Re: Boycott Microsoft

The massive ignorance evident in this posting is all that is required to confirm that Microsoft bashers have no leg to stand on.

Mark Peters

In article <3590581e.15152132_at_news.supernews.com>, mdevlin_at_eltrax.com (T. Max Devlin) wrote:

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

>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.
 

>[...]
 

>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. ;-(
 

>[...]
 

>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.
 

>[...]
>You have GOT to be kidding me.
 

>[...]
 

>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.

The bottom line is that Max Devlin's ideas are _Hitler_ incarnate. And for that reason, the only proper response is: please kill yourself before reality kills you.

Mark Peters

xxx
xxx
xxx
x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
xx

x Received on Sun Jun 07 1998 - 00:00:00 CDT