4 ms·

I know little about law, so this might not be what you’re asking, but I can easily find, e.g.: Price fixing, bid rigging, and other forms of collusion are ille

by celoyd 15y ago

I know little about law, so this might not be what you’re asking, but I can easily find, e.g.: Price fixing, bid rigging, and other forms of collusion are illegal and are subject to criminal prosecution by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. Here: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/211578.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/211578.htm

nknight 15y ago
What that "primer" doesn't mention is the vague wording of the antitrust statutes, consequent extensive, confusing, and outright contradictory case law surrounding antitrust, the added complexities when it's mixed with employment law, the difference between the actions of a monopoly and the actions of one or more companies in a highly competitive market, the differences between criminal and civil litigation (such as burden of proof and discovery rules), and the fact that criminal prosecutions for antitrust are quite rare. Also left unexplored are the questions raised by imprisoning individuals for engaging in what would, in the truly free market many Americans claim to want, be perfectly legal conduct. Finally, you still haven't identified what acts you feel are crimes, nor any particular criminal law those acts violate. This is a necessary precondition for criminal prosecution. Prosecuting someone without being able to tell them exactly what crime they're being charged with is not how we do things in a free society.
- _delirium 15y ago
  While a very small handful of hardline libertarians would think so, I don't think there are "many" Americans who claim to want a "truly free market" to the extent where behavior like that described here would be legal. My guess, if it were polled, would be no more than 20% support for these kinds of collusion agreements being legitimate; certainly not a majority in support. Americans generally don't consider the unrestrained "truly free market", full of blackballing, price-fixing, insider trading, monopoly leverage, retaliation, dumping, racial covenants, and all the rest of the late-19th-century fine business practices, to be a legitimate part of the American form of capitalism. Even in the libertarian-leaning tech community, you'd be hard-pressed to rustle up majority support for Microsoft's 1990s-era OEM strongarming, where they retaliated against suppliers who shipped competing operating systems like Linux--- which would be perfectly fine behavior in an unrestrained free market.
  - nknight 15y ago
    Guess all you want, and I'll do likewise. My guesses are based off the fact that virtually every one of my fellow Americans I talk to don't understand why we have antitrust laws in the first place, and think the government getting involved in these matters is bad, right up until it bites them in the ass personally. Then, of course, it's witchhunt time.
    - GFKjunior 15y ago
      As a very hardline libertarian, read anarchist, I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement. Even in the most libertarian leaning circles people like at least a little government regulation. I say this as a person who was born and raised in Texas and attends gun shows regularly. The people in attendance are the kind with automatic rifles (very very illegal), the ones who pay for all their items with gold, want to succeed from the US, or the kind who think the "NWO" is a very real possibility, and even they feel safer with at least a little government protection. One of ex-GF's had a tshirt that read "Permain Basin Gun Club. We don't call the police". Even her family believed in gov regulations for big business and finance. As much as I wished more Americans were libertarian leaning the truth is that they are not.
      - nknight 15y ago
        With which statement do you disagree, exactly? Because all I'm saying is what I've observed. Unless you were present when I made these observations and have a better memory than I do, arguing with me about it isn't exactly going to be productive, is it?
    - mindcrime 15y ago
      Count me in as one hardline anarcho-capitalist / libertarian who is opposed to government intervention in something like this. I oppose anything like "government" that purports to do anything more than act as a collective extension to our innate right to self-defense; and take the Zero Aggression Principle seriously.
      - 15y ago
- aptwebapps 15y ago
  I was with you until the last line because I think the evidentiary bar for a comment on the internet is lower than that for a criminal prosecution. The rest of the comment was great.

by celoyd 15y ago

nknight 15y ago

What that "primer" doesn't mention is the vague wording of the antitrust statutes, consequent extensive, confusing, and outright contradictory case law surrounding antitrust, the added complexities when it's mixed with employment law, the difference between the actions of a monopoly and the actions of one or more companies in a highly competitive market, the differences between criminal and civil litigation (such as burden of proof and discovery rules), and the fact that criminal prosecutions for antitrust are quite rare. Also left unexplored are the questions raised by imprisoning individuals for engaging in what would, in the truly free market many Americans claim to want, be perfectly legal conduct. Finally, you still haven't identified what acts you feel are crimes, nor any particular criminal law those acts violate. This is a necessary precondition for criminal prosecution. Prosecuting someone without being able to tell them exactly what crime they're being charged with is not how we do things in a free society.

_delirium 15y ago
While a very small handful of hardline libertarians would think so, I don't think there are "many" Americans who claim to want a "truly free market" to the extent where behavior like that described here would be legal. My guess, if it were polled, would be no more than 20% support for these kinds of collusion agreements being legitimate; certainly not a majority in support. Americans generally don't consider the unrestrained "truly free market", full of blackballing, price-fixing, insider trading, monopoly leverage, retaliation, dumping, racial covenants, and all the rest of the late-19th-century fine business practices, to be a legitimate part of the American form of capitalism. Even in the libertarian-leaning tech community, you'd be hard-pressed to rustle up majority support for Microsoft's 1990s-era OEM strongarming, where they retaliated against suppliers who shipped competing operating systems like Linux--- which would be perfectly fine behavior in an unrestrained free market.
- nknight 15y ago
  Guess all you want, and I'll do likewise. My guesses are based off the fact that virtually every one of my fellow Americans I talk to don't understand why we have antitrust laws in the first place, and think the government getting involved in these matters is bad, right up until it bites them in the ass personally. Then, of course, it's witchhunt time.
  - GFKjunior 15y ago
    As a very hardline libertarian, read anarchist, I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement. Even in the most libertarian leaning circles people like at least a little government regulation. I say this as a person who was born and raised in Texas and attends gun shows regularly. The people in attendance are the kind with automatic rifles (very very illegal), the ones who pay for all their items with gold, want to succeed from the US, or the kind who think the "NWO" is a very real possibility, and even they feel safer with at least a little government protection. One of ex-GF's had a tshirt that read "Permain Basin Gun Club. We don't call the police". Even her family believed in gov regulations for big business and finance. As much as I wished more Americans were libertarian leaning the truth is that they are not.
    - nknight 15y ago
      With which statement do you disagree, exactly? Because all I'm saying is what I've observed. Unless you were present when I made these observations and have a better memory than I do, arguing with me about it isn't exactly going to be productive, is it?
  - mindcrime 15y ago
    Count me in as one hardline anarcho-capitalist / libertarian who is opposed to government intervention in something like this. I oppose anything like "government" that purports to do anything more than act as a collective extension to our innate right to self-defense; and take the Zero Aggression Principle seriously.
    - 15y ago
aptwebapps 15y ago
I was with you until the last line because I think the evidentiary bar for a comment on the internet is lower than that for a criminal prosecution. The rest of the comment was great.