's a "trust". That's explicitly what "anti-trust" is for.

not_a_cop75 7y ago
But anyone knows how this works. If high income is taxed, the rich will figure out how to get benefits without the high income. Humans are all somewhere between the compliance/noncompliance spectrum. In game theory, much of the time, the evaders win, but it's never a guarantee. If it was, everyone would do it.

toyg 7y ago

> we know someone is not following the spirit of the law and we have evidence to that effect and that should still be punishable Uh, that's pretty much how Common Law works already. The problem is typically not the law, but finding someone who really wants to enforce it. Aka, political will.

not_a_cop75 7y ago
Is that why there's a law against having an ice cream in your back pocket?
- toyg 7y ago
  No, that's because Kentucky is Kentucky.

xg15 7y ago

The job of judges to a large extent is in protecting (their interpretation of) the spirit of the law - as can be seen with the recent situation on Brexit: Boris Johnson was apparently entertaining the idea of sending an extension request, then immediately follow up with a "disregard that, I didn't mean it!" letter to technically fulfill the extension law without really asking for an extension. When a Surpreme Court judge was asked about that in an interview, the response was the diplomatic version of "you really don't wanna fuck with us". I think the DAO fiasco also illustrated the opposite case: A community believing that the letter of the law is enough and deliberately not enforcing the spirit at all - until someone found a loophole and the community had to scramble to protect the spirit in an ad-hoc fashion. My feeling is that situations like the above where laws are interpreted opposite to their intended goal are more a sign of regulatory capture and of groups gaining power that are fundamentally opposed to the goal - and not so much a fundamental property of laws.