More news coverage about the whistleblower, not about the crimes he uncovered. Journalism is dead.

And that's demonstrably a Good Thing for us.

Isn't that an city in China that is mining rare earth metals for wind turbines?

Yes, TEPCO was running the show, and despite the media hysteria, the measurable damage to individuals is minimal.

"There's no ground to plant it on"

Need I remind you that we are talking about books which are written by individuals. Find small-time writers who are trying to find a break, give them the means to publish and distribute, and there you have it.

Why would the power plant manager's boss (or insurance provider, or stakeholders) not have any interest in independently validating that the chance of an accident has not increased? Why would he take the manager's word for it that the safety has not decreased?

Are you suggesting that the planet orbits its star at such a high speed as to produce an observable doppler shift?

I did not ask "whose rights" - I asked what specific right is violated. Name the right.

So point to the specific force that was applied to Amazon. Point to the specific agreement they were forced to sign, and name the specific means of force that was used against them - for example a gun, a baseball bat, a threat of violence, etc. If the choice was not voluntary on both sides, then it should be possible to indicate the source of the force, as with any other situation where someone is forced to do something against his will.

As I said previously, so long as buyers freely choose a company's products, and no rights are violated, then what concern is it whether everyone chooses to buy from one company, and no other companies are able to offer a better/cheaper product? If the so-called "monopoly" company begins to produce an inferior product, or sell at higher prices than buyers are willing to accept, then competition will arise. In reality, all real examples of "monopolies" are those organizations which have colluded with the government to forcibly ban the existence of competition on threat of violence, imprisonment, etc - e.g. local utilities, ISPs in certain areas, the Federal Reserve, etc.

"Exit the business" - what does that mean, exactly? Amazon is no longer allowed to exist? No longer allowed to sell ebooks? No longer allowed to sell any books? Or does it just mean Amazon is not allowed to sell certain books from publishers who abide by Apple's agreement?

That is not an explanation - that is an observation about a conclusion arrived at by specific individuals (which?). By what rationale did those individuals arrive at that conclusion?

Why do you presume this to be the case?

If they do not agree to the terms, they should not sign the contract. If they do not like the terms, they should renegotiate (e.g. offering publishers a better deal than Apple). If neither party can agree to terms, then they should obviously not enter into agreement.

This is how voluntary interaction in a free society works.

But why is it wrong - that was the question I asked. Your only answer is "that is illegal, and rightly so" - but that begs the question. Whose rights are violated? If none, then why is it wrong?

They should be free to do so. They should also be free to sign agreements with producers to sell products at specific prices. Why is one free agreement valid while the other is not, if no rights are being violated?

On the contrary, I have repeatedly provided the rationale - individuals and organizations of individuals who voluntarily enter into agreements should be free to set whatever terms they would like for those agreements, so long as both parties are freely entering into the agreement, and so long as no individual rights are violated as a result of that agreement. When individuals interact in society, their only social concern should be not to violate others' rights, and the governments only concern should be to uphold and protect those rights - to protect against force, threat of force, or fraud.

How is that choice different from any other transaction? Choose to agree to the terms of the transaction, or the transaction is not completed, and the agreement is not made. Those are the two alternatives in any free agreement between two parties.

This is begging the question. It presupposes that people will only want the books/authors from these allegedly "artificially" overpriced ebooks. If people only want those, and are willing to buy them to the point that the seller is profitable, then what is the problem? If people are unwilling to buy those, then the alternative books/authors from a competing firm - sold at a lower price - would attract buyers, and thus people will want those alternatives.

In a free market, competition is only eliminated insofar as a producer makes a product that people want, and people reward the producer with their money and continued business. If the producer begins to make a poor/overpriced product, buyers will demand an alternative, and alternatives will Why is that a bad thing? Whose rights are being violated?

I am not arguing against antitrust laws on the grounds of a cost-benefit analysis regarding the alleged level of "competitiveness", but on the grounds of the proper role of government - the protection of individual rights. So long as no rights are violation, voluntary agreements between individuals and organizations of individuals should both be permitted and legally binding.

Amazon voluntarily entered into a contractual agreement - at what point was force involved? Did they have a gun held to their heads?

It is easy to point to the benefits of government intervention into the marketplace (e.g. "look at this wonderful bridge we built"). But it takes more thought to uncover the harm that is done to the so-called forgotten man - such as the legal barriers to entry into the marketplace that such expansive regulations create.