From: John Conover <john@email.johncon.com>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [john@email.johncon.com: Re: Business as War]
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 95 14:27 PST
Raymond Werner writes:
> The whole anti-trust area is being heavily re-thought in
> legal circles today. The DOJ has recently come out with new
> guidleines concerning intellectual property and anti-trust.
> The DOJ, like the US Supreme Court, focuses on promoting
> competition. Whether or not they "properly" take into
> account market failures is unclear.
> Although, by supporting competition (ie "fair" access,
> elimination of "unfair" barriers to entry) the govt appeals
> to its broad constituency.
Right, but, also, at the expense of the long term prosperity of its
broad constituency. These intransitive problems of determination of
priorities in groups just keep cropping up, don't they? Do we regulate
for short term prosperity, or long term prosperity, (which are
mutually exclusive solutions?) Note, also, we can not do a compromise
solution since that would be a prescription for mediocrity, eg., we
won't do either well. Damned if we do, damed if we don't, and damed if
we choose an intermediate, compromise solution-what a deal!!!!!!
What this means is that there is no structure (eg., regulation) that
will provide a "best" solution to the dilemma. (Or to be quite precise
about it, there is no set of axioms-eg., rules or regulations-that can
be postulated that will solve the problem in a finite amount of time
without being logically inconsistent, or incomplete, or both.)
As kind of an interesting side bar, the great authors of the normative
documents of this country side stepped this problem with the clause
"we hold these truths to be self evident," (eg., the truths were
postulates in a logic system, not axioms) clause. (BTW, the 5th
ammendment got by them-does the right to repeal ammendments include
itself?)
BTW, it is, IMHO, that these documents are some of the finest
achievements of mankind and civilization. What my personal arguments
are, is that we have strayed, IMHO, from the concepts and spirit under
which these documents were authored. Do we really have to have rules
that legislate "truths" where no such "truths" can ever exist? (And
organizations Like the SEC to enforce such "truths?") Making rules, in
such matters, is really tantamount to discarding alternatives.
Or, alternatively, would it be better to not make such rules at the
national level, and relegate the decisions, which by nature are
intransitive, to be locally administered, (eg., address the solution
through diversity, rather than a national structure.) For example,
some states might permit predatory practices in the market place,
others would not, (and they would not have to be consistent over
time.) Those that did, presumably, would have been more concerned
about long term prosperity of the constituency, as opposed to short
term growth. In the short term, some states would do better, and in
the long term other states would do better. Then, IMHO, the national
constituency would have the "best of both worlds."
-JCC
--
John Conover, john@email.johncon.com, http://www.johncon.com/