Why do most of my fellow economic libertarians hate economic liberty?

The spirit of antebellum American capitalism, formally known as plantation slave owning elitism, is alive and well in collegiate athletics........ which I believe most of us are vastly more interested in than the price of king cotton. The best thing about this is that the time student-athletes are allowed to waste on collegiate athletics is generally limited to 5 years. In Antebellum terms, that's progress.
 
Seems like a lot of folks here support slavery by paying to attend and watching college football on TV. You should stop if you have that big of an issue with it
 
Seems like a lot of folks here support slavery by paying to attend and watching college football on TV. You should stop if you have that big of an issue with it
Click to expand...
Race is R, YK

 


fuck you are in rare form.

no, not formally exempt. fuck. in fact, they have been found in violation on 3 occasions. but the bottom line is that if there were a business, or two, or 1200, that belonged to a member organization that dictated everyone's behavior in said business, including what it could pay its employees, how it could hire its employees, and how and when it can compete and interact with member businesses, said organization and its members would be found to have violated the anti trust laws. the NCAA escapes obvious application of the Sherman and Clayton acts because everyone knows that w/o collusion among member schools, there would be no CFB as we know it. It's effectively exempted. the courts simply give deference to the NCAA as an organization, except when they step way over the line on matters more directly involving commerce, because of the unique context of sports. that has been established. sorry. i didn't make it up to make you mad.

literally no choice? no. practically no choice? yes. if you want that product, you buy it from the NCAA and nobody else. and, yes, particularly black kids from lower to lower middle class households. are you new to the sport?

fuck, go have one of those drinks you're always telling us about; your econ 101 lesson has been taught. unfortunately, beginning and ending your point on this subject with a tautology (hey, they're playing aren't they) is less than thought provoking. I thought you were better than that. keep this up and you're in paper hanger territory with chipofag.

 
Last edited:
Damone's economic prowess has been woefully exposed as way too simplistic in a complex market.

Creepycoug laid the smack down.
 
What's the problem? Take some money from the conferences and NCAACP and give it to football players, based on a % of revenue generated per sport. Give the bitches a token stipend for therapy for sore backs and STD treatment and the football players a sizeable stipend for new Lacs, Benz and fine thread. It's pretty simple.
 
fuck you are in rare form.

no, not formally exempt. fuck. in fact, they have been found in violation on 3 occasions. but the bottom line is that if there were a business, or two, or 1200, that belonged to a member organization that dictated everyone's behavior in said business, including what it could pay its employees, how it could hire its employees, and how and when it can compete and interact with member businesses, said organization and its members would be found to have violated the anti trust laws. the NCAA escapes obvious application of the Sherman and Clayton acts because everyone knows that w/o collusion among member schools, there would be no CFB as we know it. It's effectively exempted. the courts simply give deference to the NCAA as an organization, except when they step way over the line on matters more directly involving commerce, because of the unique context of sports. that has been established. sorry. i didn't make it up to make you mad.

literally no choice? no. practically no choice? yes. if you want that product, you buy it from the NCAA and nobody else. and, yes, particularly black kids from lower to lower middle class households. are you new to the sport?

fuck, go have one of those drinks you're always telling us about; your econ 101 lesson has been taught. unfortunately, beginning and ending your point on this subject with a tautology (hey, they're playing aren't they) is less than thought provoking. I thought you were better than that. keep this up and you're in paper hanger territory with chipofag.

fuck you are in rare form.

no, not formally exempt. fuck. in fact, they have been found in violation on 3 occasions. but the bottom line is that if there were a business, or two, or 1200, that belonged to a member organization that dictated everyone's behavior in said business, including what it could pay its employees, how it could hire its employees, and how and when it can compete and interact with member businesses, said organization and its members would be found to have violated the anti trust laws. the NCAA escapes obvious application of the Sherman and Clayton acts because everyone knows that w/o collusion among member schools, there would be no CFB as we know it. It's effectively exempted. the courts simply give deference to the NCAA as an organization, except when they step way over the line on matters more directly involving commerce, because of the unique context of sports. that has been established. sorry. i didn't make it up to make you mad.

literally no choice? no. practically no choice? yes. if you want that product, you buy it from the NCAA and nobody else. and, yes, particularly black kids from lower to lower middle class households. are you new to the sport?

fuck, go have one of those drinks you're always telling us about; your econ 101 lesson has been taught. unfortunately, beginning and ending your point on this subject with a tautology (hey, they're playing aren't they) is less than thought provoking. I thought you were better than that. keep this up and you're in paper hanger territory with chipofag.
 
