No one has a right to control something the public needs -gas,food,communications,etc...in such ways that serve entirely their own personal interests.
So you're a socialist?
On the contrary.You on the other hand are-supporting the idea that a private business has the right to monopolize an entire industry or even an economy.
First of all, anti-trust is a socialist construct.
Second of all, you've provided no compelling argument that you have a right to others' platform.
No it is not.You don't understand the capitalist system.
I take it you've not read much Adam Smith.
I take it you not UNDERSTOOD Adam Smith. And take Ricardo at face value.
Let me try to sort through what you've typed. It doesn't appear English is your first language.
Adam Smith's writings call for the "invisible hand of the market" to regulate commerce rather than government. If there is a void in the market, such as lack of sellers, that the potential for profit will cause new entries into the market.
You'll have a very, very hard time making the case that Adam Smith is for either forcing existing media to provide you with a platform for which you can say whatever you wish. Private companies are of no obligation to provide you with an audience. Furthermore, you'll have a hard time convincing the world that Adam Smith would believe that the vast number of websites and media groups is a "monopoly". In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find anti-trust legislation to advocated anywhere in "The Wealth of Nations".
