3 ms·

> If the local municipality decided to ban a seller, for reasons unknown, the seller can get a judge involved who will quickly say if the seller was legitimatel

> If the local municipality decided to ban a seller, for reasons unknown, the seller can get a judge involved who will quickly say if the seller was legitimately banned. C'mon. A local municipality is a government, which is supposed to (and usually legally obligated to) act for the betterment of its constituents. Apple is a private company and, thus, not bound by any such obligation.

spiderfarmer 7y ago
I know that this is the American way, but in my view private companies should not be able to do "whatever the hell they want". You said it yourself: "A government is supposed to (and usually legally obligated to) act for the betterment of its constituents" So, government: Make new rules for the unicorn tech giants. Setting new rules for these behemoths helps small businesses and therefore your constituents. You make the rules. We need them.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> A local municipality is a government, which is supposed to (and usually legally obligated to) act for the betterment of its constituents Governments are usually not legally bound to act for the betterment of their constituents, and even if they were that would usually be meaningless as they usually are the entity that interprets the collective interest of their constituents. > Apple is a private company and, thus, not bound by any such obligation. Corporations, unlike governments, are actually legally bound, to an extent, to serve the interests of their constituents (but their constituents are the stockholders, not the public.)
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  I guess I didn't make my point very well. Which was: of course you can take your municipal government to court over how they dole out stalls at a market they run. An important principle in most modern legal systems is that various entities are treated fairly by the government. But no such principle exists in a private marketplace, which was created by a private entity to further its own ends (with the usual caveats about protected classes and monopolies being exceptions; neither of those exceptions apply here, though).
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Which was: of course you can take your municipal government to court over how they dole out stalls at a market they run. In the US, sure, you could sue them because the manner they did that: (1) discriminated on a basis prohibited to government under the Constitution, (2) violated some binding regulation of a superior level of government, (3) violated a promise made by that government that you reasonably relied on to your disadvantage. Similarly, for a private entity doling out market stalls, you could sue for the same reasons, except #1 becomes “...on a basis prohibited to businesses open to the public”. And with a private entity, there's no issue of whether governmental immunity applies to your suit.

spiderfarmer 7y ago

I know that this is the American way, but in my view private companies should not be able to do "whatever the hell they want". You said it yourself: "A government is supposed to (and usually legally obligated to) act for the betterment of its constituents" So, government: Make new rules for the unicorn tech giants. Setting new rules for these behemoths helps small businesses and therefore your constituents. You make the rules. We need them.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> A local municipality is a government, which is supposed to (and usually legally obligated to) act for the betterment of its constituents Governments are usually not legally bound to act for the betterment of their constituents, and even if they were that would usually be meaningless as they usually are the entity that interprets the collective interest of their constituents. > Apple is a private company and, thus, not bound by any such obligation. Corporations, unlike governments, are actually legally bound, to an extent, to serve the interests of their constituents (but their constituents are the stockholders, not the public.)

toasterlovin 7y ago
I guess I didn't make my point very well. Which was: of course you can take your municipal government to court over how they dole out stalls at a market they run. An important principle in most modern legal systems is that various entities are treated fairly by the government. But no such principle exists in a private marketplace, which was created by a private entity to further its own ends (with the usual caveats about protected classes and monopolies being exceptions; neither of those exceptions apply here, though).
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Which was: of course you can take your municipal government to court over how they dole out stalls at a market they run. In the US, sure, you could sue them because the manner they did that: (1) discriminated on a basis prohibited to government under the Constitution, (2) violated some binding regulation of a superior level of government, (3) violated a promise made by that government that you reasonably relied on to your disadvantage. Similarly, for a private entity doling out market stalls, you could sue for the same reasons, except #1 becomes “...on a basis prohibited to businesses open to the public”. And with a private entity, there's no issue of whether governmental immunity applies to your suit.