I am opposed to certain parts. For example, IIRC courts have held that concentration within an industry by itself can constitute a violation. That is wrong. If a supplier is just the very best and happens to enjoy that concentration without having broken another law, then the effect of anti-trust law is to harm the best supplier.
Under such a regimen, the less competent are lifted up, and the competent are held down. Buyers are harmed.
That's evil.
Which parts do you support?
For example, IIRC courts have held that concentration within an industry by itself can constitute a violation. That is wrong.
It "can[not] constitute a violation"?