[javert]

You are right but it's deeper than that. "Anti-competitive" is not even a valid concept.

Companies are supposed to do everything they can to beat their competition. That is simply called "being competitive."

It's kind of like the word "progressive" as in "the Progressive movement." It's a linguistic deception that started out as a kind of dishonest propoganda.

[Dylan16807]

It's a perfectly valid concept. A company takes action not aimed at succeeding in the market, but instead aimed at damaging their competitors. The direct goal is to reduce the amount of competition in the market, aka being "anti-competitive".

Companies are not supposed to do everything they can to beat their competition. That's closer to a description of organized crime.

[javert]

There is no action a company can take to damage their competitors other than succeeding in the market by offering a better or cheaper good or service.

That is in free market capitalism, where the initiation of force by the government or companies against other companies is barred.

For instance, in free market capitalism, telecom companies are not granted local monopolies, so the only way for a telecom company to hurt its competition is to beat its competition on price or service, since anyone is free to build telecom infrastructure. (Obviously, this is not the system we have in the US, where telecom monopolies are rampant, but we should.)

[rayiner]

> Companies are supposed to do everything they can to beat their competition. That is simply called "being competitive."

Real competition is stabbing your competitors in the face and taking their stuff. We prohibit that because it rewards the wrong kinds of competitors. Prohibitions on anticompetitive conduct are rooted in the same principle.

[javert]

Under laissez-faire (i.e. rights-respecting) capitalism, the initiation of force is barred. Prohibitions on "anticompetitive conduct" are separate from that. They are a restriction on what companies can do in addition to not using force.