whitetrshsoldier wrote:
So "Competition Laws" are essentially just examples of the government using "Force" to deprive individuals of their right to liberty and property. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, competition laws are examples of government acting to protect the right to liberty and property of the many from a few who are in the position to use coercion to limit or deprive the many of liberty and property.

Certainly there are many examples where this has gone awry but this does not bely the basic intention of competition laws or government action to protect the rights of the many from the depredations of a few.

whitetrshsoldier wrote:
Please tell me about a Competition Law that does not require the Government to deprive a man of his property [or his ability to freely associate, also known as liberty]. If you can do that, I'll be happy to accept your statement.

It is a question of whose rights and liberties the government is protecting. It is government law that licenses businesses and corporations as artificial entities. When these implement anti-competitive practices that deprive others of their natural rights and liberties through extortionate acts it is only reasonable that government remedy the situation by regulating unnatural rights of artificial businesses rather than endorsing their depredations on the many whose rights are natural. In the case of business regulation the government takes the position that natural rights trump artificial rights.

In most cases the government is not depriving anyone of any property with competition laws. It does not take anything. At most it requires them only to rearrange their business activities a little. It does not require them to make divestitures at a loss. Shareholders do not suffer.

As far as the liberty of freedom of association goes. There is no freedom of association, i.e. no liberty to extort. That government acts to break up extortion rackets no matter where it finds them is just the normal exercise of its duties to protect the rights and liberties of all the citizenry.

Government is the ones who granted property arbitrarily in the first place so I do not understand what you are trying to argue here. If it is some sort of violation of the mythical right to property then you are barking up the wrong tree because there is no such thing as rights in the first place, only privileges granted by tyrants. In this case, your typical government tyrant.

The government giveth the government taketh away.

whitetrshsoldier wrote:
That's exactly what I said before you defended the government's "just right" to defend certain entities over others. Other than the fact that man has no right to property ... if that were true, then you have no right to breathe eat or drink!

You have no right to breath or eat or drink or even to live for that matter. All you are granted by being alive is the opportunity to continue your existence. There is no such thing as rights.

whitetrshsoldier wrote:I have no "right" to do it, but I have the "opportunity" to do it. Ok, let's call it my "opportunity" to Life, Liberty, and Property.

And since my "opportunity" to continue these things implies that I require property and liberty to continue my existence, and that I will fight for self-preservation against any who attempt to end my "opportunities", does it really matter what word you use?

Well yes, I am afraid that words do matter. Words are all we have here so it is important to deploy them carefully. Having a dictionary and thesaurus handy can be a big help in that regard.

Right implies protected privilege where opportunity does not, an important distinction in this particular discussion and the reason why I used the word opportunity instead of right.

whitetrshsoldier wrote:
My "right" to live IS protected, though - by me, via the faculties provided me for that very purpose by the simple nature of my existence. Try violating it and I'll show you how it's different than any "opportunity" or "ability".

Protection of rights is not an autonomous activity. What you are describing is merely the opportunity to defend yourself from attack by the gang of well armed mercenaries I have hired to take you out.

If you had any actual rights others might be obliged to employ the threat of greater force to dissuade me from directing my mercenaries to attack you and if I persist, join your side in the battle.

Can you see the difference?

You should not presume that just because I do not agree with your position that you have a superior position due to your military experience with life and death. You have no f**cking idea what I have been through.
Ever been in a knife fight?
Ever been alone and chased through the streets with people shooting at you?
Survival as an individual is more a matter of opportunity than anything else when there is no back up.
Soldiers cheat. Soldiers do not fight alone. Soldiers have superior weapons. Soldiers have a skewed perspective on individual survival. You are not the only one here who has been in the military.

Do me a favor- Go to Mogadishu by yourself so you can find out exactly how far your individual "right" to self preservation will get you.