[xzins]

Not so.

When someone else INTENT becomes crystal clear, and that intent is to injure others, then there is good reason to act.

This is similar to freedom of speech and the "man shouting fire in a crowded theater."

He has no right to misuse his freedom to intentionally injure another.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"When someone else INTENT becomes crystal clear, and that intent is to injure others, then there is good reason to act."

All competition is an intent to injure another company. When a business is too successful at what it does, when some magic threshold is passed, then they have become *anticompetitive* and must be stopped.


Collectivist nonsense. You have a right to drive others out of business as long as you don't initiate force against anybody.

"This is similar to freedom of speech and the "man shouting fire in a crowded theater."

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech; this is basic property rights. An oil company owns their oil and has a right to sell it at WHATEVER price they wish. If nobody wants it at their prices, then they won't be able to sell it. If they give it all away, that is their right too. If that puts other companies out of business, too bad. Their is no *right* to business success; if you can't keep up with the free market then you don't deserve to be in business.

Anti-trust is anti-capitalist.