Re: Boycott Microsoft

"Mark A. Peters" <mapeters_at_pacbell.net>, on Wed, 03 Jun 1998 11:01:21

   [...]
>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.

Let's see... capitalist fanatic, market worshiper, pie-in-the-sky idealist; which label would you like? Whether government regulation of the economy is "unnecessary" in a perfect capitalist world is really entirely irrelevant, as is your childish notion that all such regulation violates "individual" rights.

Damn right it violates individual rights. Same as laws against fraud, laws against abandoning toxic sludge, laws against spitting on the freaking sidewalks. You know, I was in my late twenties before I realized why society not only has the _right_ to tell me I can't spit on the sidewalk, it has the _responsibility_ to do so in many cases (such as if I live in an area where people don't spit on the sidewalks). Likewise, it is entirely appropriate for the government to prevent restraint of trade. Notice that this is the only action being contemplated. The only scenario I can see where "regulation" even enters into it is if Microsoft steadfastly refuses to take responsibility for their action and their position. Then "regulation" may be indirectly provided by a consent decree, or, worst case, laws may actually be passed which structure the software markets. (Notice; the markets, not the software). Since software is infinitely mutable, this may indeed be ultimately necessary to protect the consumer, and their "right" to be free from being taken advantage of by wealthy interests.

>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.

So far, so good. What about something morally (and legally, not politically) wrong with using that 100% moral (if it were true; it ain't) market share to restrict the trade of others, rather than to trade yourself? What about when you are not doing it to make money, but to ensure that nobody else can make more? What if I "make money" by selling browser software to little old ladies for $25,000 a pop? Is this still "moral"? I suspect you would think so, on the basis that it's the little old ladies' fault for making such a poorly-thought-out business decision. ;-(

>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.

So long as you don't use the amount of awards they garner as your sole criteria for judging how much better they are, this might be a reasonable statement. But if you are going to go at it backwards, and use their greater rewards as the sole support for your theory that they are smarter, more skilled, more ambitious, or more greedy, or whatever, it is just a circular argument with no justification.

>
>It's simply _wrong_ to focus on competition as the key essential of a free
>market.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

> 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.

And these impressive sounding economists actually said that it is wrong to focus on competition as the key essential of a free market? Well then, they were wrong in that. ;-)

How about paying some attention to the 20th century, where small corporations dwarf the resources and power structures of entire nations in the 19th? I will reason with you that it is possible that eventually we will abandoned the idea of countries, and rely on corporations to secure our individual liberties. I won't bother debating if it would be an appropriate action to take at this time; the idea is moronic, and _ignores_ history, rather than learning from it.

--

T. Max Devlin
Hi-TECH Connections/Eltrax Systems
*****************************************************
 -   Opinions expressed are my own.
       Anyone else may use them only in
        accordance with licensing agreements.   -