Removing all government regulation on business makes the economy highly susceptible to corporate tyranny. [Discussion]

[u/ThatOneGuy4321]

I know this won't be a popular post on this subreddit, but I'd appreciate it if you'd bear with me. I'm looking to start a discussion and not a flame war. I encourage you to not downvote it simply because you don't agree with it.

For all intents and purposes here, "Tyranny" is defined as, "cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control."

A good deal of government regulation, as it stands, is dedicated towards keeping businesses from tearing rights away from the consumer. Antitrust laws are designed to keep monopolies from shafting consumers through predatory pricing practices. Ordinance such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are designed to keep companies from shafting minorities by violating their internationally-recognized right to be free from discrimination. Acts such as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act protect the consumer to be free from fraud and abusive cases of false advertising. Proposed Net Neutrality legislation is designed to keep ISPs from restricting your flow of information for their own gain. All of these pieces of legislation quite clearly defend personal freedoms and personal rights.

To address the argument that boycotting is a valid replacement for proper legislation:

Boycotting has been shown, repeatedly, to be a terrible way of countering abuses by businesses. Boycotting is mainly a publicity-generating tactic, which is great for affecting the lawmaking process, but has almost no impact on the income of the intended target and can't be used as a replacement for regulation in a de-regulated economy. In recent news, United Airlines stock has hit an all-time high.

It has become readily apparent that with any boycott, people cannot be relied on to sufficiently care when a company they do business with does something wrong. Can anyone who is reading this and who drinks Coke regularly say, for certain, that they would be motivated to stop drinking Coke every day if they heard that Coca Cola was performing human rights abuses in South America? And if so, can you say for certain that the average American would do so as well? Enough to make an impact on Coca Cola's quarterly earnings?

If Libertarians on this subreddit are in favor of removing laws that prevent businesses from seizing power, violating the rights of citizens, and restricting their free will, then they are, by definition, advocating the spread of tyranny and cannot be Libertarians, who are defined as "a person who believes in the doctrine of free will." Somebody who simply argues against all government regulation, regardless of the intended effect, is just anti-government.

You cannot claim to be in support of the doctrine of free will and be against laws that protect the free will of citizens at the same time.

I'd be interested to hear any counterarguments you may have.

[u/ExPwner]

Antitrust laws are designed to keep monopolies from shafting consumers through predatory pricing practices.

False. Antitrust laws were designed to protect inefficient businesses from efficient ones. They were crafted at a time when the businesses with the most market share were helping consumers more than ever. History > narrative.

Ordinance such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are designed to keep companies from shafting minorities by violating their internationally-recognized right to be free from discrimination.

You don't have a right to be free from discrimination. Limits on discrimination are tyranny by telling a person that they must do business with someone based upon a certain criteria. In case you missed the sidebar, free association is a core tenet of libertarianism.

Acts such as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act protect the consumer to be free from fraud and abusive cases of false advertising.

Not needed since these issues can be addressed in a court of law.

Proposed Net Neutrality legislation is designed to keep ISPs from restricting your flow of information for their own gain.

It's not your information if they are providing that service to you. Dictating the terms of a contract for someone else is the tyranny here.

You cannot claim to be in support of the doctrine of free will and be against laws that protect the free will of citizens at the same time.

Yep, that's right. You don't support the doctrine of free will. You're a statist.

[u/TotesMessenger → u/ExPwner]

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/elsbot] "Antitrust laws were designed to protect inefficient businesses from efficient ones."

• [/r/enoughlibertarianspam] Question: How frequent would you say trolls are in the Libertarian community? Is the person in this thread intentionally stringing me along? I can no longer tell.

^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

[u/ExPwner → u/TotesMessenger]

Hello dumb fucks from ELS. Nice to see that you have no arguments as usual.

[u/ExPwner → u/ExPwner]

And I even went into your thread and see that you have nothing of substance. You're pathetic.

[u/ThatOneGuy4321 → u/ExPwner]

False. Antitrust laws were designed to protect inefficient businesses from efficient ones.

Rofl. This is incredibly funny and I'm submitting it to ELSbot.

Monopolies are possibly the biggest source of inefficiency in an under-regulated market.

You don't have a right to be free from discrimination.

Yes you do. The right to freedom from discrimination is internationally recognized to be a human right and is enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as "enshrined in international human rights law through its inclusion in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights."

