A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. John Stuart Mill 0128名無しさん＠１周年2018/03/29(木) 18:50:05.60ID:8VYumwQr0>>22 一貫して中韓やアメリカに媚売りまくってる安倍ちゃんより良い政治家だな 0129名無しさん＠１周年2018/03/29(木) 18:50:35.49ID:AsscVvro0 自由主義（自由と正義）に反対するものは自由の敵になることが濃厚
A just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people, or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them マレー・ロスバード
Granted, Amazon's disruptive power in a growing number of markets is a matter of legitimate concern for policymakers and regulators. So is the way Amazon and other online retailers have avoided collecting sales taxes from shoppers, giving them an unfair advantage over local merchants 0143名無しさん＠１周年2018/03/29(木) 19:08:10.12ID:VWSz0LEx0>>108 他の企業が税金払ってるんだから アマゾンに課税は間違いではないだろ 0144名無しさん＠１周年2018/03/29(木) 19:08:16.29ID:LVZ1XjJM0 日本もやって欲しい 0145名無しさん＠１周年2018/03/29(木) 19:12:36.70ID:AsscVvro0>>1
アマゾンは50年前の法を根拠に州販売税を払わなかった（取らなかった）強力な「実績」がある
Amazon, and most other e-commerce companies, didn’t collect state sales taxes when they launched in the 1990s, using laws dating back as long as 50 years made for catalog retailers.
That allowed them to keep prices low and gain market share as online sales were just beginning. However, Amazon and other big e-commerce companies now routinely collect state sales taxes.
It's not in my mission to work against Euroskepticism; it's my mission to work for fair markets. In antitrust, what is at stake is, in some ways, as old as Adam and Eve because it is about greed, to get more. Margrethe Vestager
独占禁止法というならブランダイスだろう
There must be reasonable restrictions upon competition else we shall see competition destroyed. Louis Brandeis（米国最高裁判事）
We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. Louis Brandeis（米国最高裁判事）
Who can complain about the price that Google is charging you? Or who can complain about Amazon's prices; they are simply lower than the competition's. And that's why I think we need to shift back to a more Brandeisian conception of antitrust, where we consider values other than simply efficiency and low prices. Franklin Foer 0224名無しさん＠１周年2018/03/30(金) 05:37:18.03ID:7nK/W5R30 ｷﾀ(ﾟ∀ﾟ)ｺﾚ 0225名無しさん＠１周年2018/03/30(金) 05:38:34.32ID:1QzAxgwx0>>1
ルイ・ブランダイス（米国最高裁判事）にとって守るのは価格ではない、保護する対象は競争そのものだ
繰り返すが競争を保護するのが独占禁止法の精神となる
Vigilant and effective antitrust enforcement today is preferable to the heavy hand of government regulation of the Internet tomorrow. Orrin Hatch
The history of antitrust law enforcement shows that successful antitrust prosecutions have often strengthened and brought vitality to extremely large companies and businesses. Robert Kennedy
While his impact on antitrust law has not been as great, Brandeis' well-developed philosophy in support of small government and the states as laboratories, his faith in the benefits of decentralized power, both public and private, his advocacy for independent businesses, and his insistence on transparency-- all continue to play a role in the on-going debates over the goals of antitrust and regulation.
Most relevantly, Brandeis provided an enduring vision that never died and today is being revitalized: the vision that great size is very often inconsistent with both democracy and economic efficiency. ... Brandeis would argue, as his followers still do, that while economic analysis and competitive prices are surely important, antitrust is about more than economics. There are political and social objectives as well. 0226名無しさん＠１周年2018/03/30(金) 05:47:38.16ID:1QzAxgwx0>>1
“America was founded to provide people the wherewithal to protect ourselves from enslavement,” said Barry Lynn of the open-markets program at the New America Foundation. Perhaps nobody in the New Brandeis movement has done more than Lynn to revive the Progressive-era conception of monopoly as a danger to American liberty. “Anti-monopoly, from the Boston Tea Party onward, was one of the key tools that we the people used to keep ourselves free,” he said. .... The New Brandeisians took a broad look at how the failure to stop monopolization has harmed America. John Kwoka of Northeastern University crunched the data to find that current enforcement techniques aren’t even working to protect people from price increases, let alone monopoly’s other effects. Lina Khan, a Yale Law student and the author of “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox,” which described how Amazon uses its wealth of customer data collected from companies operating on its platform to compete against them, counseled against the learned helplessness that current laws cannot be fashioned to deal with modern tech firms. Sabeel Rahman of Brooklyn Law School explained how monopoly “warps the structure of opportunity of our economy.” Jonathan Kanter, formerly of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, warned that the fear in the antitrust agencies of overreaching has become a paralysis that fails to serve the public. Zephyr Teachout of Fordham Law (and a former congressional candidate) made the case for political antitrust, that big companies undermine democracy through their collected influence.