fuck you are in rare form.

no, not formally exempt. fuck. in fact, they have been found in violation on 3 occasions. but the bottom line is that if there were a business, or two, or 1200, that belonged to a member organization that dictated everyone's behavior in said business, including what it could pay its employees, how it could hire its employees, and how and when it can compete and interact with member businesses, said organization and its members would be found to have violated the anti trust laws. the NCAA escapes obvious application of the Sherman and Clayton acts because everyone knows that w/o collusion among member schools, there would be no CFB as we know it. It's effectively exempted. the courts simply give deference to the NCAA as an organization, except when they step way over the line on matters more directly involving commerce, because of the unique context of sports. that has been established. sorry. i didn't make it up to make you mad.

literally no choice? no. practically no choice? yes. if you want that product, you buy it from the NCAA and nobody else. and, yes, particularly black kids from lower to lower middle class households. are you new to the sport?

fuck, go have one of those drinks you're always telling us about; your econ 101 lesson has been taught. unfortunately, beginning and ending your point on this subject with a tautology (hey, they're playing aren't they) is less than thought provoking. I thought you were better than that. keep this up and you're in paper hanger territory with chipofag.

fuck you are in rare form.

no, not formally exempt. fuck. in fact, they have been found in violation on 3 occasions. but the bottom line is that if there were a business, or two, or 1200, that belonged to a member organization that dictated everyone's behavior in said business, including what it could pay its employees, how it could hire its employees, and how and when it can compete and interact with member businesses, said organization and its members would be found to have violated the anti trust laws. the NCAA escapes obvious application of the Sherman and Clayton acts because everyone knows that w/o collusion among member schools, there would be no CFB as we know it. It's effectively exempted. the courts simply give deference to the NCAA as an organization, except when they step way over the line on matters more directly involving commerce, because of the unique context of sports. that has been established. sorry. i didn't make it up to make you mad.

literally no choice? no. practically no choice? yes. if you want that product, you buy it from the NCAA and nobody else. and, yes, particularly black kids from lower to lower middle class households. are you new to the sport?

fuck, go have one of those drinks you're always telling us about; your econ 101 lesson has been taught. unfortunately, beginning and ending your point on this subject with a tautology (hey, they're playing aren't they) is less than thought provoking. I thought you were better than that. keep this up and you're in paper hanger territory with chipofag.
Click to expand...

i don't know how that happened. i'm a fucking retard interacting with web applications. fuck.

and, yes, I do work for the Washington State Department of Redundancy Department. Guilty as charged. The lawyer thing is just make believe. Ask tops.
 
fuck you are in rare form.

no, not formally exempt. fuck. in fact, they have been found in violation on 3 occasions. but the bottom line is that if there were a business, or two, or 1200, that belonged to a member organization that dictated everyone's behavior in said business, including what it could pay its employees, how it could hire its employees, and how and when it can compete and interact with member businesses, said organization and its members would be found to have violated the anti trust laws. the NCAA escapes obvious application of the Sherman and Clayton acts because everyone knows that w/o collusion among member schools, there would be no CFB as we know it. It's effectively exempted. the courts simply give deference to the NCAA as an organization, except when they step way over the line on matters more directly involving commerce, because of the unique context of sports. that has been established. sorry. i didn't make it up to make you mad.

literally no choice? no. practically no choice? yes. if you want that product, you buy it from the NCAA and nobody else. and, yes, particularly black kids from lower to lower middle class households. are you new to the sport?

fuck, go have one of those drinks you're always telling us about; your econ 101 lesson has been taught. unfortunately, beginning and ending your point on this subject with a tautology (hey, they're playing aren't they) is less than thought provoking. I thought you were better than that. keep this up and you're in paper hanger territory with chipofag.
Click to expand...

You said they were exempt..dumbfuck...now it's...we'll,yeah but still..not formally exempt. There is not formal or informal exemption. You said the reason they could do what they were doing is that they were exempt. They are not in any way exempt. You said if their weren't exempt the FTC and DOJ would "break it up and fine the living shit out of them". Fuck your an idiot.

"Effectively exempt"

Lol ok...but they aren't. I don't think you even understand the implications if they were exempt.

Admit it, you thought they were exempt, called called out on your horse shit and then made up a weak argument to try and fit your original point, but without your main fact.

