Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile

SuzzaneO
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 1:06:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile a violation of the free market? Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. The absolute foundation of capitalism is competition. The entire essence of our free market system lies in consumer choice. Take away that choice and the consumer becomes powerless.

The presence of smaller mobile-carrier companies, such as Sprint and/or T-Mobile is needed to keep the large companies semi-honest (maybe). If you thought the companies were cocky before, just wait till they're down to three. After this, they will do to you whatever tickles their fancy...including jack prices through the friggin' roof!

Count on it.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 1:35:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 1:34:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If T-Mobile is too big to fail, would you rather see it subsidized by ATT or Obama?

I'd rather see it broken into several small companies which are not too big to fail, then left to compete and potentially fail on their own.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 1:37:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 1:35:43 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 1:34:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If T-Mobile is too big to fail, would you rather see it subsidized by ATT or Obama?

I'd rather see it broken into several small companies which are not too big to fail, then left to compete and potentially fail on their own.

good answer.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 1:39:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 1:37:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/21/2011 1:35:43 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/21/2011 1:34:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If T-Mobile is too big to fail, would you rather see it subsidized by ATT or Obama?

I'd rather see it broken into several small companies which are not too big to fail, then left to compete and potentially fail on their own.

good answer.

Of course, I support the government stepping in to break it appart, lol.

I do think that it is funny though, all the iphone users who jail-broke their iphones just to stay away from AT&T (and so ended up with T-Mobile) are now being drawn back into their nightmares.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 4:15:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 1:06:33 PM, SuzzaneO wrote:
Is AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile a violation of the free market?
No, it's a purchase

Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights.
The right to do what I please with my property. Including exchanging it for the property of any persons who consent to the exchange.

The absolute foundation of capitalism is competition.
No, the foundation of capitalism is TRADE. Competition and cooperation will both occur in a free market system.

The entire essence of our free market system lies in consumer choice. Take away that choice and the consumer becomes powerless.
In a FREE market, consumers and producers BOTH have a choice. In a SLAVE market the consumers are the only ones with the choice. Consumers have the right to go to the remaining competitors of AT&T, found their own competitor, buy from AT&T anyway, or go without a cell phone. They do NOT have a right to prevent T-Mobile from selling T-Mobile's property.


The presence of smaller mobile-carrier companies, such as Sprint and/or T-Mobile is needed to keep the large companies semi-honest (maybe).
No, the presence of the boycott power is needed, and the absence of a legal bar on forming competitors. If your vision of a "free market" requires slaves, people who are forced to compete with someone, you are profoundly hypocritical.

If you thought the companies were cocky before, just wait till they're down to three. After this, they will do to you whatever tickles their fancy...including jack prices through the friggin' roof!
Only if the demand will bear it and no one else is capable of making cell phones.

If there are no legal obstacles to making cell phones, and if the people who make cell phones all agree, and if no one else is willing or able to make cell phones, then you darn well better be grateful to them if you want a cell phone, for THEY are the reason you have the option to have a cell phone.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
SuzzaneO
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 9:41:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
In a SLAVE market the consumers are the only ones with the choice. Consumers have the right to go to the remaining competitors of AT&T, found their own competitor, buy from AT&T anyway, or go without a cell phone. They do NOT have a right to prevent T-Mobile from selling T-Mobile's property.

A slave market? Interesting. I didn't mean to insinuate that someone had a right to prevent T-Mobile from selling T-Mobile's property; however, as you will see, the government WILL become involved in this sale and lawmakers will ensure that this merger isn't a violation.

Suggesting that someone can compete with AT&T by opening up their own cellphone store is ridiculous. That would be like asking someone to start a social network to compete with facebook or a search engine to compete with google. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm simply saying its HIGHLY unlikely.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 9:55:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 9:41:12 AM, SuzzaneO wrote:
In a SLAVE market the consumers are the only ones with the choice. Consumers have the right to go to the remaining competitors of AT&T, found their own competitor, buy from AT&T anyway, or go without a cell phone. They do NOT have a right to prevent T-Mobile from selling T-Mobile's property.

