[tmp231]

This is such a cowardly view.

> If anything, breaking up these monopolies will lead to more innovation

Yes, let’s violate a company’s right to exist and conduct business just because we don’t like ads, or have preferences for how the run things. If you’re so concerned that they are not doing the right thing, then you go out and do it.

[rileymat2]

I am not sure the right for a company to exist, is a real thing. These are artificial entities created by the government that give groups of people liability protection and the ability to act as one entity legally.

It is not really a right, so much as a practical privilege we have set up. As such they should be open to whatever democratic will of the people. If the people arbitrarily decide they can only have so much power or size, then so be it.

[tmp231]

> created by the government

The entity sure, but beyond the entity you have a group of people who have created something and want to sell it to you. If the Democratic will of the people said that we should jail them for creating shows we don’t like, I’m sure you’d object. Just because the people will it doesn’t mean it is correct.

People have a right to get together and create things and sell them to you under a contract. You have the right to accept or refuse. That simple.

Our society is regulation drunk.

[rileymat2]

It is more than that, they have gotten together, that may be a natural right, but they also have gotten limited liability.

An almost definitional characteristic of company v. group as you describe.

[tmp231]

Right but that’s tangential to the main point which is that if people come together to create something and you don’t like it, don’t buy it. Don’t attempt to strongarm them into making something you like, or punish them legally because you think they have had too much success.

[aerosmile]

I am all up for first principles thinking, which is what you demonstrated above. The problem with this approach, however, is that you have to think deeply enough to get to the very bottom of each topic. Your analysis didn't touch on the fundamental need of any democratic society to sustain strong economic growth. It's a well-known fact that destabilization of that growth nips away at democratic principles and ultimately leads to totalitarian governance. Just look a the role of economic instability in the Nazi rise to power [1].

So, yes, people may decide that we no longer want a certain type of companies. Heck, let's take it a step further - people may also decide that we want everyone to get a million dollars, no questions asked. But people are smarter than that, which is why we still have democracies.

[1] https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-nazi-rise-to-power...

[tmp231]

> Your analysis didn't touch on the fundamental need of any democratic society to sustain strong economic growth

The need of the society is to defend property rights and sustain the rule of law. Economic growth is good, but you can’t make it the top of your list. Besides, we are already awash in too much regulation as it is, we should be heading the other direction towards more liberty. I’m not saying there’s never a time for regulation, just that we are waaaay past the point of reason in many areas.

[aerosmile]

It feels like we're agreeing on some subjects (eg: too much regulation can kill economic growth), but disagreeing on the importance of economic growth for the defense of property rights and rule of law. My point is that those two items can only be guaranteed in a democratic society (you won't find them in places like Russia, Middle East, most of Africa, etc). In an earlier comment, I referenced a piece that discusses the impact of economic stability on Nazi's rise to power. You will find many other examples of democratic societies turning into totalitarian regimes at the time when people lost faith in elections (which is something they do when they can no longer pay for their food and rent).

[tmp231]

Yes I think we do agree on many things. I think in general we both value property rights and that’s a good place to be.

We may disagree on which is the cart and which is the horse. I think that in general you need a moral people who will enforce the rule of law to get economic growth, so the rule of law is the horse. And the horse’s horse is the morality of the people, something Weimar Germany was certainly lacking. Get those in order first and I think prosperity will follow. Try to put prosperity first, then it won’t matter what rule of law you have b/c the most important thing is to make money.

[rileymat2]

I thought most of that was implied by the word “practical.”

As a practical matter it may be bad policy. But, right it is not.

[ClumsyPilot]

Companies don't have right, they are legal fiction created to aid economic growth. If they are causing damage, they Must cease to exist