Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: Ron Paul is against antitrust laws

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    A corporations isn't an individual, but it's owned by a group of individuals that have the same rights as any other individuals.
    Corporations have MORE rights than individuals. That's the problem.

    I'm sure Ron Paul would agree.
    Would agree with what? In the above video Dr. Paul was disagreeing with the fact that corporations get a tax break for healthcare spending on adults that individuals in general do not. Do you agree with Dr. Paul? And do you agree that corporations should get liability protection that people who come together and create a partnership by contract do not?

    Do you think we should outlaw corporations since you said they are anti free market?
    Are you a statist? I'm not asking that question as a perjorative. I'm just curious. Do you believe that the state, itself, is necessary? Because without a state, all state created entities, including corporations, could not exist. As long as we have government protection for corporations, and by definition their very existence is a government protection, there should be some government protection FROM corporations as well. Antitrust laws fall into that category. If the state went away there would be no corporations and no antitrust laws either.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Are you a statist? I'm not asking that question as a perjorative. I'm just curious. Do you believe that the state, itself, is necessary? Because without a state, all state created entities, including corporations, could not exist. As long as we have government protection for corporations, and by definition their very existence is a government protection, there should be some government protection FROM corporations as well. Antitrust laws fall into that category. If the state went away there would be no corporations and no antitrust laws either.
    Yeah, but if the state went away there'd be no government protections for individuals or contracts or anything, so according to your logic none of them would exist without a state. Why single out corporations?

    For the record I'm a minarchist. Does that make me a statist?



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    Protectionist regulation creates harmful centralization within the market. Centralization that occurs by market action itself (without protectionism) is not harmful, it is desirable. So, antitrust laws are either breaking up centralized monopolies implicitly created by the government's own protectionist regulations (correct solution: abolish the protectionism), or it is breaking up businesses that are centralized by unhampered market action; the break-up of such businesses is harmful to the market.

    In an unhampered market, if people are mistreated, even by a centralized business / supplier, this creates new demand for a new competitor to enter the market. Even if the centralized business is some kind of Google-like behemoth, that is no matter -- there are plenty of VCs who are capitalized to the gills and just waiting for the opportunity to swoop in and destroy a business of any size that has become complacent and arrogant towards its customers.

    People do not need to be forced to do what is in their own interests. This is the logical flaw underlying all statutory law. Statutory law is always either redundant or harmful. It is never helpful because forcing people to do things they don't want to do, or forcing people not to do things they want to do cannot improve social well-being. It is just compulsion and/or prohibition and it reduces humans to cattle. The entire concept of statutory law is inherently hostile to the image of God within man.
    You mean like Gab or Parler swooping in to take on Twitter? Yeah. Then Gab got kicked off the Apple and Google stores. Then big tech went even further and kicked Parler off of Apple, Google and their hosting platform at Amazon. Sure, they can get another hosting platform. (In fact as of this post they seem to be back up). Still, without a presence in the app stores they are at a significant disadvantage. Of course there are ways around that. Mastodon is a protocol, as opposed to a platform, and it's impossible to ban a protocol. But Mastodon hasn't caught on yet.

    Meanwhile...as the now infamous Time magazine admitted, this "cabal" (Time's words, not mine) of big tech, big labor, Wallstreet, and "wokestreet" conspired together to control the narrative after (and really before) this last election. I am not sure if anything admitted in that article is per se illegal. But it sure feels wrong.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Yeah, but if the state went away there'd be no government protections for individuals or contracts or anything, so according to your logic none of them would exist without a state. Why single out corporations?
    There were contracts before there were states. They were called "covenants." You can read about them in the Bible. For example the covenant between Abraham and Lot dividing up pasture land. How were covenants enforced? Mostly by honor. If you were known to be a covenant breaker then other people wouldn't want to do business with you. Loss of reputation, or "loss of face", was how things were generally enforced. Yeah...you could get a bunch of people with swords to enforce your covenant. But even if you didn't have the manpower to do that, simply letting everyone know "You can't trust Mr. X" was a powerful weapon. Now, back to corporations. Why do you believe it is necessary to have a legal entity that you need to have a government license to form called a "corporation?"

    For the record I'm a minarchist. Does that make me a statist?
    Are you REALLY a minarchist? Here is a definition I found.

    https://www.lexico.com/definition/minarchy
    Minimal government; specifically a (hypothetical) form of government that does not interfere with individual rights and civil liberties, and that has itself no right to levy taxes upon legitimately acquired property.