A slave market? Interesting. I didn't mean to insinuate that someone had a right to prevent T-Mobile from selling T-Mobile's property; however, as you will see, the government WILL become involved in this sale and lawmakers will ensure that this merger isn't a violation.

Suggesting that someone can compete with AT&T by opening up their own cellphone store is ridiculous. That would be like asking someone to start a social network to compete with facebook or a search engine to compete with google. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm simply saying its HIGHLY unlikely.

Well thats because they can't provide a better service. Consumers will nearly always choose the optimum service for them for a given price. If other businesses can't compete with that service, the government should not interfere to make the service worse for everyone so that others can compete.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 5:58:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 9:55:15 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/22/2011 9:41:12 AM, SuzzaneO wrote:
In a SLAVE market the consumers are the only ones with the choice. Consumers have the right to go to the remaining competitors of AT&T, found their own competitor, buy from AT&T anyway, or go without a cell phone. They do NOT have a right to prevent T-Mobile from selling T-Mobile's property.

A slave market? Interesting. I didn't mean to insinuate that someone had a right to prevent T-Mobile from selling T-Mobile's property; however, as you will see, the government WILL become involved in this sale and lawmakers will ensure that this merger isn't a violation.

Suggesting that someone can compete with AT&T by opening up their own cellphone store is ridiculous. That would be like asking someone to start a social network to compete with facebook or a search engine to compete with google. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm simply saying its HIGHLY unlikely.

Well thats because they can't provide a better service. Consumers will nearly always choose the optimum service for them for a given price. If other businesses can't compete with that service, the government should not interfere to make the service worse for everyone so that others can compete.

Exactly. It doesn't matter if you can out-google google because you will always have google. If google began ripping people off (I don't know how) people would switch more to Bing and other search engines (they exist.) If facebook began falling behind in service, more people would switch to myspace.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 6:23:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 5:58:19 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 3/22/2011 9:55:15 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/22/2011 9:41:12 AM, SuzzaneO wrote:
In a SLAVE market the consumers are the only ones with the choice. Consumers have the right to go to the remaining competitors of AT&T, found their own competitor, buy from AT&T anyway, or go without a cell phone. They do NOT have a right to prevent T-Mobile from selling T-Mobile's property.

A slave market? Interesting. I didn't mean to insinuate that someone had a right to prevent T-Mobile from selling T-Mobile's property; however, as you will see, the government WILL become involved in this sale and lawmakers will ensure that this merger isn't a violation.

Suggesting that someone can compete with AT&T by opening up their own cellphone store is ridiculous. That would be like asking someone to start a social network to compete with facebook or a search engine to compete with google. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm simply saying its HIGHLY unlikely.

Well thats because they can't provide a better service. Consumers will nearly always choose the optimum service for them for a given price. If other businesses can't compete with that service, the government should not interfere to make the service worse for everyone so that others can compete.

Exactly. It doesn't matter if you can out-google google because you will always have google. If google began ripping people off (I don't know how) people would switch more to Bing and other search engines (they exist.) If facebook began falling behind in service, more people would switch to myspace.

Exactly, myspace had many problems with it, so people switched over to facebook.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 7:42:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 9:41:12 AM, SuzzaneO wrote:
A slave market? Interesting. I didn't mean to insinuate that someone had a right to prevent T-Mobile from selling T-Mobile's property
That is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the premises.

however, as you will see, the government WILL become involved in this sale and lawmakers will ensure that this merger isn't a violation.
That's irrelevant to whether it should.


Suggesting that someone can compete with AT&T by opening up their own cellphone store is ridiculous. That would be like asking someone to start a social network to compete with facebook or a search engine to compete with google.
Like google did with yahoo or facebook did with myspace?

