Thank you for your input. This is important stuff.
The question ALWAYS should be: is this with fidelity to the Founders and the bases of life, liberty, and property on which this nation was founded and refined?
Modern jurisprudence, contemporary morality and ethics, or feelings, don’t matter.
If SCOTUS held that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right in line with many lost Americans’ thinking, it would NOT change the truth that Americans have a pre-existing right to self-defense.
It’s the same with Anti-Trust law. Like the collective right model of the 2nd Amendment, it has no basis in the Constitution. It rests on a corrupt and patently wrong and expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
Justice Thomas maintained that the original meaning of “commerce” was limited to the “trade and exchange” of goods and transportation for this purpose.
Don’t take Thomas or my word for it. Take James Madison’s word via The Federalist Papers : No. 42:
“The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience.
“To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity.
“To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or of interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect, in any form, an indirect revenue from their uncommercial neighbors, must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade. But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain. The necessity of a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of confederated States, has been illustrated by other examples as well as our own. In Switzerland, where the Union is so very slight, each canton is obliged to allow to merchandises a passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without an augmentation of the tolls. In Germany it is a law of the empire, that the princes and states shall not lay tolls or customs on bridges, rivers, or passages, without the consent of the emperor and the diet; though it appears from a quotation in an antecedent paper, that the practice in this, as in many other instances in that confederacy, has not followed the law, and has produced there the mischiefs which have been foreseen here. Among the restraints imposed by the Union of the Netherlands on its members, one is, that they shall not establish imposts disadvantageous to their neighbors, without the general permission.”
There is NOTHING here about breaking up the East India Trade Co.
There is Nothing Here that would give anyone with reading comprehension a hint that Madison would give a cheery two-thumbs up to Congress busting up the business of Facebook, Amazon, or Twitter/X, etc.
Indeed, Madison was VERY clear that emotions cloud judgement in these matters: “But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain.”
Big Tech screwing with speech etc. is repulsive. Their collaboration with the Biden Admin to quash debate was IMHO criminal. Many Tech Bros are some of the slimiest people around. It’s understandable that people want to tear them to pieces.
That’s also the leftist way.
In this fullness of context, if any man or woman claims to be a conservative, that is in lockstep with the founding principles of America, and total fidelity to the Original Intent of the Constitution, the entire edifice of Anti-Trust law must be rejected.
I also understand the feeling of “well, we have to beat them and they cheat, so we have to cheat and bend our morals to beat them.” That’s like saying “we have to sin to beat the devil.” Morality doesn’t shift with time. Truth and right and wrong are constant.
Finally, let’s consider the reality of breaking up a firm. The Justice Department would be in charge….they’re about as competent as your local DMV and as honest as the Secret Service. Do you REALLY want to let them sort this out? By the time they’re done, we will be FORCED to have a Facebook account AND a chip in your head.
To those who say, “we can’t just sit here and do NOTHING.” For openers, don’t use FB, Amazon, etc. Going further, the market is way more efficient at breaking up firms. Netscape, General Electric, Citigroup, General Motors…they are shells of what they were previously. The entire economic history of the planet is littered with boom to bust stories. Sure, it won’t happen as quickly as you want. But remember, we are men and women of reason and it is the leftists are emotional.
Thanks for listening. Have a great day.
I would also point out that most of them are, technically, not even American companies: the actual owner is a corporation in Dublin, because Ireland has very low corporate tax rates. There is a holding company here owned by that corporation that runs their US operations. American shareholders probably hold only American Depository Receipts for the foreign corporation, since trading directly in foreign stocks is forbidden.
Second, this is not normal politics. If you want a restoration of the original Constitution, then like a piece of bent steel, the country has to bent back more to the other side and not the midpoint to make it straight again.
These companies not only need to be broken up, their management needs to go to jail for conspiring with government officials against civil rights. As Metternich said, principles are not a fixed gun but a turret that needs to be pointed in different directions.
This.
The Founders did not give us economic tyranny, they tried to protect us from economic tyranny.
The Federalist Papers (version 2) free open source audiobook
The question ALWAYS should be: is this with fidelity to the Founders and the bases of life, liberty, and property on which this nation was founded and refined?
There is a difference between individual property and collectively owned property. Earth to DoodleBob: The Constitution starts with "We the People." Corporations are not people; they are "fictitious persons." We'll start there, as you never addressed the blatant corruption in the 14th Amendment I exposited and linked for you.
Now, you might be surprised that I would agree to a degree that the Commerce Clause as originally intended does not apply to a corporate breakup. but not as you would think. The word "regulate" at that time actually meant "to make regular" effectively, 'to proceed without inhibition.' Most of what the Commerce Clause was to address was to prevent tariffs between States, indeed most of Federalist 42 as you cited is about treaty law and FOREIGN commerce, not commerce between the States.
Your problem is that breaking up a corporation does NOT inhibit the conduct of commerce among its several parts; indeed quite the contrary: Breaking up a corporation increases competition with and commerce among its former elements and their new competitors. Hence, breaking up a monopoly makes commerce MORE regular as we saw with the breakup of AT&T.
"Life, liberty, and property"? Break up a corporation and no one dies. Commerce increases with more options for vendors, so there is an increase in liberty, or are you asserting that Google is a champion of liberty, or are they harming the liberty of others by virtue of their acquisition strategies to maintain their monopoly? There is no loss of personal property as the fractions remain.
That makes your "reply" specious.