Re: POL: Reaction to Microsoft Ruling

From: Michael S. Lorrey (
Date: Wed Apr 12 2000 - 05:16:36 MDT

Matt Gingell wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, you wrote:
> >> All real power is based in force or the threat of force,
> >
> >No, it isn't. Those who try to ignore the objective reality of natural
> >law have to use force to fight against that objective reality.
> I don't know what you're talking about here - what's a natural law in
> this context? And anyway, so what if there are some? Maybe universal emergent
> principles. Who says we shouldn't fight against them? Gravity's an objective
> reality, that doesn't make airplanes impossible or useless.

I suggest you study some more political science, with a focus on natural
law, and see how the natural laws of science apply to natural laws of
political power and liberty.

> >So as I've said, people who think like you buy the precept of "People
> >are no damn good and need to be kept penned up for their 'own good'."
> No. As long as you're not hurting anyone else, do what you want. Buy
> all the guns you want - whatever totem it takes to ward of the black
> helicopters - so long as you don't shoot anyone it's none of my
> business. What I do think is necessary though are mechanisms to
> prevent abuse of power, be that physical power, economic power, or
> whatever.

Economic can always be countered by ingenuity and the freedom to choose
where to spend your own damn money. Government tries to limit these as
well. The only reason you support the dismantling of MS and not the
enslavement of yourself is that at least its happening to the other guy.

> >You don't understand your own system. Your system is structured to
> >maximize the possible bribes that dumb middle class and wealthy people
> >have to pay to cops, prosecutors, and mayors in order to get off or get
> >light sentences when they break the law. Since there are SO many laws in
> >NY, the average person can easily be found to be in violation of any
> >number of laws without knowing it, and that makes the average person on
> >the street and easy victim for a police shakedown.
> I agree that there's a disturbing authoritarian trend, but the
> solution is better government - not anarchy. I think you're being
> disproportionately paranoid. They'll be a counter swing. Giuliani is
> an example here - he swept in on a law and order platform, and now
> public outrage over police brutality looks like it might nix his
> senate run.

So a better, more comfortable harness is preferable by you over freedom.
I see.
> The rationale behind the latest hike was to discourage under age
> smoking, on the theory kids have less money to set fire to than
> adults. The public health establishment views drinking, drug use,
> smoking, etc. as diseases to be eradicated, polio style, by public
> policy. Social cost is just a useful argument. If the prohibitionists
> gave more than lip service to social cost they'd take one look at the
> price of drug enforcement and prisons, not to mention the crime
> generated by a blackmarket economy and artificial inflated prices,
> then give up.

Do you really think that realizing that will stop them?

> >Bullshit yourself. The principles of our democracy have gotten run over
> >roughshod by the federal government for the last 3/4 century.
> We've had unprecedented advances in rights for women and minorities,
> social welfare, working conditions, and the largest economy in the
> world. Let rampant roughshod running reign. But you've ignored the
> interesting question: What good is a constitution without a government? What
> prevents a private police force from searching your house without a warrant or
> seizing your guns if a fickle market so demands?

What good is a government without constitutional protections to prevent
its abuse? A government that oversteps its bounds is as treasonous a
government as an individual who sells secrets to the enemies of that
nation or constitution or as an individual who would attempt to
terrorize the populace. They all need to be removed.

> >Government is not US, its 50.00000001% of us crushing everyone else.
> >Thats the central fallacy of democracy. It doesn't represent everyone,
> >just those who voted for whoever is in power.
> The majority doesn't become any less oppressive because they're voting
> with their dollars instead of in an election. Why is Microsoft's use
> of it's market power justified because people buy their product, yet
> government is oppressive because they do what people elect them to do?
> Think about the analogy and what it implies for anarcho-capitalism.

Because Microsoft having 50.0001% of the market doesn't mean they can
force you to buy their product, or shoot you and your family dead for
refusing to buy it. Government can, has, and will continue to do this.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:15 MDT