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm simply saying its HIGHLY unlikely.
For any particular competitor, yes. This is because most of them suck at providing the service in question.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 4:14:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm just baffled at the idea that you have a right to be given cell phone services under the conditions you choose.

Secondarily, if and when AT&T starts exploiting its part-monopoly, there will be someone else to provide the service for less. Until the point where AT&T demands more than a competitor could, you have no right to get it for less.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
FlyingApple
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 2:22:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 4:15:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/21/2011 1:06:33 PM, SuzzaneO wrote:
Is AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile a violation of the free market?
No, it's a purchase

Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights.
The right to do what I please with my property. Including exchanging it for the property of any persons who consent to the exchange.

The absolute foundation of capitalism is competition.
No, the foundation of capitalism is TRADE. Competition and cooperation will both occur in a free market system.

No, the foundation of capitalism is equitable trade, driven by competition.

In a "SLAVE" system, there is still trade - the slave is trading his labor in exchange for the slave owner not hurting or killing him. It is a bum deal. Competition and cooperation will not emerge to correct this system without regulation.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 10:44:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 2:22:10 AM, FlyingApple wrote:
At 3/21/2011 4:15:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/21/2011 1:06:33 PM, SuzzaneO wrote:
Is AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile a violation of the free market?
No, it's a purchase

Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights.
The right to do what I please with my property. Including exchanging it for the property of any persons who consent to the exchange.

The absolute foundation of capitalism is competition.
No, the foundation of capitalism is TRADE. Competition and cooperation will both occur in a free market system.

No, the foundation of capitalism is equitable trade, driven by competition.

In a "SLAVE" system, there is still trade - the slave is trading his labor in exchange for the slave owner not hurting or killing him. It is a bum deal. Competition and cooperation will not emerge to correct this system without regulation.

No, not the kind of trade implied by capitalism. That is voluntary trade, with no force whatsoever involved. That's why the foundation of apitalism is indeed individual rights - rights held by every individual, not just by some (e.g. the slave-owners).

Thus, competition is not a precondition of capitalism - rather, capitalism is the necessary precondition of actual, fair competition.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 11:49:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 2:22:10 AM, FlyingApple wrote:
At 3/21/2011 4:15:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/21/2011 1:06:33 PM, SuzzaneO wrote:
Is AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile a violation of the free market?
No, it's a purchase

Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights.
The right to do what I please with my property. Including exchanging it for the property of any persons who consent to the exchange.

The absolute foundation of capitalism is competition.
No, the foundation of capitalism is TRADE. Competition and cooperation will both occur in a free market system.

No, the foundation of capitalism is equitable trade, driven by competition.
Capitalism means a court never has to decide whether a trade is equitable. And as long as you fulfill your contracts, it means never having to say you're sorry.


In a "SLAVE" system, there is still trade - the slave is trading his labor in exchange for the slave owner not hurting or killing him.
That's not trade, that's seizure. And the slave owner typically hurts and often kills anyway.

It is a bum deal. Competition and cooperation will not emerge to correct this system without regulation.
If you believe that, you are NOT A CAPITALIST.

Btw Fabian_CH, you know what I'm suddenly baffled at? Why is your username Fabian? Is that your real name? Every time I've encountered the term Fabian before.... http://en.wikipedia.org...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 12:05:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 11:49:08 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Btw Fabian_CH, you know what I'm suddenly baffled at? Why is your username Fabian? Is that your real name? Every time I've encountered the term Fabian before.... http://en.wikipedia.org...

Haha, yes, they don't even stop at stealing property anymore, now they're stealing my (real) name ;)

It is a bum deal. Competition and cooperation will not emerge to correct this system without regulation.
If you believe that, you are NOT A CAPITALIST.
!
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
FlyingApple
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 3:24:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 10:44:26 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 3/28/2011 2:22:10 AM, FlyingApple wrote:
At 3/21/2011 4:15:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/21/2011 1:06:33 PM, SuzzaneO wrote:
Is AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile a violation of the free market?
No, it's a purchase

Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights.
The right to do what I please with my property. Including exchanging it for the property of any persons who consent to the exchange.

The absolute foundation of capitalism is competition.
No, the foundation of capitalism is TRADE. Competition and cooperation will both occur in a free market system.

No, the foundation of capitalism is equitable trade, driven by competition.

In a "SLAVE" system, there is still trade - the slave is trading his labor in exchange for the slave owner not hurting or killing him. It is a bum deal. Competition and cooperation will not emerge to correct this system without regulation.

No, not the kind of trade implied by capitalism. That is voluntary trade, with no force whatsoever involved. That's why the foundation of apitalism is indeed individual rights - rights held by every individual, not just by some (e.g. the slave-owners).

Thus, competition is not a precondition of capitalism - rather, capitalism is the necessary precondition of actual, fair competition.

I am not sure it makes sense to talk about trade in terms of "voluntary" and without "force". Both sides of a trade are engaged in the negotiation because they need something, so are acting in response to some level of duress and the question is only of what degree.

At what point does the need for something become so great that acquiring or satiating it is no longer voluntary? Is it right for a monopoly/entity to take advantage of such a situation? Is that still capitalism, if instead of cell phones we were talking about food or water? When the trade is "Give us x-amount or die"? How do individual rights naturally come into play then? What about when the consequences are a little less dire - "Give us x-amount or your children's future will suffer" in the case of education, or arguably access to technology? Or, "give us x-amount or lose the edge with your job"?

I respectfully disagree that competition emerges from individual rights, and find it much easier to envision how individual rights emerge from competition and choice. I don't think that every product should be regulated to ensure competition, just the ones that people's lives depend on (and I think where to draw the line defining "dependency" can and should be argued, including whether cell phones qualify in our society now). If that makes me something other than a capitalist, Im not insulted.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 4:09:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 3:24:04 PM, FlyingApple wrote:
I am not sure it makes sense to talk about trade in terms of "voluntary" and without "force".
Ok, let me define "force" then: physical force, violence, the threat of a gun or jail

Voluntary, on the other hand: of one's own choice, in the absence of force as defined above.

Both sides of a trade are engaged in the negotiation because they need something, so are acting in response to some level of duress and the question is only of what degree.
That is absolutely correct. However, I was referring to physical force (or the threat of it). As in (your example:) the slave owner threatens to hurt or kill the slave unless he works for him.

What you are describing is the foundation of competition: the competing needs of two parties, which are resolved by mutual agreement.

At what point does the need for something become so great that acquiring or satiating it is no longer voluntary?
Never. Unless there is force involved.

Is it right for a monopoly/entity to take advantage of such a situation?
In other words: is it right for those who make x to be rewarded by those who need x? Of course it is.

Is that still capitalism, if instead of cell phones we were talking about food or water?
Again, is it right for those who make food to be rewarded by those who need food? Of course.

When the trade is "Give us x-amount or die"? How do individual rights naturally come into play then?
Because the trade isn't "give us x-amount or die". It's "give us x-amount or we won't give you what is rightfully ours (because we have produced it)". Of course, this presupposes that this is actually true. Unfortunately there are lots of cases where people attempt to sell what isn't actually theirs - that's extortion and diametrically opposed to capitalism.

I don't think that every product should be regulated to ensure competition, just the ones that people's lives depend on.
Again, you are punishing those people who choose by their own free will to produce those things. You are telling them "What you produce is important to me, therefore you don't have the right to profit fully from your own work (without which I would starve.)" That seems to be very immoral to me.

If that makes me something other than a capitalist, Im not insulted.
Oh, it's not a matter of insulting anyway. I certainly don't mean to insult you.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
FlyingApple
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 4:36:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 4:09:21 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 3/28/2011 3:24:04 PM, FlyingApple wrote:
I am not sure it makes sense to talk about trade in terms of "voluntary" and without "force".
Ok, let me define "force" then: physical force, violence, the threat of a gun or jail

I guess I do not see as much distinction as you between the suffering of violence and the suffering of starvation.

Voluntary, on the other hand: of one's own choice, in the absence of force as defined above.

Ahah! We are both talking about the need for choice. Ok, good.


Both sides of a trade are engaged in the negotiation because they need something, so are acting in response to some level of duress and the question is only of what degree.
That is absolutely correct. However, I was referring to physical force (or the threat of it). As in (your example:) the slave owner threatens to hurt or kill the slave unless he works for him.

What you are describing is the foundation of competition: the competing needs of two parties, which are resolved by mutual agreement.

Actually, the competition that I see as critical to capitalism is competition between different producers, which creates innovation, choices for consumers, and prevents price gouging.


At what point does the need for something become so great that acquiring or satiating it is no longer voluntary?
Never. Unless there is force involved.

I think this is the heart of our disagreement. You seem to define "voluntary" as something done only because another specific person is not the agent threatening harm. But circumstances can cause just as serious harm, and just as strong a motivation as coercion by another individual.

Is it right for a monopoly/entity to take advantage of such a situation?
In other words: is it right for those who make x to be rewarded by those who need x? Of course it is.
Is that still capitalism, if instead of cell phones we were talking about food or water?
Again, is it right for those who make food to be rewarded by those who need food? Of course.

How much should they be rewarded? If someone gets a monopoly on all of the food or all of a life-saving drug, should they be able to demand the monetary equivalent of the worth of their customer's life in exchange? As much as that person can possibly pay? How is that different from slavery? The threat is the same - add all the value of your work to my coffers or suffer/die, the only difference is a minor quibble about the direct cause of the suffering.

The producers of essential goods should be rewarded of course, but in my opinion not to the maximum that they can negotiate in the absence of healthy competition, because the leverage they can exert on customers is equivalent to oppressive force.

Again, you are punishing those people who choose by their own free will to produce those things. You are telling them "What you produce is important to me, therefore you don't have the right to profit fully from your own work (without which I would starve.)" That seems to be very immoral to me.

I am not against people having to pay a fair price for essential products and services; anything else is not sustainable (by fair price I mean cost of production and average or slightly better income for the proprietor; ie, the price about where it would stabilize from healthy competition).

I am against this entitlement to "profit fully" when there are serious consequences to the health, life or future of those on the other side of the negotiating table. Profit yes, but not maximum profit. Competition should be fostered to keep prices honest.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 12:10:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 4:36:35 AM, FlyingApple wrote:
At 3/28/2011 4:09:21 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 3/28/2011 3:24:04 PM, FlyingApple wrote:
I am not sure it makes sense to talk about trade in terms of "voluntary" and without "force".
Ok, let me define "force" then: physical force, violence, the threat of a gun or jail

I guess I do not see as much distinction as you between the suffering of violence and the suffering of starvation.
I completely agree. The thing is it's not suffering we're discussing. It's force. I never claimed that the absence of physical force means the absence of physical suffering.

At what point does the need for something become so great that acquiring or satiating it is no longer voluntary?
Never. Unless there is force involved.

I think this is the heart of our disagreement. You seem to define "voluntary" as something done only because another specific person is not the agent threatening harm. But circumstances can cause just as serious harm, and just as strong a motivation as coercion by another individual.
I can see why you would think it is the heart of our disagreement, but it isn't. You must not forget the big picture: it is whether it is moral to (actively) force one person to provide for another at the other's conditions. (Whether it be to force someone to provide you with cell phone service at your conditions, or to force them to provide you with food at your conditions, or to force them to provide you with food period - slavery, in other words.)

Is it right for a monopoly/entity to take advantage of such a situation?
In other words: is it right for those who make x to be rewarded by those who need x? Of course it is.
Is that still capitalism, if instead of cell phones we were talking about food or water?
Again, is it right for those who make food to be rewarded by those who need food? Of course.

How much should they be rewarded? If someone gets a monopoly on all of the food or all of a life-saving drug, should they be able to demand the monetary equivalent of the worth of their customer's life in exchange? As much as that person can possibly pay? How is that different from slavery? The threat is the same - add all the value of your work to my coffers or suffer/die, the only difference is a minor quibble about the direct cause of the suffering.
How much should they be rewarded? As much as you can agree on with them - not as much where you can't agree to pay, not as little where they can't agree to sell. It is their goods you want, after all. They make the conditions if you want them.

How is it different from slavery? Easy. In slavery you seize what is theirs at conditions they didn't agree to.

The producers of essential goods should be rewarded of course, but in my opinion not to the maximum that they can negotiate in the absence of healthy competition, because the leverage they can exert on customers is equivalent to oppressive force.
In other words: you should be able to take what is rightfully theirs simply because they do not want to give it to you at the conditions you want.

I am against this entitlement to "profit fully" when there are serious consequences to the health, life or future of those on the other side of the negotiating table. Profit yes, but not maximum profit. Competition should be fostered to keep prices honest.
So there, that is the heart of our disagreement. Your view is that people should not be allowed to dispose of their property (because that is the only thing they can sell in the first place) at the conditions they choose. Ultimately, this calls into question the legitimacy of property - which is at the heart of capitalism.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 3:01:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
With all the anti-trust breakups and renaming, I wouldn't be surprised if Verizon has more original AT&T components than at&t does...
kfc
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 3:03:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
My friend didn't like at&t and didn't want to patronize them so he went to T-Mobile and signed a contract. Kind of hard to justify how we have freedom of choice if at&t can just buy the competition after we choose it...
kfc
FlyingApple
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 3:39:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So there, that is the heart of our disagreement. Your view is that people should not be allowed to dispose of their property (because that is the only thing they can sell in the first place) at the conditions they choose. Ultimately, this calls into question the legitimacy of property - which is at the heart of capitalism.

No vendor ever has the privilege of demanding the maximum price they want ("conditions they choose") and receiving it in any circumstance but a monopoly of an essential good where there is no leverage for negotiation or competition, so its ridiculous to claim that this circumstance is some sort of natural right.

You are naive if you think that the moral force of law and property rights is stronger than biological imperatives. When biological imperatives are not met, society breaks down because people will use force to get what they need, law and police force be damned. Monopolies on essential goods creates effective scarcity of those goods even when no real scarcity exists - even when the society is sufficiently productive to support the needed industry if the demanded profit margin were not so high. So monopolies of essential goods create a situation that threatens Capitalism itself because it threatens the stability of the civilization and rule of law that Capitalism requires to exist. It is in the interest of Capitalism itself to install mechanisms to prevent situations that lead to its own self-destruction.

So I do think that at some point the welfare of society morally outweighs the rights of individuals to claim resources (property).
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 4:41:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 3:39:13 PM, FlyingApple wrote:
So there, that is the heart of our disagreement. Your view is that people should not be allowed to dispose of their property (because that is the only thing they can sell in the first place) at the conditions they choose. Ultimately, this calls into question the legitimacy of property - which is at the heart of capitalism.

No vendor ever has the privilege of demanding the maximum price they want ("conditions they choose") and receiving it in any circumstance but a monopoly of an essential good where there is no leverage for negotiation or competition, so its ridiculous to claim that this circumstance is some sort of natural right.

You are naive if you think that the moral force of law and property rights is stronger than biological imperatives. When biological imperatives are not met, society breaks down because people will use force to get what they need, law and police force be damned. Monopolies on essential goods creates effective scarcity of those goods even when no real scarcity exists - even when the society is sufficiently productive to support the needed industry if the demanded profit margin were not so high. So monopolies of essential goods create a situation that threatens Capitalism itself because it threatens the stability of the civilization and rule of law that Capitalism requires to exist. It is in the interest of Capitalism itself to install mechanisms to prevent situations that lead to its own self-destruction.

So I do think that at some point the welfare of society morally outweighs the rights of individuals to claim resources (property).

What do you define as an essential good? food water and shelter are the only essential things, and no one but yourself is responsible for providing them. No one else is responsible for providing for your well being.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 4:44:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 3:03:24 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
My friend didn't like at&t and didn't want to patronize them so he went to T-Mobile and signed a contract. Kind of hard to justify how we have freedom of choice if at&t can just buy the competition after we choose it...

Obviously because your friend chose wrong.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FlyingApple
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 10:06:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 4:41:43 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/29/2011 3:39:13 PM, FlyingApple wrote:
So there, that is the heart of our disagreement. Your view is that people should not be allowed to dispose of their property (because that is the only thing they can sell in the first place) at the conditions they choose. Ultimately, this calls into question the legitimacy of property - which is at the heart of capitalism.

No vendor ever has the privilege of demanding the maximum price they want ("conditions they choose") and receiving it in any circumstance but a monopoly of an essential good where there is no leverage for negotiation or competition, so its ridiculous to claim that this circumstance is some sort of natural right.

You are naive if you think that the moral force of law and property rights is stronger than biological imperatives. When biological imperatives are not met, society breaks down because people will use force to get what they need, law and police force be damned. Monopolies on essential goods creates effective scarcity of those goods even when no real scarcity exists - even when the society is sufficiently productive to support the needed industry if the demanded profit margin were not so high. So monopolies of essential goods create a situation that threatens Capitalism itself because it threatens the stability of the civilization and rule of law that Capitalism requires to exist. It is in the interest of Capitalism itself to install mechanisms to prevent situations that lead to its own self-destruction.

So I do think that at some point the welfare of society morally outweighs the rights of individuals to claim resources (property).

What do you define as an essential good? food water and shelter are the only essential things, and no one but yourself is responsible for providing them. No one else is responsible for providing for your well being.

Ultimately, you are right, no one but yourself is responsible for finding a way to satisfy those needs. But if people loose faith that they can satisfy those needs in a legal manner in their society through work, people are not just going to roll over and die - they will indeed take responsibility for their own well-being through force.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 9:42:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 3:39:13 PM, FlyingApple wrote:
So there, that is the heart of our disagreement. Your view is that people should not be allowed to dispose of their property (because that is the only thing they can sell in the first place) at the conditions they choose. Ultimately, this calls into question the legitimacy of property - which is at the heart of capitalism.

No vendor ever has the privilege of demanding the maximum price they want ("conditions they choose") and receiving it in any circumstance but a monopoly of an essential good where there is no leverage for negotiation or competition, so its ridiculous to claim that this circumstance is some sort of natural right.
Indeed no one ever has the privilege of demanding and recieving. Only of offering and agreeing.

This gets into whether a monopoly is possible in a free market or not. Imagine, for example, someone who has a monopoly on all food (I don't know how it would be physically even possible to gain such a monopoly, but say it is). Now either he offers it at prices where people can afford it (in which case the monopoly isn't that bad anyway), or he offers it at prices no one can pay - then, he will produce more than he can sell, and his wealth will crumble, and with it his monopoly.

At any rate, if anyone had a monopoly on what can be objectively distinguished as an essential good, then perhaps we can discuss whether his property right to it should be temporarily suspended, but not at any other time. But to date no one has ever legitimately gained such a monopoly, and I don't believe it would be possible in the future either.

So I do think that at some point the welfare of society morally outweighs the rights of individuals to claim resources (property).
Well, but here's a problem. You say that property is simply a claim. It's not. (Legitimate) property grows naturally out of effort or trade (or a gift). No one may rightfully "claim" anything which he has not produced himself or recieved from the rightful owner (who in turn has produced it himself or recieved it and so on)
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)