Yes, they have a choice. 100%. If it's a shitty deal, don't do it. But it's not a shitty deal.

Exactly the response I expected from a government employee.
 
Damone's economic prowess has been woefully exposed as way too simplistic in a complex market.

Creepycoug laid the smack down.
Click to expand...

Was it a formal smack down? Or just an effective smack down? Maybe a double secret smack down?

You go to comeback lately has been "that's too simplistic for a complex issue'

But you just read the summaries, right?
 
Seems like a lot of folks here support slavery by paying to attend and watching college football on TV. You should stop if you have that big of an issue with it
Click to expand...

I think they should give them a couple hundred more for their stipend, but there is truth to this.

 
Last edited:
Damone's economic prowess has been woefully exposed as way too simplistic in a complex market.

Creepycoug laid the smack down.
Click to expand...

Was it a formal smack down? Or just an effective smack down? Maybe a double secret smack down?

You go to comeback lately has been "that's too simplistic for a complex issue'

But you just read the summaries, right?
Click to expand...

You're a simpleton. It's why you're a libertarian.
 
fuck you are in rare form.

no, not formally exempt. fuck. in fact, they have been found in violation on 3 occasions. but the bottom line is that if there were a business, or two, or 1200, that belonged to a member organization that dictated everyone's behavior in said business, including what it could pay its employees, how it could hire its employees, and how and when it can compete and interact with member businesses, said organization and its members would be found to have violated the anti trust laws. the NCAA escapes obvious application of the Sherman and Clayton acts because everyone knows that w/o collusion among member schools, there would be no CFB as we know it. It's effectively exempted. the courts simply give deference to the NCAA as an organization, except when they step way over the line on matters more directly involving commerce, because of the unique context of sports. that has been established. sorry. i didn't make it up to make you mad.

literally no choice? no. practically no choice? yes. if you want that product, you buy it from the NCAA and nobody else. and, yes, particularly black kids from lower to lower middle class households. are you new to the sport?

fuck, go have one of those drinks you're always telling us about; your econ 101 lesson has been taught. unfortunately, beginning and ending your point on this subject with a tautology (hey, they're playing aren't they) is less than thought provoking. I thought you were better than that. keep this up and you're in paper hanger territory with chipofag.
Click to expand...

You said they were exempt..dumbfuck...now it's...we'll,yeah but still..not formally exempt. There is not formal or informal exemption. You said the reason they could do what they were doing is that they were exempt. They are not in any way exempt. You said if their weren't exempt the FTC and DOJ would "break it up and fine the living shit out of them". Fuck your an idiot.

"Effectively exempt"

Lol ok...but they aren't. I don't think you even understand the implications if they were exempt.

Admit it, you thought they were exempt, called called out on your horse shit and then made up a weak argument to try and fit your original point, but without your main fact.

Yes, they have a choice. 100%. If it's a shitty deal, don't do it. But it's not a shitty deal.

Exactly the response I expected from a government employee.
Click to expand...

well you got that wrong too. that's laid off government employee sucking on the unemployment tit. get it right.

ok. I wrote they were exempt. you correctly pointed out to me that there is no formal exemption for the NCAA from the anti-trust laws. you were right. i was wrong. forget the rest.

and now that you've disposed of me, we're just left with your shitty argument. congratulations on winning the smartest retard award dip shit.

when you're ready to pull the one cock out of your mouth, the other out of your ass and the third out of your twat, let me know so we can discuss further.

because like about 70% of this bored, I, too, had Paul Heyne teach me about supply and demand in Kane Hall with 700 other people, so as surprised as it might make you to learn, I really do get your "they're playing so it must be ok" line of thought. it's just that after freshman year, most people add a little more contextual thought to their views. sorry for assuming. it's never a good idea.

rare. form. you. are.

fuck.

 
Last edited:
fuck you are in rare form.

no, not formally exempt. fuck. in fact, they have been found in violation on 3 occasions. but the bottom line is that if there were a business, or two, or 1200, that belonged to a member organization that dictated everyone's behavior in said business, including what it could pay its employees, how it could hire its employees, and how and when it can compete and interact with member businesses, said organization and its members would be found to have violated the anti trust laws. the NCAA escapes obvious application of the Sherman and Clayton acts because everyone knows that w/o collusion among member schools, there would be no CFB as we know it. It's effectively exempted. the courts simply give deference to the NCAA as an organization, except when they step way over the line on matters more directly involving commerce, because of the unique context of sports. that has been established. sorry. i didn't make it up to make you mad.

literally no choice? no. practically no choice? yes. if you want that product, you buy it from the NCAA and nobody else. and, yes, particularly black kids from lower to lower middle class households. are you new to the sport?

fuck, go have one of those drinks you're always telling us about; your econ 101 lesson has been taught. unfortunately, beginning and ending your point on this subject with a tautology (hey, they're playing aren't they) is less than thought provoking. I thought you were better than that. keep this up and you're in paper hanger territory with chipofag.
Click to expand...

