4 ms·

Just because a legal mechanism exists (adding a restriction to a deed as part of a private sale) does not mean that its use is legal. This is not "using" the go

Just because a legal mechanism exists (adding a restriction to a deed as part of a private sale) does not mean that its use is legal. This is not "using" the government to disable other market participants, this is illegally abusing the mechanism of a deed restriction to monopolize a market and extort people.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
> This is not "using" the government to disable other market participants, this is illegally abusing the mechanism of a deed restriction to monopolize a market and extort people. Betting on government inaction for breaking the law is still using the government. If it is illegal, then a competing grocery store should be able to open its doors and any lawsuits thrown out. Considering Albertsons’ and other grocery store’s lawyers are not willing to bet on this, it must be clearly illegal, which is again, a problem the government has to solve.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  the government doesn't go around enforcing contracts; the government provides a mechanism whereby a person who is wronged (by another party breaking their contract) can appeal and get some justice (without which you have the aggrieved party going over and shooting the other party). a competing company could open a store there anyway and then fight the battle in court; they might even win, but the cost of the court case would prevent most companies from even trying, after all groceries are a relatively low margin business--if this were a gold mine instead of grocery store you can be sure someone would have opened it already and fought it in court
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    The government can also decree a simple ban on contracts that reduce competition. Similar to a ban on non compete contracts. Any contract that intends to reduce the amount of buyers or sellers could be made unenforceable.
- class3shock 2y ago
  The way you are framing it suggests if the government (or another company) doesn't catch you and punish you then it's legal. Again, that is not "using" the government, that is committing a crime and hoping to get away with it. This is clearly illegal, the fact that nothing has been done about it yet says nothing about it being legal or illegal. Just because a crime has been going on for years or is difficult to prove in court does not mean it is not a crime. As we type there are multiple monopolies that are illegal and could be tried in court but aren't. Those companies are not "using" the government to get away with it, they are using their money and influence to escape consequences for as long as possible. Again, call it what it is. A crime.

lotsofpulp 2y ago

> This is not "using" the government to disable other market participants, this is illegally abusing the mechanism of a deed restriction to monopolize a market and extort people. Betting on government inaction for breaking the law is still using the government. If it is illegal, then a competing grocery store should be able to open its doors and any lawsuits thrown out. Considering Albertsons’ and other grocery store’s lawyers are not willing to bet on this, it must be clearly illegal, which is again, a problem the government has to solve.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
the government doesn't go around enforcing contracts; the government provides a mechanism whereby a person who is wronged (by another party breaking their contract) can appeal and get some justice (without which you have the aggrieved party going over and shooting the other party). a competing company could open a store there anyway and then fight the battle in court; they might even win, but the cost of the court case would prevent most companies from even trying, after all groceries are a relatively low margin business--if this were a gold mine instead of grocery store you can be sure someone would have opened it already and fought it in court
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  The government can also decree a simple ban on contracts that reduce competition. Similar to a ban on non compete contracts. Any contract that intends to reduce the amount of buyers or sellers could be made unenforceable.
class3shock 2y ago
The way you are framing it suggests if the government (or another company) doesn't catch you and punish you then it's legal. Again, that is not "using" the government, that is committing a crime and hoping to get away with it. This is clearly illegal, the fact that nothing has been done about it yet says nothing about it being legal or illegal. Just because a crime has been going on for years or is difficult to prove in court does not mean it is not a crime. As we type there are multiple monopolies that are illegal and could be tried in court but aren't. Those companies are not "using" the government to get away with it, they are using their money and influence to escape consequences for as long as possible. Again, call it what it is. A crime.