Desispis.

“Labour …, is a 'market' treated differently than other sections of the economy. The main reason for this is that people are very different entities to businesses,”
Who do you think own businesses? Cyborgs? Aren’t shareholders people too?

Re two entities owning all the food producing resources in the WORLD (cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, deer, poultry, rice, potatoes, wheat, corn, barley, sorghum, fish, crustaceans, rabbits, kangaroos, nuts, berries, etc). Even if this could happen, together with the resulting societal harm, how does this extrapolate backwards?
If perhaps we are justified to use torture to find out where the terrorist planted the ticking bomb, does this justify using torture to find out if the worker has cheated on his income tax?

I am not denying that a trader may well sell his product at a price higher than that at which he would otherwise make a comfortable profit. My point is that this is an aspect of a free society. We are allowed to do anything we wish short of initiating force or fraud. We are allowed to sell our labour or our cardboard boxes (which is only a product of our labour) at any price we wish.
In practice the market keeps all prices low because high profits in any one area generally either invites new players into the field or buyers going into other fields such as shrink-wrapping or the original tea chest boxes made out of two ply. But that is still beside the point. Even if there was no alternative, the concept of ownership (whether your life or your property) means you have the absolute right to deal with it in any way you wish.
The alternative is just basic thuggery. We want that person’s goods or that person’s labour at a price lower than what he is asking. If he objects we will simply ask the government to force him to acquiesce to our demands

Edward: "Who do you think own businesses? Cyborgs? Aren’t shareholders people too?"

The relationship between a business and its employees, and the business and its owners is completely different.

Shareholders freely invest in any business of their choosing and should accept the risks and costs of doing so. They are free to move their funds between investments and entrust their money with people they believe to have strong business skills to effectively utilise the capital. By the simple fact that they are investing they have sufficient capital to take a hit without facing financial ruin (unless they specific took on that risk).

Employees on the other hand are forced into employment because of their needs. Many employees are limited in their job options based on the skills they have; labour simply don't have the flexibility that capital does. (Non-managerial) Employees typically don't have the business skills or knowledge to effectively run themselves as a 'mini-business' and this shouldn't devalue their output as productive workers.

"My point is that this is an aspect of a free society."

You have a rather simplistic view of 'freedom'. Absolutely everything we do has an effect on others, whether clearly identifiable or not. It's a matter of balancing the freedoms granted against the impact those freedoms have on others. Price fixing harms others' freedom to purchase from a competitive market and harms the economy in general, so like violence it's not a freedom we allow.

"The alternative is just basic thuggery."

You seem to be able to grasp why individuals aren't granted the freedom to use physical force. One main reason is that it causes focus much more on physical force to acquire wealth rather than productivity. We all agree to small limits on freedom that benefits everyone in the long run.

The same reasoning applies to financial situations. Using financial means to unfairly gain wealth causes people to focus these market manipulations rather than producing something of actual value. And again we all agree to small limits on freedom that benefits everyone in the long run.

For a Dean of Law and member of the World Jurist Assn, Prof Flint unequivocally places himself at a crossroads of what is globally considered as unconscionable white-collar crime, and defiantly dismissing per se ACCC's case as ' much ado about nothing '.

For precedence refer to the US Supreme Court prosecution of Enron Jeff Skilling and Board. Largest corporate fraud in US history with ties leading to the White House. He was convicted to 24 years and four to the State penitentiary.

No amount of verbose ' weasel words ' from Flint's Melbourne socialite chum, and leading light of the Toorak squattocracy, ebullient founder Richard Pratt, will save him from the ACCC prosecutuion and the collateral damage to Vissy Industries, not to mention Pratt's as yet impeccable reputation, long term.

Forbes Magazine rates Richard Przecicki - AC, president of Carlton Football Club,leading figure of Melbourne society, thespian ( summer of the 17th doll ) Aust's 3 richest at $4.7 billion.

To accuse journalist Carlton and Allan Ramsey of undermining the cause of justice,colluding to scuttle the ' tall poppy syndrome', and wickedly plotting the destruction of RP out of sheer jealousy is pugnacious gratuitous bullocks.

It's understandable for imminent Academics to vouch for people accused in Court's across the land, for all sorts of reasons. Flint's short tenure with the ABC Authority was nothing short of catastrophic. The ABA 'cash-for-comment' inquiry where shock-jock Allan Jones was overheard to declare he ' instructed' the PM to reappoint Flint in 2001, was instrumental to his demise. Tenaciously, he still insists his resignation was not an admission of guilt. Was this another tall poppy syndrome ?

Irrespective of ACCC's prosecution beginning 21 Dec 2005, of Vissy Board involving Pratt, Debney and Ron Carroll the trial linking Sect 45, and Sect 155: misleading and deceptive conduct, anti-competition, price fixing and market sharing, obstruction and delays, etc they sought surreptitiously to tie-up the Court's indefinitely !