You said they were exempt..dumbfuck...now it's...we'll,yeah but still..not formally exempt. There is not formal or informal exemption. You said the reason they could do what they were doing is that they were exempt. They are not in any way exempt. You said if their weren't exempt the FTC and DOJ would "break it up and fine the living shit out of them". Fuck your an idiot.

"Effectively exempt"

Lol ok...but they aren't. I don't think you even understand the implications if they were exempt.

Admit it, you thought they were exempt, called called out on your horse shit and then made up a weak argument to try and fit your original point, but without your main fact.

Yes, they have a choice. 100%. If it's a shitty deal, don't do it. But it's not a shitty deal.

Exactly the response I expected from a government employee.
Click to expand...

when you're ready to pull the one cock out of your mouth, the other out of your ass and the third out of your twat, let me know so we can discuss.
Click to expand...

Abundance.
 
fuck you are in rare form.

no, not formally exempt. fuck. in fact, they have been found in violation on 3 occasions. but the bottom line is that if there were a business, or two, or 1200, that belonged to a member organization that dictated everyone's behavior in said business, including what it could pay its employees, how it could hire its employees, and how and when it can compete and interact with member businesses, said organization and its members would be found to have violated the anti trust laws. the NCAA escapes obvious application of the Sherman and Clayton acts because everyone knows that w/o collusion among member schools, there would be no CFB as we know it. It's effectively exempted. the courts simply give deference to the NCAA as an organization, except when they step way over the line on matters more directly involving commerce, because of the unique context of sports. that has been established. sorry. i didn't make it up to make you mad.

literally no choice? no. practically no choice? yes. if you want that product, you buy it from the NCAA and nobody else. and, yes, particularly black kids from lower to lower middle class households. are you new to the sport?

fuck, go have one of those drinks you're always telling us about; your econ 101 lesson has been taught. unfortunately, beginning and ending your point on this subject with a tautology (hey, they're playing aren't they) is less than thought provoking. I thought you were better than that. keep this up and you're in paper hanger territory with chipofag.
Click to expand...

You said they were exempt..dumbfuck...now it's...we'll,yeah but still..not formally exempt. There is not formal or informal exemption. You said the reason they could do what they were doing is that they were exempt. They are not in any way exempt. You said if their weren't exempt the FTC and DOJ would "break it up and fine the living shit out of them". Fuck your an idiot.

"Effectively exempt"

Lol ok...but they aren't. I don't think you even understand the implications if they were exempt.

Admit it, you thought they were exempt, called called out on your horse shit and then made up a weak argument to try and fit your original point, but without your main fact.

Yes, they have a choice. 100%. If it's a shitty deal, don't do it. But it's not a shitty deal.

Exactly the response I expected from a government employee.
Click to expand...

well you got that wrong too. that's laid off government employee sucking on the unemployment tit. get it right.

ok. I wrote they were exempt. you correctly pointed out to me that there is no formal exemption for the NCAA from the anti-trust laws. you were right. i was wrong. forget the rest.

and now that you've disposed of me, we're just left with your shitty argument. congratulations on winning the smartest retard award dip shit.

when you're ready to pull the one cock out of your mouth, the other out of your ass and the third out of your twat, let me know so we can discuss.

because like about 70% of this bored, I, too, had Paul Heyne teach me about supply and demand in Kane Hall with 700 other people, so as surprised as it might make you to learn, I really do get your "they're playing so it must be ok" line of thought. it's just that after freshman year, most people add a little more contextual thought to their views. sorry for assuming. it's never a good idea.

rare. form. you. are.

fuck.
Click to expand...

Huh? Red herring much?
If you added contextual thought to your views, you would understand competition law and have at least some passing knowledge of NCAA court cases rather than spouting ignorant Bullshit about anti trust exemptions. And would at a minimum have knowledge of economic efficiency and how courts decide these kinds of cases.

