The Open-Market Economy of Ideas

1

Antitrust laws also referred to as anti-competition laws, are statutes developed by the United State Government to protect consumers from predatory business practices by ensuring that fair competition exists in an open-market economy.

The open-market economy is generally a reference to trade, business, and financial interests. What about the open-market economy of ideas in the public square?

The United States of America was founded upon the egalitarian principle of free speech that guarantees individual citizens the right to speak their minds without fear of reprisal or retaliation.

This means that unwelcome ideas are often spoken but must be tolerated by a tolerant society. Tolerance is not required for ideas we agree with – tolerance is required for ideas we disagree with. So, what is the problem?

Historically freedom of speech was a matter for the public square. After all, people could say whatever they wished in the privacy of their homes without fear.

Freedom of the press accompanied freedom of speech and guaranteed that documented free speech was protected. The antitrust laws and the amendments to our Constitution that guarantee free speech could never have anticipated the Internet.

The Internet has replaced the public square our founding fathers knew. The Internet is the 21st-century arena for all information. So, let’s examine antitrust laws as they apply to questionable business activities and how those activities relate to businesses on the Internet. Investopedia provides helpful information in this area.

Market Allocation

Market allocation has to do with businesses agreeing to carve up a territory that effectively awards a monopoly to the parties involved. If business A agrees to only operate in the northern states and business B agrees to operate only in the southern states, both businesses have a virtual monopoly because the costs of doing business are so high that startups cannot compete in the north or the south – the two big companies have eliminated the competition by agreeing on their market allocation.

There is no market allocation on the World Wide Internet for businesses who do business on the Internet – but what about the businesses who are the platforms that provide content??

The Internet giants are owned by leftists with a political agenda who are colluding to deprive those businesses who provide a conservative voice a place to compete. The tech giants have a virtual monopoly on the platforms that control content.

Bid Rigging

Bid rigging is when the major companies in an industry operate as a cartel and instead of competing they decide to collude to drive out any competitors from the marketplace.

When the tech giants Facebook, Google, and Twitter collude, they are acting as a cartel to control Internet content – they are bid rigging.

Censoring, curating, and manipulating Internet content with politically biased algorithms is bid rigging.

Monopolies

When businesses acquire market share through exclusionary or predatory practices rather than business acumen or innovation it is illegal.

When Google, Facebook, and Twitter collude to eliminate conservative voices from the Internet they have created a monopoly of politically biased content through exclusionary and predatory practices.

Monopolies are free to choose who they do business with but they are forbidden to use their market dominance to prevent competition. They are also forbidden to prevent suppliers from selling to different buyers.

So, when the Internet behemoths refuse to allow conservative suppliers to provide conservative content to Internet customers they have violated the exclusive supply agreements rules and are subject to legal action.

Mergers and Acquisitions

When giant corporations buy up media outlets they further reduce the opportunity for competitive ideas and the field of providers gets narrower as the smaller outlets are absorbed into the partisan political monopoly. Today six corporations control 90% of the media in America – AT&T, Comcast, Disney, Fox, CBS, and Viacom.

The history of antitrust legislation begins in 1890 with the Sherman Antitrust Act. The three main antitrust laws are:

1. The Sherman Act (1890) – intended to prevent unreasonable “contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade.

2. The Federal Trade Commission Act (1914) – bans “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.”

3. The Clayton Act (1914) – addresses specific acts the Sherman Act may not address including preventing mergers and acquisitions that may “substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.”

What does all this mean?

Antitrust laws are designed to advance consumer welfare and protect the public from predatory business practices. Antitrust laws have been successfully used since their inception to protect consumers and competitors against market manipulation stemming from corporate greed.

Without antitrust protections, businesses could more easily engage in hostile takeovers. “A hostile takeover is the acquisition of a company by another acquiring company that is accomplished by going directly to the company’s shareholders or fighting to replace management to get the acquisition approved.

In a hostile takeover, the targeted company’s management does not want the deal to go through.”

The current “resistance” movement against duly elected President Donald Trump lead by ex-president Barack Obama has been called a soft coup.

“A soft coup is a coup d’etat without the use of violence, but based on a conspiracy or plot that has as its objective the taking of the State power by partially or wholly illegal means, in order to operate an exchange of political leadership – and in some cases also of the institutional order.”

The well-orchestrated Mueller investigation, with the support of the media giants and the Justice Department led by Rod Rosenstein, is part of the soft coup against President Trump.

In business, a soft coup is called a hostile takeover. In this case, Obama’s resistance movement is an attempted hostile takeover of the government by the radical left against the will of the people who elected President Trump.

The Internet behemoths Google, Facebook, and Twitter are colluding to create a monopoly of the public square that censors, curates, and manipulates online content.

Their purpose is to create a monopoly of thought and swing the midterm elections toward the Democrats so that the committee leadership reverts back to the Democrats.

The Democrat leadership has already promised to bog President Trump down with new investigations and immediately proceed with impeachment proceedings against him if they succeed in November.

America is in the midst of a hostile takeover of government. In this instance, it is the manipulation and social engineering of the public through market allocation, bid rigging, mergers and acquisitions, and the creation of Internet monopolies of information content.

It is a seditious effort that must be opposed with antitrust laws to prevent the advance of the hostile takeover.

This is the United States of America. We have presidential elections every four years and a peaceful transfer of power to ensure the stability and longevity of our constitutional republic.

In 2016 the voters elected President Donald J. Trump to reverse the leftist, anti-American, socialist, pro-Muslim, policies of Barack Obama. Guaranteeing freedom of speech in the 21st-century public square requires an acknowledgment that a hostile takeover through illegal business practices will not be tolerated.

President Donald Trump stands up unapologetically and says what everyone knows – the Internet giants Google, Facebook, and Twitter are the 21st-century public square and they are rabidly anti-Trump leftists who censor, curate and manipulate online content to advance their leftist political agenda.

Their coordinated messaging is an Internet monopoly of thought that should be subject to antitrust prosecution. There is no freedom without freedom of speech and there is no freedom of speech when conservative opposition voices are silenced in the public square.

We the people of the United States are the shareholders of our constitutional republic who must protect the Constitution and reject Obama’s seditious leftist acquisition deal.

e must support President Trump (management) at the midterm elections and prevent a hostile takeover. We must resist social engineering through the predatory closed-market monopoly of thought if we want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Let freedom ring!

Read more at Pundacity

1 COMMENT

  1. I’ve never been so nauseated by listening to so many speak about “Government shall make no law…”. Would it be specifically “legislation” that is “prohibited”, or can it be the heavy hand of Congress accomplishing the same goal.

    Sen Warner’s White Paper on social media had its “implementation confirmed” by none other than the Facebook representative at the latest hearing. She specifically thanked Warner for his White Paper in setting forth what actions were needed in social media. Is this not making law by fiat without any legislative authority, and then sanctioned by the very benefactors of the First Amendment, the press, to subjugate another benefactor of the First Amendment. Isn’t this the epitome of Antitrust.

Comments are closed.