Quote: Originally Posted by samcraig View Post leverage? People are being handed a
leverage?
People are being handed a refund. They aren't requesting it. They aren't demanding it. They have the "moral" choice to use the credit or not.
You're tone is so much lathered in hyperbole with words like "reprehensible." That's pretty extreme on the spectrum for this case and the outcome.
And actually - the government has every right - no matter if it's a business or a person. If they break a law, they break a law.
So the Department of Justice leveraged immoral laws to get the money. People voted for politicians who put these laws there for the DOJ to leverage, and when it does, apparently the argument is "Well heyyyy, it wasn't
MEEE." Right. Judging by most of the comments on this thread, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet to say that not many people are opposed to this, so whether they took the money from Apple directly, or they voted for someone to put these laws into place that led to the government taking the money for them, they're acting immorally. If I get a credit for my purchases I will not be spending it because I
VOLUNTARILY AGREED to purchase those books at the stated price, and that is ALL that matters. If i had called Apple and said" hey I'll buy this $15 book for $10 they obviously would have said no, but now I should get the $5 back because the government said that it's okay? BS.
Actually, the U.S government does. It right there in the
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.
Individual businesses may make their own decisions, but
elected representatives have used their
constitutionally granted power to regulate commerce to make it illegal for businesses to
collude with their competitors to raise prices above what they would be if they free and openly competed with each other. That's a fundamental principle of free-market economics. Legislated in a
constitutional,
democratic republic.
Perhaps you just hate the Constitution and democracy?
Any time congress tries to pass an unconstitutional law it will invariably try to cite the commerce clause to justify itself. Sometimes it sticks, sometimes it doesn't. The Anti-trust laws you are citing by derivation are an example of ones that unfortunately stuck, albeit unconstitutionally.
The founders wrote:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, AND among the several States, AND with the Indian Tribes
When they wrote "regulate" it was not meant in the sense that the government had the right to control businesses or industries, and what they did or didn't do with their private property. The word regulate simply meant "To make regular." They put this in there because under the Articles of Confederation, States began engaging in protectionism by imposing tariffs or bans on goods made in other states, and they did not want to allow for that environment to happen again. That's why it took congress over 100 years to incrementalize the public to the point of believing that nonsense in a majority. Under this false definition of regulate, congress has been abusing and usurping powers that it was NEVER intended to have. Don't even get me started on the thousands of instances in which the commerce clause was cited while the government did something outrageous and egregious to a peaceable individual or business.
Also, by using the word "and" they directly indicated that the same set of powers must be used to facilitate the regular trade between foreign nations as were used for states, as were used for tribes. It meant that you can't just use one set of rules for the states, and a completely different set for tribes, and an entire other set for foreign countries. For instance, if foreign publishers got together and raised prices, the U.S. wouldn't be taking them to court over it, but somehow if a domestic company does it, then it's considered rapacious and prosecutable. To try to use Anti-trust law to justify this action by the "justice" department is entirely wrong because the law itself is unconstitutional, and not to mention incredibly immoral. If the founders wanted to control private businesses, they would have setup a fascist dictatorship and not the land of the free.
The fact that Congress continually insists on imposing its will on private businesses is NOT a fundamental principle of free-market economics, it's the exact opposite of that. The companies did what they wanted to do, what they felt was in their interest, and then the government stopped them and sued them. That is the
exact opposite of free-market economics. Again, if the price is too high, don't buy it. If enough people agree with you, the price will have to come down because no one would be willing to buy it.
But that's irrelevant. The relevant part is that it is
NOT YOUR BOOK. IT BELONGS TO SOMEONE ELSE. If they want to sell their book, that THEY made with THEIR labors, they have EVERY RIGHT to charge whatever the hell they want. Through whatever distribution channel they choose. I don't care if it is the most insightful and enlightening material the world has ever seen, they have
EVERY RIGHT to sell it for a million dollars, sell the rights of sale to publishers allowing them to sell it at any price THEY would like, or to burn it in a pile for heat, or just to keep it from you and everyone else. It is theirs. Not. Yours. They control it. Not. you. PERIOD.
By the way, the (intelligent) founders hated democracy. That's why they founded a constitutional republic, in an attempt to limit the powers of government as much as possible. Thanks to people who are either corrupt, stupid, or both, we have descended into exactly the kind of country they were trying to prevent.
Indeed. What I found humorous about his response is the contradiction that he doesn't care if it's legal or not - that the government shouldn't be involved.
The point is - determining if something is legal or not is exactly one of the responsibilities of the government and court system.
1. The law itself is unconstitutional, so if that's your argument, then there goes that.
2. What if congress passed an airtight law mandating the genocide of a particular race? Does that mean I would have to engage in that genocide? It would be the law wouldn't it? The courts would't be able to say that it was against the law because congress somehow managed to pass an airtight law mandating these actions. Wouldn't we be bound to follow the law? Which leads to...
3. Just because something is a law does not make it just, or moral, nor does it mean that you should follow it. Just laws are based upon sound
MORAL REASONING. The government has NO BUSINESS telling people what they can and can't do with their own PRIVATE property. So no. I do NOT care about the implications of this (unconstitutional) law. It is evil on its face, and I refuse to acknowledge its validity, regardless of how many Congressmen, "Justices," or Americans in general think they have a right to control other people's property.
