1. I fail to see how "the government should intervene broadly to prevent anything I feel is unfair" is supposedly the exact same logic as, "The government should minimize intervention in freely conducted business even if I think it's unfair."
2. There is no rule on this site that I have to respond to every single point you make, and it's ridiculous to call that bad faith.
No, it's absolutely fair to call it bad faith. It's true that there's no rule against bad faith debating on the site... though your respect for rules appears to flow with the tides given you're arguing against obeying the law by point 6. That said, there's also no rule against me
pointing out you're arguing in bad faith. Basic debate etiquette says if you have no answer you should at least acknowledge it, not pretend the point was never made and
continue to debate anyway as if it weren't. You have absolutely no answer to the fact that coercion was being used but you're continuing to hammer on "free market" as if threats and fraud weren't involved, it is bad faith to pretend that aspect didn't exist.
3. No one is actually hurt by being unfairly denied access to Taylor Swift concert tickets, as opposed to being denied access to healthcare. Not even teenage girls "need" idol concerts or they'll die, nor will their parents die from all the tantrums thrown. I believe I've made my position quite clear when I said that I'm in favor of minimizing government intervention even more than usual specifically because Ticketmaster specializes in luxuries that are not a need for anyone.
Noone is unfairly hurt by being denied participation in the free market, nobody needs food that isn't bugs or a home that isn't a tiny pod. Nobody has a right to buy or sell goods they own, nobody is hurt because they don't really need to be able to engage in a level playing field, right?
But even if we accept that, you're still spouting pure distilled essence of bullshit. The songwriters, gaffers, grips, sound techs, advertisers, janitors, bouncers, they all have bills to pay and mouths to feed. Ticketmaster is defrauding them by engaging in dishonest and illegal practices in order to take profits that, in an actual free market, would be distributed more fairly. "But muh teenage girls" is just a strawman, the teenage girls aren't the only ones being stolen from. Livelihoods are at stake.
4. There is a massive difference between what I said, which is "You do not have an inherent right to X, therefore government has no mandate to intervene to guarantee you access to X.", and what you said, which is, "Therefore the government should take X away from you."
No, there is no difference. Ticketmaster used illegal means and coercion. There is no functional difference between the Government holding a gun to my head, El Chapo holding a gun to my head, or Ticketmaster holding a gun to my head.
5. I don't think anyone on this forum has the access or the expertise to actually debate the fairness of these contracts line-by-line. That said, I maintain that the fundamental principle here, one that has served America well for centuries, is that government should minimize its intervention and maximize laissez-faire, and that people should be broadly entitled to do business as they please short of fraud or coercion, and no, enforcing the terms of an agreed-upon business contract does not count as 'coercion'.
Literally ignoring the fact that both fraud and coercion are involved and you're cheerleading both. This is why pretending the facts your opponent has presented don't exist is bad faith debating.
6. I concede that I am unfamiliar with California law. However, it is a pretty solid truism around here that, "Anything California does is wrong", so how do you defend California's interference with the free market in this case?
Yeah, I had a feeling this would be the next track you took. You have a singular skill for missing the actual point and putting your bayonet through a strawman instead.
There is plenty of room for debate as to whether California's laws are just or not... in its own thread. But I have no problem defending my position: It's not an actual free market. Regardless of the law, Ticketmaster is not succeeding in a free market, they're succeeding through illegal means. They are beating their competition not through a better business model, but because their competition is having to obey laws that Ticketmaster is ignoring.
Here lets get another example, which you'll no doubt say is totally different without being able to explain how.
Bob works overtime for six months and uses his extra money to buy his lifelong dream of a massive, expensive home theatre system. The next day, Jack breaks into his house and steals his home theatre.
By your reasoning, the free market says Jack is more successful. It doesn't matter that Jack broke the law, you just keep ignoring that part. Jack wound up with more stuff, ergo he wins. And after all, nobody
needs a home theatre system, nobody has a
right to a home theatre system, so Bob wasn't harmed anyway, was he? Really, why does the state have the right to illegalize theft and interfere in the free market?
www.digitalmusicnews.com
www.classaction.org
www.ticketnews.com
www.forbes.com