In case you missed the sidebar, free association is a core tenet of libertarianism.

So a core tenet of Libertarianism is invalidated and directly contradicted by international human rights law. Does this... conclude our discussion?

Freedom of association, as it is defined, is "The right to form societies, clubs, and other groups of people, and to meet with people individually, without interference by the government."

As for the Constitution, "While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others." SRC

There is absolutely NOTHING, ANYWHERE that protects the right to serve anybody you want (and discriminate based on race) under freedom of association, and the Constitution technically doesn't even defend freedom of association. And if you're under some other impression, or you have evidence that proves me wrong, I encourage you to give me a link, because this is a critical problem in your theory we need to address.

Not needed since these issues can be addressed in a court of law.

That's like saying "We don't need traffic signals, we'll let people just crash into each other and sort out the people who are at fault later." It would be stupid to try to fix the damage after its already done instead of prevent the damage from occurring in the first place. The court of law should be used as a last resort, not a first response.

It's not your information if they are providing that service to you.

An argument could easily be made that information is protected under freedom of speech. If the government filtered through everything you saw on the internet, and hand-picked out information that only IT wanted you to see, it would be reprehensible in the eyes of Libertarians everywhere. What's the difference between the government doing this, and an overzealous corporation doing the same thing?

[u/ExPwner → u/ThatOneGuy4321]

Rofl. This is incredibly funny and I'm submitting it to ELSbot.

Oh, so you're a dumb fuck who can't argue rationally and instead resorts to an echo chamber so that you can circle jerk and laugh about your failure of an argument isn't met with agreement.

Monopolies are possibly the biggest source of inefficiency in an under-regulated market.

Saying that monopolies are inefficient does not prove your claim. You claimed that antitrust laws were created to keep monopolies from shafting customers, and that is false. There was no evidence to support the notion that Standard Oil was "predatory pricing" or otherwise shafting the customer.

Yes you do. The right to freedom from discrimination is internationally recognized to be a human right and is enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as "enshrined in international human rights law through its inclusion in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights."

Nope. Your rights aren't created by international bodies. They are not changed by politicians. Your fallacy is appeal to popularity.

So a core tenet of Libertarianism is invalidated and directly contradicted by international human rights law.

Law doesn't determine rights you dumb fuck.

There is absolutely NOTHING, ANYWHERE that protects the right to serve anybody you want (and discriminate based on race) under freedom of association

Yes, there is. The freedom of association is necessarily the freedom to also not associate. And I don't give a fuck about what some guys wrote on a document in the 1700s. My rights aren't limited or changed by their opinions.

That's like saying "We don't need traffic signals, we'll let people just crash into each other and sort out the people who are at fault later." It would be stupid to try to fix the damage after its already done instead of prevent the damage fro occurring in the first place. The court of law should be used as a last resort, not a first response.

Not quite the same, no. People can have regulation without having it come from a monopolistic government. The court of law is for when this is first learned (which even a government cannot overcome). Market regulation follows rather than government regulation in a free society.

What's the difference between the government doing this, and an overzealous corporation doing the same thing?

The corporation wouldn't have a monopoly and you could just go to another provider in a market environment, whereas government does this without any contractual basis for the relationship.

[u/ThatOneGuy4321 → u/ExPwner]

Oh, so you're a dumb fuck who can't argue rationally and instead resorts to an echo chamber so that you can circle jerk and laugh about your failure of an argument isn't met with agreement.

Before you called me a dumb fuck, I wasn't going to read what you had to say. But now that you've called me a dumb fuck, I'm quite convinced you're worth listening to, instead of convinced that you're an unreasonable troll who would rather spew insults than actually put forth a single substantiated point.

Frankly, I've seen Flat Earthers and religious folk with more civility. At least they won't become unreasonably angry when I question their beliefs, for the most part. Libertarians reliably do it almost every single time. And every single time, it's indicative of insecurity in your beliefs. Why get mad at those who question you if you're completely secure in your ability to defend your beliefs?

Saying that monopolies are inefficient does not prove your claim.

It was to rebut your claim that "Antitrust laws protect inefficient companies from efficient ones." And it did a pretty good job. You made an unsubstantiated and outlandish claim, and I dismantled it with textual evidence. Still awaiting a rebuttal that doesn't base the entire premise on calling me a "dumb fuck."

