18 ms·

> Laws enforced against deceit and theft and murder help freedom. Laws dictating what's legal to sell, at what price, not at all. Laws are far from the only wa

> Laws enforced against deceit and theft and murder help freedom. Laws dictating what's legal to sell, at what price, not at all. Laws are far from the only way to restrict what is sold to the public. Large corporations can leverage their market share to shut down competition in other areas. In order to maintain a healthy market place, you have to ensure that a market is not completely controlled by a few large corporations.

dpatru 17y ago
A simple way to do this would be to limit some of the advantages of a corporation, which is itself a state-created entity. I've no problem with government limiting the freedom of its own creation which enjoys unlimited life, limited liability, tax advantages. I do have a problem with government restricting the freedom of individuals and partnerships to contract freely in the marketplace.
- weavejester 17y ago
  I think the problem still remains; a free market does not necessarily mean it is an optimum market, and the government is not the only factor that can adversely affect a marketplace.
gojomo 17y ago
...you have to ensure that a market is not completely controlled by a few large corporations. Maybe. But if so, that's an argument for antitrust enforcement, not net-neutrality type-and-price-of-service regulations. As the example of regulatory capture in many industries should make clear, regulations often turn out giving an advantage to the few large operators who can play at Washington rulemaking games -- with large staffs of lobbyists and big donations at election time -- no matter what the regulators' initial rationale.
- weavejester 17y ago
  Isn't net-neutrality a form of antitrust law? Net neutrality is essentially a way of stopping corporations from using their influence over communication lines to unfairly affect other markets that use those communication lines.

dpatru 17y ago

A simple way to do this would be to limit some of the advantages of a corporation, which is itself a state-created entity. I've no problem with government limiting the freedom of its own creation which enjoys unlimited life, limited liability, tax advantages. I do have a problem with government restricting the freedom of individuals and partnerships to contract freely in the marketplace.

weavejester 17y ago
I think the problem still remains; a free market does not necessarily mean it is an optimum market, and the government is not the only factor that can adversely affect a marketplace.

gojomo 17y ago

...you have to ensure that a market is not completely controlled by a few large corporations. Maybe. But if so, that's an argument for antitrust enforcement, not net-neutrality type-and-price-of-service regulations. As the example of regulatory capture in many industries should make clear, regulations often turn out giving an advantage to the few large operators who can play at Washington rulemaking games -- with large staffs of lobbyists and big donations at election time -- no matter what the regulators' initial rationale.

weavejester 17y ago
Isn't net-neutrality a form of antitrust law? Net neutrality is essentially a way of stopping corporations from using their influence over communication lines to unfairly affect other markets that use those communication lines.