Hacker News Reader

Comment by IG_Semmelweiss | Hacker News Reader

Lina Khan's vision is one of contempt of the law and disregard of due process. A society where rules are made up on the fly based on whats popular and where the political wind blows [1]

Lina Khan's direct actions of regulation-by-the-hip , and continued losses in the courtroom, will weaken actual anticompetitive powers, and ultimately favor monopoly generation by big entrenched players [1]

I dont want the govt to make up rules on the fly. Even if its going after monopolistic companies. Because I know its only a matter of time until the govt uses the same pretext to come after me, too.

[1] https://archive.vn/aXD6T

View on HN

> A society where rules are made up on the fly based on whats popular and where the political wind blows

Sorry, where do you think laws come from? They’re not written on stone tablets at the top of a mountain. They’re written by people for people. If you prefer Robert Bork’s hands off approach to markets that’s your prerogative but we can’t separate laws and regulations from their consequences. There’s no question in my mind that Amazon’s market share allows them to push their weight around in ways that raise prices for consumers as well as stifle competition and make workers’ lives worse.

In the United States, laws come from Congress.

SCOTUS is unfortunately more powerful than Congress, at least because they're more capable of doing things.

Luckily they're more aligned with consumer welfare, which is good, as opposed to Khan's hippie "everything big must be bad" standard. This only supports small business owners and VCs, who are probably the most evil people in the US.

I don't think it's correct to paint Khan as following a "big is bad" standard. For instance, in [1] she explicitly says the opposite:

> Antimonopoly does not mean ‘big is bad.' The New Brandeisians—like Justice Brandeis—recognise that certain industries tend naturally towards monopoly. This is especially true of networks. In such cases, the answer is not to break these firms up, but to design a system of public regulation that prevents the executives who manage this monopoly from exploiting their power. A second goal is to ensure that executives face the right incentives to provide the best service possible to everyone who relies on the monopoly to sell or to buy a particular product or service. In the past Americans have used both direct government regulation, and various forms of antimonopoly law and policy, to achieve these ends.

[1] https://academic.oup.com/jeclap/article/9/3/131/4915966

I would believe what she said if she was doing this, but instead she's suing tech companies and asking them to break up in silly ways which is… not that.

I’m praying that Chevron gets overturned. The amount of power that has been handed over to unfireable, unelected bureaucrats is beyond comprehension.

Overturning Chevron will simply transfer that power to even more unfireable, unelected judges.

I'd prefer judges to bureaucrats.

It will require congress to pass laws. Right now they fob it off to bureaucrats as cover. No longer

> Amazon

Every State Attorney General could have gone after the Amazon sales tax avoidance game, yet it went on for over a decade even after it was well-known. We need people in government who are willing to equally apply existing laws. It's up to the people to pressure each State's top attorney to take action on various laws.

Rules absolutely have to be made up on the fly. They are a tool to move society from where it is to where we want it to be. Carving them in stone just creates a game for people to exploit. Dynamic rules means people need to understand and follow the intent of the law.

It's really simple, have congress create new rules... this isn't hard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com