Re: Boycott Microsoft

From: Mark A. Peters <mapeters_at_pacbell.net>
Date: 1998/06/03
Message-ID: <6l42pp$4hh$1@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>#1/1

---

In article <359d4c38.47176584_at_news.supernews.com>, mdevlin_at_eltrax.com (T. Max Devlin) wrote:
>One idea that might help you re-analyze your impractical "all regulation
>is unnecessary" principle is that while your "skyscraper" may be built
>with "rights" being the link between politics and morality, mine would
>have "responsibilities" being the link between commerce and ethics.
>Microsoft is acting irresponsibly _for the science, industry, and
>markets of technology_, and that puts anti-trust on quite strong ethical
>grounds, as far as I am concerned. When the profit motive of one
>company can be prevented from resulting in restriction of fair market
>access and healthy competition ("restraint of trade"), then despite the
>ambiguous text required to make such activities illegal (do you also
>think the RICCO Act is "immoral"?), the Sherman Act is on firm moral
>ground, and protects the rights of everyone concerned.

Although it is true (in spades) that government regulation of the economy is unnecessary, that isn't my main point, and that isn't the fundamental reason all such regulation should be eliminated. Government regulation of the economy should be eliminated because it violates individual rights. The fact that such regulation is unnecessary is a consequence of that.

Microsoft is NOT acting irresponsibly, and even if it were, that is not a valid basis for legal action against it. Microsoft is doing exactly what a good company should do - make money, and it is doing it by a 100% _moral_ means - trade. Microsoft's success has created vast numbers of jobs, and even entire new industries, and that is the opposite of irresponsible. There is nothing morally wrong (and there shouldn't be anything politically wrong) with making huge profits via trade, nor with gaining a large or even exclusive market share via trade. Microsoft's success is 100% _deserved_, and Netscape's, Sun's failure (by comparison) is also.

The fact of the matter is that some individuals, and by extension, some companies, are _better_ (smarter, more ambitious, skilled, etc) than others, and as a matter of justice they _should_ garner greater rewards.

It's simply _wrong_ to focus on competition as the key essential of a free market. In a free market, by and large there will be competition, but the absence of competition is a bad thing only when the reason for it is the presence of a gun (government interference) in the market. If a company gains a 100% market share through trade, that benefits _everybody_; the disappointment and/or envy of failed competitors is not a valid justification for introducing that gun into the market. In that context, unless a better company comes along, there _shouldn't_ be competition in that market. Again, I urge those who doubt my view on any of these purely economic issues to read Ludwig Von Mises, Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, etc., and then integrate what you learn from them with the history of the 19th century.

Mark Peters Received on Wed Jun 03 1998 - 00:00:00 CDT