You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
Submissions should be about Q drops or a subject that has been mentioned by Q. Meta posts about Voat or the community are generally off-topic & subject to removal as unmentioned by Q; use submail for concerns or questions.
Freedom of speech is your right. Being a dick is our reason to remove this content. This includes concern-trolling; drama, gossip, or posts about other users; personal attacks; attacks on the community.
Voat Rules
Content violates spam guidelines
Content contains or links to content that is illegal
Content contains personal information that relates to a Voat users real world or online identity
I agree, but there's a fine line between helping small business and kneecapping big business. Society cannot advance if we make it our work to narrow the gap between the successful and the less-successful by dragging the successful down. We can't kneecap successful big business to help small business. It won't even help small business and it will retard our economic output. The only proper thing is to make sure that the government isn't doing anything to tilt the playing field one way or the other, then let the market sort it out.
[–]Seer1965[S]0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
That is very much a key point.
Second is there merit to the Sherman Act when monopolies use unfair tactics? Has gov't corruption and huge value contracts favored heavily a number in Silicon Valley?
What is "unfair"? The problem with that term is that it's subjective. To the leftist it's unfair that Amazon is big, so that all by itself is reason to take government action as far as they're concerned. If you step back and analyze the entire situation, though, what the leftist really wants is to overturn the will of the people. That's what they always want because they're authoritarian in nature.
How is taking action against Amazon "subverting the will of the people," you might wonder? It is because Amazon got huge because people freely chose to shop there rather than somewhere else. No matter how they word it, and leftists are skilled at silver-tongued doublespeak, the net result of kneecapping Amazon is to force people into making other shopping choices they wouldn't have freely made on their own.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 9C5F0DBCBA49 ago
I agree, but there's a fine line between helping small business and kneecapping big business. Society cannot advance if we make it our work to narrow the gap between the successful and the less-successful by dragging the successful down. We can't kneecap successful big business to help small business. It won't even help small business and it will retard our economic output. The only proper thing is to make sure that the government isn't doing anything to tilt the playing field one way or the other, then let the market sort it out.
[–] Seer1965 [S] ago
That is very much a key point.
Second is there merit to the Sherman Act when monopolies use unfair tactics? Has gov't corruption and huge value contracts favored heavily a number in Silicon Valley?
[–] 9C5F0DBCBA49 ago
What is "unfair"? The problem with that term is that it's subjective. To the leftist it's unfair that Amazon is big, so that all by itself is reason to take government action as far as they're concerned. If you step back and analyze the entire situation, though, what the leftist really wants is to overturn the will of the people. That's what they always want because they're authoritarian in nature.
How is taking action against Amazon "subverting the will of the people," you might wonder? It is because Amazon got huge because people freely chose to shop there rather than somewhere else. No matter how they word it, and leftists are skilled at silver-tongued doublespeak, the net result of kneecapping Amazon is to force people into making other shopping choices they wouldn't have freely made on their own.