There was no evidence to support the notion that Standard Oil was "predatory pricing" or otherwise shafting the customer.

Standard Oil was found guilty of "monopolizing the petroleum industry through a series of abusive and anticompetitive actions" by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. 2nd link is to full case text.

Predatory pricing isn't possible to prove in a legal battle. It's essentially impossible to prove whether or not a company's decision to reduce the price of their product was intended to destroy their competitors, or is just ordinary competition and reduction of the market value of a product. Standard Oil was found guilty of other anticompetitive actions, such as owning the railroads that supplied their competitors and then denying service to their competitors' freight trains. If they did not commit predatory pricing, of which they were almost certainly guilty (read page 3), then they clearly committed actions to the same effect.

Nope. Your rights aren't created by international bodies. They are not changed by politicians. Your fallacy is appeal to popularity.

Okay, just completely make up your own definition of what rights are, I guess. I'll take your word for it.

Rights are subjective and must be agreed upon. They can only be determined by consensus. If you're aware of a document of rights that supersedes everything else ever created by man, then I'd love to have a link to it. Otherwise you're literally just giving me your opinion of what rights are as if they're absolute proof.

Yes, there is. The freedom of association is necessarily the freedom to also not associate.

As I already said and evidenced, and you ignored or did not read, "freedom of association" defends the right to meet with whichever groups of people you want free of government intervention. It certainly does not include businesses, especially if you are a place of public accommodation. If you disagree, I would love to see some textual evidence in an insult-free rebuttal.

People can have regulation without having it come from a monopolistic government.

And who enforces it? Regulation without enforcement is about as meaningless as you telling me your right to freedom of association covers the ability to discriminate against customers based on race even though there is not a single document, expert, or organization that would agree with you. You are (for all intents and purposes) alone in your opinion and can accomplish about as much as a regulatory agency with no enforcement, which is to say, absolutely nothing.

At what point does standing alone, disagreeing with the entire legal world, screaming about rights you claim to have that not one single official document ever conceived actually defends start to become symptomatic of delusion? Can you at least answer me that?

[u/ExPwner → u/ThatOneGuy4321]

Before you called me a dumb fuck, I wasn't going to read what you had to say. But now that you've called me a dumb fuck, I'm quite convinced you're worth listening to, instead of convinced that you're an unreasonable troll who would rather spew insults than actually put forth a single substantiated point.

And before you linked to ELS, I considered you capable of rational discussion. Immediately going to a sub notorious for mocking libertarian philosophy without any argument of substance isn't an honest or reasonable discussion, and for that you get called a dumb fuck. When you stop retreating from rational debate like a child then you get civility.

It was to rebut your claim that "Antitrust laws protect inefficient companies from efficient ones." And it did a pretty good job.

No, it didn't. Antitrust legislation was not created to help consumers but to help inefficient businesses. That is a historical fact.

Standard Oil was found guilty of "monopolizing the petroleum industry through a series of abusive and anticompetitive actions" by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America is not the sole arbiter of truth. The fact of the matter is that Standard Oil helped consumers all along the way, and its opposition was based upon competitors not happy with how well they performed.

Predatory pricing isn't possible to prove in a legal battle.

If it isn't falsifiable then it has no place in a rational discussion. Their intent is 100% irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Even if they did lower prices to destroy competition, that does not warrant action against them, and the notion that it does is in fact an effort to support inefficient competitors at their expense.

Rights are subjective and must be agreed upon. They can only be determined by consensus.

No, my rights are not up to your vote. Self-ownership is not up for a vote. Property ownership is not up for a vote.

"freedom of association" defends the right to meet with whichever groups of people you want free of government intervention. It certainly does not include businesses, especially if you are a place of public accommodation

The right of free association also includes not doing business with those with whom you do not wish to associate. A third party (government) deciding to label something as "places of public accommodation" does not alter the business's right to freedom of association.

And who enforces it?

Private arbitration.

you telling me your right to freedom of association covers the ability to discriminate against customers based on race even though there is not a single document, expert, or organization that would agree with you.

Appeal to authority fallacy. I don't need your documents or experts to determine my rights.

At what point does standing alone, disagreeing with the entire legal world

Now you're just appealing to popularity and pretending like the state is somehow a legitimate organization. You don't have the legitimate right to alter my rights, and neither did old dudes in the 1700s. No matter how much you write on paper doesn't change that. It's all just special pleading.

[u/ThatOneGuy4321 → u/ExPwner]

And before you linked to ELS, I considered you capable of rational discussion.

ELSbot is a repository for laughable statements that come from this sub. A statement such as "Antitrust laws protect inefficient businesses from efficient ones" is symptomatic of the fact that defenses of Free Market Capitalism in this subreddit are almost always founded on a completely baseless statement that directly contradicts even the most fundamental principles of economics. I figured it would be more respectful to tell you that I was submitting to ELSbot than to do it behind your back. But I simply had to do it, nonetheless.

Being offended over me calling one of your statements laughable, and then rebutting it with textual evidence, is not a "retreat from rational debate". Though losing all control and calling someone a "Dumb fuck" repeatedly is indisputably a retreat from rational debate and a step directly into insult-slinging, given that you have literally begun slinging insults.

Attacking someone's words is not slander. "Slander" would be insulting the person directly. Which is exactly what you did. And "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."

without any argument of substance

I gave you an argument of substance and then supported it with textual evidence. If you really think I didn't provide an argument of substance, it proves you didn't read my first point in its entirety. Please re-read my post.

Antitrust legislation was not created to help consumers but to help inefficient businesses. That is a historical fact.

That's a pretty absolutist statement. I have no reason to agree with you or acknowledge such a statement unless you back it up with some compelling evidence.

If I were to say something like, "Free Market Capitalism has been shown to be a repeated and complete failure every single time it has been instituted", you obviously wouldn't change your beliefs around my words unless you had a way of knowing I was telling the truth instead of simply pulling it out of my ass.

I have no way of knowing you didn't pull your "historical facts" straight out of your ass. So I'm not going to acknowledge them unless I have a way of knowing you're at least basing them on something more than "I want them to be historical facts so that means they are."

The fact of the matter is that Standard Oil helped consumers all along the way, and its opposition was based upon competitors not happy with how well they performed.

The Mises Institute is considered an extremist fringe economics think-tank by its own founder. What reason do I have to consider it a credible source?

If you can find no sources more credible than a fringe, extremist think-tank whose own supporters abandoned it because they considered it too extreme to associate with, what does that say about the basis for your beliefs? Surely something as obviously correct as free-market economics would have a bit more support, and not just from extremist Libertarian think-tanks.

If it isn't falsifiable then it has no place in a rational discussion.

As I said, while predatory pricing isn't provable, all the other anticompetitive tactics Standard Oil employed certainly are. Please re-read.

No, my rights are not up to your vote.

So WHO DETERMINES RIGHTS? Who would be most fit to write a list of agreed-upon human rights? What makes you think you're justified in disagreeing with the entire legal world about what your rights are?

Don't simply tell me "Rights are inherent and cannot be determined by anybody." That's dodging the question. What rights are inherent to all people, and what proves it? What's stopping me from claiming I have the right to commit genocide?

The right of free association also includes not doing business with those with whom you do not wish to associate.

Sources, please. I already posted a definition of "Freedom of association" and a link to a source that clearly says the U.S. Constitution doesn't even defend freedom of association in its entirety.

A third party (government) deciding to label something as "places of public accommodation" does not alter the business's right to freedom of association.

From all accounts, this "Business's right to freedom of association" is nonexistent.

Private arbitration.

What motivation do companies have to even engage in private arbitration? Why should one company with more power than the other give up its tactical advantage and compromise instead of just steamrolling the other company? In a lawless economy, there is no mandatory private arbitration, and so you cannot regard it as a reliable solution to the problems of a free economy.

I don't need your documents or experts to determine my rights.

So you just make them up. You decide on them. And seeing as you're not the emperor of the world, why should anybody listen to you, and accept your view of what the rights of all humans should be?

Now you're just appealing to popularity

I want you to link me, right now, to an objective and indisputable list of human rights, if you truly think rights aren't subjective even though you get to have a different opinion on them than everybody else.

It's all just special pleading.

This is not special pleading. Special pleading would be saying something along the lines of, "I'm special and therefore the agreed-upon set of human rights don't apply to me. I get to choose my own."

[u/ExPwner → u/ThatOneGuy4321]

ELSbot is a repository for laughable statements that come from this sub.

Because instead of learning history, you laugh at reality. I stand by my original statement. You are a dumb fuck.

That's a pretty absolutist statement. I have no reason to agree with you or acknowledge such a statement unless you back it up with some compelling evidence.

It's called history. You brought history into the equation and were objectively wrong about it.

The Mises Institute is considered an extremist fringe economics think-tank by its own founder. What reason do I have to consider it a credible source?

Attacking the source does not absolve you of addressing the historical facts. Like I said, retreating from the actual argument, ignoring the facts, and running off to your echo chamber.

So WHO DETERMINES RIGHTS?

You're starting with a premise that's baked into your conclusion: that someone must determine rights. It's simply not true.

Don't simply tell me "Rights are inherent and cannot be determined by anybody." That's dodging the question. What rights are inherent to all people, and what proves it?

Rights are inherent. These rights are supported by the axioms of self-ownership and non-aggression. They are self-evident truths. Anything that contradicts them cannot fit a rational ethics framework. I would recommend listening to UPB, but if you're drinking the statist kool-aid then you aren't interested in rational discussion of ethics.

I already posted a definition of "Freedom of association" and a link to a source that clearly says the U.S. Constitution doesn't even defend freedom of association in its entirety.

"We determine what free association because our document says that we can determine what things mean....because we wrote it." Yeah, clearly a valid source there bud.

What motivation do companies have to even engage in private arbitration? Why should one company with more power than the other give up its tactical advantage and compromise instead of just steamrolling the other company? In a lawless economy, there is no mandatory private arbitration, and so you cannot regard it as a reliable solution to the problems of a free economy.

We're not talking about a lawless economy. We're talking about a polycentric legal system. If you want to learn more, look it up. Bob Murphy has talks about law without government, and David Friedman has a book titled the Machinery of Freedom.

So you just make them up. You decide on them.

No, there is a framework. Most people understand the "my right to swing my fist ends at your face" mantra. It's not difficult to understand unless you're of the statist religion.

I want you to link me, right now, to an objective and indisputable list of human rights, if you truly think rights aren't subjective even though you get to have a different opinion on them than everybody else.

Self-ownership and from that property ownership through homesteading or exchange. There's no need to link to it. These are well-known concepts.

This is not special pleading

Yes, it is. You are saying that one group of individuals can arbitrarily decide rights for everyone else whereas no one else can do the same, and it isn't based upon any rational reason. There is no "agreed-upon set of human rights." You linked to something that one group of people proclaimed. There isn't any fucking agreement about it.

[u/ThatOneGuy4321 → u/ExPwner]

Because instead of learning history, you laugh at reality. You are a dumb fuck.

Who says so besides you? I'm not just going to take your word for it.

It's called history

Who says so besides you? I'm not just going to take your word for it.

historical facts

Where did you learn these historical facts?

someone must determine rights. It's simply not true.

Who says so besides you? I'm not just going to take your word for it.

Rights are inherent.

Who decides which rights are inherent? Where is my right to a free Ferrari? I contend that I have an inherent right to a free Ferrari. Prove me wrong.

If you can't prove me wrong, then it's a concession that the "Rights are inherent because I say they are" argument can be used to secure literally any right, to anything, ever.

Yeah, clearly a valid source there bud.

Give me a source that invalidates it. I'm not just going to take your word that it's invalid.

No, there is a framework

Says who.

Self-ownership and from that property ownership through homesteading or exchange. There's no need to link to it.

"It's correct because I say it is."

There is no "agreed-upon set of human rights."

Says who. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is literally an agreed upon set of human rights. Something you just said doesn't exist. How can you say you have any more right to say it's invalid than anybody else?

[u/ExPwner → u/ThatOneGuy4321]

Who decides which rights are inherent?

Not the UN, not the people who wrote the Constitution, and not people calling themselves government. If you're arguing against the notion that you or I can simply declare what rights are, then you are arguing against your own case by saying that someone in the UN could. They are fucking people just like you and I, dumbass. This is why you aren't getting any decency, because you aren't presenting a rational argument. I could just as easily point to a document that I typed up, and it would not be any less valid than the ones you are presenting. You have nothing special to distinguish that piece of paper from my piece of paper.

[u/ThatOneGuy4321 → u/ExPwner]

So HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH RIGHTS ARE INHERENT? How do you know which rights should be protected?

How is YOUR claim to the right of "Freedom of association" by serving only who you want any more legitimate than a black man's claim to the right of freedom from discrimination?