    A government created license to limit liability, the very definition of a corporation, interferes with the individual right to have full redress for damages done to him by another individual or individuals who put their assets in that government licensed entity but maintain control over them for their own financial gain. So...how is that compatible with minarchy?
    Last edited by jmdrake; 02-25-2021 at 05:43 PM. Reason: To differentiate between a corporation and a church
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    A corporations isn't an individual, but it's owned by a group of individuals that have the same rights as any other individuals.

    I'm sure Ron Paul would agree.
    That's pretty much what he says in this quote:
    "Corporations don't have rights per se, but the individual who happens to own a corporation or belong to a union does have rights, and these rights are not lost by merely acting through another organization."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Freedom_of_speech

    Notably, he called restrictions placed on the ability of corporations to spend money on lobbying violations of the freedom of speech. I think that illustrates how he understands the rights of individuals to apply to corporations, as tools being used by individuals.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    That's pretty much what he says in this quote:
    "Corporations don't have rights per se, but the individual who happens to own a corporation or belong to a union does have rights, and these rights are not lost by merely acting through another organization."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Freedom_of_speech

    Notably, he called restrictions placed on the ability of corporations to spend money on lobbying violations of the freedom of speech. I think that illustrates how he understands the rights of individuals to apply to corporations, as tools being used by individuals.
    The point you and @Madison320 keep missing is that individuals should not gain rights by virtue of being a part of a corporation that they do not have as individuals. But, by the definition of being a corporation, they do.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    As far as I can tell there's only a couple of people here besides me that are against antitrust laws.

    At least Dr Paul agrees with me:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C4gRRk2i-M
    It is crucial to distinguish that RP is anti-monopoly, so in effect he is against Anti-Trust laws for being too weak and ineffective.
    The beginning of the video makes his views and the author's clear right away.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    You mean like Gab or Parler swooping in to take on Twitter? Yeah. Then Gab got kicked off the Apple and Google stores.
    While I understand the political significance of the Parler/Twitter showdown and the outcome of that, the fact is that there is no large market demand for a Twitter alternative. While Trumpers would join a Twitter alternative to get his messages, it's Trump not the Twitter alternative that is in demand. If there were two non-Twitter users for every one Twitter user, demanding an alternative to Twitter, you can be certain there would be trillion-dollar VC whales lining up to capitalize a competitor, at any scale. Twitter would go down.

    But we also have to realize that the US economy is not a free market and has not been a free market at least since 1971 when the dollar was cut from gold. The destruction of the free market in the US can be traced back much further than 1971 but that's a great historical anchor-point to start the discussion. So, when people point to "market failures" after 1971 and say things like, "See, the free market doesn't work!", they're just arguing a strawman. Communism dressed up in free-market drag doesn't work. But that's not the free market's fault.
    Jesus Is Lord

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    While I understand the political significance of the Parler/Twitter showdown and the outcome of that, the fact is that there is no large market demand for a Twitter alternative. While Trumpers would join a Twitter alternative to get his messages, it's Trump not the Twitter alternative that is in demand. If there were two non-Twitter users for every one Twitter user, demanding an alternative to Twitter, you can be certain there would be trillion-dollar VC whales lining up to capitalize a competitor, at any scale. Twitter would go down.

    But we also have to realize that the US economy is not a free market and has not been a free market at least since 1971 when the dollar was cut from gold. The destruction of the free market in the US can be traced back much further than 1971 but that's a great historical anchor-point to start the discussion. So, when people point to "market failures" after 1971 and say things like, "See, the free market doesn't work!", they're just arguing a strawman. Communism dressed up in free-market drag doesn't work. But that's not the free market's fault.
    I disagree based on the historical evidence. Gab was taken off the Apple and Google stores while Trump was still flying high on Twitter. So there is a market for Twitter alternatives separate from Trump.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. Rand Paul's Audacious Antitrust Proposal
    By jct74 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-30-2016, 10:56 AM
  2. Antitrust Law - Needed or Not?
    By Slutter McGee in forum Austrian Economics / Economic Theory
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 05-07-2015, 10:56 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-09-2010, 08:11 PM
  4. 3 "Superbanks" now in violation of federal antitrust laws
    By Created4 in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-06-2008, 03:53 PM
  5. Antitrust, by Alan Greenspan
    By yongrel in forum Austrian Economics / Economic Theory
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-05-2008, 05:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •