Dan,
<<Well, there is this issue of the constitution, which doesn't say much about the rights of business but says plenty about individual rights.>
Where do you draw the line? Rights are rights. Does an individual lose his rights as soon as he goes into business?
<<Where, exactly, do you guys see anything like the Libertarian/Objectivist business utopia in practice?>>
Unfortunately, nowhere, or we'd be enjoying an even higher standard of living, IMO.
<<Where does business have a freer hand than in the U.S.?>>
Nowhere. That's why we DO have the highest standard of living in the world.
<<As far as Sherman goes, the political process is open to everyone, and by everything I see it's weighted plenty enough toward business the way it is.>>
Again, IMO, the Sherman Act is an abomination. Besides making success a crime, it injects politics into the marketplace and forces business to kowtow to the pond scum of the beltway. You will say that "big business" buys favoritism, tax breaks, etc., and that's true. I say that that incestuous relationship should be hauled into divorce court and the market should be the sole determinant of success or failure. I hate corporate welfare, tax breaks, and favoritism doled out to the highest campaign contributer as much as anyone. In a "laissez faire" economic system (which has never existed in totality), such disgusting shenanigans wouldn't be possible.
Enough venting. Although I do admire the fact that MSFT's success has not come about through political bootlicking and I root for them in the courtroom, it is the deeper principles involved in this conflict that really interests me. I would support ANY company caught in a similar conflict.
Regards, JB |
