I want to pay specific attention to Steve Ballmer and his wife Connie. Steve is a career criminal who was a high-level executive at Microsoft when it was engaging in numerous violations of anti-trust law, sabotaging competition and establishing a monopoly - picking the pockets of ordinary people while making himself a multi-billionaire.
Somehow, he believes that being a robber baron entitles him to decide for us what our laws should be, in this case by attempting to flood the airwaves with propaganda in favor of racial discrimination against white people and Asians. For the record: the good guys have raised less than 10% of what the bad guys have, and 95% of the contributions have come from the notoriously white supremacist group known as Asians.
Anti-trust action is just another word for nationalization. The right should still use it if necessary to get out of clown world, but it is inherently socialist.
How? Which of the trusts and monopolists were nationalized after an anti-trust action? None. Rather, they were broken up, which anyone who opposes big government should oppose, because big corporations tyrannizing over you is no better.
The entire industry is brought under the control of government bureaucracies. Those new small companies are tightly controlled with executives moving freely between public and private sectors as if they were the same entity.
This seems more an objection against overzealous regulation than against anti-trust per se. There is nothing inherent in anti-trust that requires excessive and dumb regulation.
Also, right-wingers need to start considering that the completely unaccountable business community may be a greater foe to freedom than the government. At least there are some democratic controls on government. There are none on Twitter, Google and other election meddlers.
I want to pay specific attention to Steve Ballmer and his wife Connie. Steve is a career criminal who was a high-level executive at Microsoft when it was engaging in numerous violations of anti-trust law, sabotaging competition and establishing a monopoly - picking the pockets of ordinary people while making himself a multi-billionaire.
Somehow, he believes that being a robber baron entitles him to decide for us what our laws should be, in this case by attempting to flood the airwaves with propaganda in favor of racial discrimination against white people and Asians. For the record: the good guys have raised less than 10% of what the bad guys have, and 95% of the contributions have come from the notoriously white supremacist group known as Asians.
Anti-trust action is just another word for nationalization. The right should still use it if necessary to get out of clown world, but it is inherently socialist.
How? Which of the trusts and monopolists were nationalized after an anti-trust action? None. Rather, they were broken up, which anyone who opposes big government should oppose, because big corporations tyrannizing over you is no better.
The entire industry is brought under the control of government bureaucracies. Those new small companies are tightly controlled with executives moving freely between public and private sectors as if they were the same entity.
This seems more an objection against overzealous regulation than against anti-trust per se. There is nothing inherent in anti-trust that requires excessive and dumb regulation.
Also, right-wingers need to start considering that the completely unaccountable business community may be a greater foe to freedom than the government. At least there are some democratic controls on government. There are none on Twitter, Google and other election meddlers.