And if you have been paying attention, I have brought up other points outside of the supply and demand model.
 
Last edited:
Damone's economic prowess has been woefully exposed as way too simplistic in a complex market.

Creepycoug laid the smack down.
Click to expand...

Was it a formal smack down? Or just an effective smack down? Maybe a double secret smack down?

You go to comeback lately has been "that's too simplistic for a complex issue'

But you just read the summaries, right?
Click to expand...

You're a simpleton. It's why you're a libertarian.
Click to expand...

What kind of smack down was that? Seems you've run out of shit.

I thought you were better than that..guess not.

Could you define adjacent for me...I'm not sure what it means

 
fuck you are in rare form.

no, not formally exempt. fuck. in fact, they have been found in violation on 3 occasions. but the bottom line is that if there were a business, or two, or 1200, that belonged to a member organization that dictated everyone's behavior in said business, including what it could pay its employees, how it could hire its employees, and how and when it can compete and interact with member businesses, said organization and its members would be found to have violated the anti trust laws. the NCAA escapes obvious application of the Sherman and Clayton acts because everyone knows that w/o collusion among member schools, there would be no CFB as we know it. It's effectively exempted. the courts simply give deference to the NCAA as an organization, except when they step way over the line on matters more directly involving commerce, because of the unique context of sports. that has been established. sorry. i didn't make it up to make you mad.

literally no choice? no. practically no choice? yes. if you want that product, you buy it from the NCAA and nobody else. and, yes, particularly black kids from lower to lower middle class households. are you new to the sport?

fuck, go have one of those drinks you're always telling us about; your econ 101 lesson has been taught. unfortunately, beginning and ending your point on this subject with a tautology (hey, they're playing aren't they) is less than thought provoking. I thought you were better than that. keep this up and you're in paper hanger territory with chipofag.
Click to expand...

You said they were exempt..dumbfuck...now it's...we'll,yeah but still..not formally exempt. There is not formal or informal exemption. You said the reason they could do what they were doing is that they were exempt. They are not in any way exempt. You said if their weren't exempt the FTC and DOJ would "break it up and fine the living shit out of them". Fuck your an idiot.

"Effectively exempt"

Lol ok...but they aren't. I don't think you even understand the implications if they were exempt.

Admit it, you thought they were exempt, called called out on your horse shit and then made up a weak argument to try and fit your original point, but without your main fact.

Yes, they have a choice. 100%. If it's a shitty deal, don't do it. But it's not a shitty deal.

Exactly the response I expected from a government employee.
Click to expand...

well you got that wrong too. that's laid off government employee sucking on the unemployment tit. get it right.

ok. I wrote they were exempt. you correctly pointed out to me that there is no formal exemption for the NCAA from the anti-trust laws. you were right. i was wrong. forget the rest.

and now that you've disposed of me, we're just left with your shitty argument. congratulations on winning the smartest retard award dip shit.

when you're ready to pull the one cock out of your mouth, the other out of your ass and the third out of your twat, let me know so we can discuss.

because like about 70% of this bored, I, too, had Paul Heyne teach me about supply and demand in Kane Hall with 700 other people, so as surprised as it might make you to learn, I really do get your "they're playing so it must be ok" line of thought. it's just that after freshman year, most people add a little more contextual thought to their views. sorry for assuming. it's never a good idea.

rare. form. you. are.

fuck.
Click to expand...

Huh? Red herring much?
Click to expand...

what do you want? you won. I said so. you are spot on about my apparently careless use of the word. the problem you're struggling with has nothing to do with fish. it's that it doesn't really matter.

everyone gets it. the NCAA has been sued. I think everyone knows that. the point, which you persist in ignoring, is that the NCAA gets to do shit that business doesn't. it gets to regulate how its members hire, pay and compete with one another. that's pretty fucking huge. that has a direct impact on the players.

tell Microsoft it's the same thing.

again, it's a sporting organization. it is viewed by the courts as very different from ordinary players in commerce. I didn't say it was right or wrong, just that it is.

one implication of that reality is that you have no real choice. as I said, if you want that particular product, there is one place to go.

read the cases. the judges make it clear. consider, too, the cases they've been burned in. what do they have in common? they get burned when they wander outside of their regulatory purview and start interfering with real markets. that's when the courts wake up.

but they're basically allowed to restrain the free exchange of labor as represented by college athletes. all of the practical outlets for the application of their talents are member organizations.

what's a fast black kid to do if he doesn't like the NCAA?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top