Gohrek

Here's a thread that I posted on another web site. Every response boiled down to "I have a moral right to your property, resources, services, etc. because I benefit from them, and if you complain while I rob you, then YOU are the one destroying liberty, not me." http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97D14D20130814 An antitrust law is a regulation that prevents individuals from conducting business because the government considers the intended business to negatively affect consumers. The companies US Airways and American Airlines have been blocked by the US Department of Justice from merging because the "creation of the world's largest airline that would result would stifle competition, drive up airfares and reduce services." The merging airlines argue that they "would be weaker rivals if the merger did not take place, an outcome that would not be good for consumers who deserve more choices..." The airlines said "a merger would increase competition by adding a viable competitor to two dominant carriers, Delta and United Continental, both the result of recent megamergers." I think it's a gross miscarriage of justice that a citizen has to argue for his social utility in order to maintain his liberty. These two companies have to argue that consumers could use them better if they merge. I wouldn't be surprised if Delta or United Continental paid the US Department of Justice to prevent the merger. Consider this exchange, the trial of Hank Rearden: Defendant "A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognized by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well. Do it." Judge "The law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle - the principle of the public good." Defendant "Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act." ---------- What do you think about antitrust laws? Should you be required to prove to the government that your business should be justified by social utility? That your RIGHT to sell a good or service rests on the principle that other people must benefit from them, whether you consent to their use or not? That people have a right to your goods and services merely because they benefit from them? Antitrust laws are widely popular among Congressmen and Senators, among Democrats and Republicans. There is a stench of cronyism around antitrust laws, where one business can pay a Senator to stop another business from being more competitive.

I read a post on here about a livable wage, which reminded me of a convo I had with a co-worker yesterday. One of my co-workers mentioned to me that it's unfair that the corporation we work for doesn't pay us a living wage. I was surprised because (1) I get paid a lot less than he does (he gets tips for pizza delivery and I don't, I'm a closing manager) and (2) I live decently with one roommate. I asked him what a livable wage consists of, and he casually listed items like having a cell phone, cable, a car, at least a one-bedroom apartment if not a house, and good clothes. I have a prepaid phone from Walmart, no cable, I live in a smaller studio apartment with bunkbeds, and I wear work clothes more than any other type. I do have a car, though, which is used for commuting to my job 4 miles away. In conclusion, "livable wage" = subjective. If you feel entitled to lots of luxuries, your "livable wage" will be what others consider a huge success. I live modestly because I'm relatively new to the job market, being 18 years old. It's unfortunate that more people don't understand that you can only demand a wage as high as your productivity. $0.02

I'm impressed with all the discussion on this thread! I almost forgot about this thread I posted. I read through every page, and I'm going to accept the government loans. HOWEVER, I declined 2 loans that were offered to me based on my ethnicity. I'm 25% German, 25% Italian (maternally; mom's dad is Italian, mom's mom is German) and 38% black, 12% Native American (paternally; dad's dad is black, dad's mom is half NA, half black). I suppose there's no solid reason for me declining those loans if I'm just going to accept the other ones anyway, but my soft rationale is that (1) I think it's insulting for the government to offer me more money than other people because I'm a minority (implying that minorities are collectivistically inferior or can't make it by themselves) and (2) I don't want my acceptance of these race-based loans to come back and haunt me when I rail against affirmative action programs if people accuse me of benefiting from them. My high school classmates frequently told me (like I wasn't aware) that I would have more opportunities for money because I'm a minority. I declared no response to my ethnicity on my university application, but I was required to declare at least one before applying for scholarships/loans.

What are you going to study and why do you want to study it? --Brant I'm going to earn two bachelor's degrees: in Economics and Finance. Firstly, I think these two degrees will maximize my career potential and income, because we can't all be Art History or Clarinet majors. I want to study economics because I'm fascinated by the science of our choices and how we decide different courses of action based on scarcity. I The Wealth of Nations, Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose," Atlas Shrugged, and other random books on economics/business ethics in high school. I want to study finance because I want to apply my economics education in an investment banking-related career. Investment (or making money by making other people money, as I often simplify it), interests me and I can't think of anything more virtuous.

I will start school next month as a freshman. My financial aid package comes from the federal government, the state government, and the Army. I'm conflicted with the morality of accepting government aid, and I would prefer to only use private loans, but the current market just isn't set up for this kind of loan shopping. Every single student who attends university will use some form of government-subsidized financial aid (unless the student attends a private university and pays all tuition and fees personally). Is it moral to accept government-subsidized financial aid as a student? It seems literally impossible to pay for school without it, since students are *expected* to either pay for everything out of their pockets or accept government aid. I don't want to have to accept government aid, but it seems like the only available option whether I had more money or not.