If You will entertain the idea that people in the role of customers have
free choice making (thats another issue), I't seems to me M$ has a so
called monopoly by consent, in the simplisity that "if you dont want it,
dont buy it ! "
I have Access to any OS or browser I chose, I voted with my wallet, I wish
IE was supported on linux, dont you ?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 4:16 AM
Subject: Re: POL: Reaction to Microsoft Ruling
> 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
> > principles. Who says we shouldn't fight against them? Gravity's an
> > 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
> > >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?
> > prevents a private police force from searching your house without a
> > 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 - 14:09:16 MDT