Flint tries to down play the casualties and victims of Vissy's onerous practice by : "whether to impose anything other than a nominal penalty " which the ACCC

for all it's due diligence accuses RP among other frauds, of cheating customers and companies of approximately $ 700 million in the Nation's biggest ever cartel case. Serious contraventions of Law, and Pratt's insidious ' careful and deliberate concealment. The use of pre-paid phones that could not be traced. Clandestine holding of meetings in private homes, motel rooms and suburban parks. Significantly indicates Vissy was fully aware the conduct was illegal. Flint refers to this chapter as ' en passant '? (sic) It was a cold-blooded, deliberate attempt to pervert the cause of justice.

The aftermath: Pratt faces fines to $35 million, which represents the largest fine in Oz history but only an estimated .007.7 % of Pratt's fortune. Insignificant small bickies, when thousands of farmers, business's, retail industries are sent to the wall as the result of his shenanegans at $ 700 M (ACCC figures) A more realistic educated guess over 20 year period would be any where between four to five times that amount. Fined a measly .05 % is nothing short of dispicable. In all consciousness, he should face confiscation or bequeath the 99.95 % to charity.

Pratt is a major political donator. $300,000 in 2003-4. $200,000 in 2005-06 to JWH's Liberal National Party (AEC web site) He received an AO in 1988, and the Companion of the Order in 1998. His wife is also an AC recipient.

Ian Ramsey - Director University of Melbourne's centre of corporate Law compellingly urges the Govt to fast-track the introduction of penalties up to five years jail to bring Aust into line with Global best practice. The prospect of jail would be more effective than fines or damage to reputations.

Consumer watchdog Choice backs amendments to the Trade Practices Act to allow criminal penalties such as a prison term to be included in the Aust Competition & Consumer Commission's arsenal in fighting against cartels. Executives who seriously break the law, just like other criminals. Why should garden variety thieves go to jail but corporate chief's who steal millions from customers go unpunished ?

My sentiments entirely !

Desipis

“they have sufficient capital to take a hit”
When we talk about equality and all people being treated the same it’s not just the dumb or the handicapped we’re thinking of. Believe it or not Desipis, it means EVERYONE, and that happens to include the smart and the rich. I am rather surprised by your “all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others” implication.
By the way, check your demographics. Not all investors live in Toorak or Mosman and are wealthy. Also, who do you think are the benefactors of the big superannuation funds currently flooding the financial markets.

“It's a matter of balancing the freedoms granted against the impact those freedoms have on others”
You might balance a freedom against another freedom, but you don’t, at least in an enlightened liberal democracy, balance a freedom of one segment of society against saving another segment’s part of the cost of packaging their slabs of beer.

“Price fixing harms others' freedom to purchase from a competitive market and harms the economy in general”
Give me a break. There’s no freedom to purchase at a lower price. Freedom is a specific concept which should not be diluted by using it in any context. Freedoms are to speak, to travel, to associate, to marry, to follow your own vocation, to procreate, to choose, to consume alcohol etc etc

There’s no harm to the economy (as though that should be a justification to violate rights anyway) when the $10.00 higher price is in the pocket of the seller instead of the buyer. It’s still in the economy to be spent somewhere. Where the economy is harmed is when we waste millions of dollars on the upkeep of the ACCC and various associated court trials. Couldn’t all those bureaucrats be better occupied prosecuting real criminal activities. You know: government bribery, corruption, theft and fraud.

Edward,

I'm not suggesting that any individual be treated differently, just that different relationships be treated differently. If the government took a hands off approach to the labour market, there would employment that's little more than slavery.

You appear to have little understanding of economics and the necessity for the government to regulate various sections of the economy. You seem to rate one's ability to turn an excessive profit as more important than one's ability to acquire goods or services needed to survive in today's world. How would you feel if all the food growers/producers in the world got together and decided not to sell you food unless you sign you life away. Sure it might seem unfeasible, but when you consider the immense power they would wield it's not worth the risk.

If others could act as Mr Pratt did, he wouldn't have stood a chance in business as the suppliers he relied on to operate would have colluded to sell at a price that deprived Mr Pratt of any opportunity to make a return on his investment. If everyone acted as Mr Pratt did then the entire economy would collapse as investors would realise there was a significant chance of not receiving a return on their investment. If you want the freedom to participate in the economy, you have to follow the rules.

"Freedom is a specific concept which should not be diluted by using it in any context. Freedoms are to speak, to travel, to associate, to marry, to follow your own vocation, to procreate, to choose, to consume alcohol etc etc"

I don't generally disagree with your notion of freedom, however I don't include the freedom to rip people off. Charging above fair market value IS ripping people off, and price fixing leads to prices above market value, thus I don't agree people should have the freedom to price fix.