Slashdot Mirror

Privatize Mars Exploration Now!

Ha!

Not only have you misread the article entirely, you are completely wrong about your basic philosophy. Try this article.
You actually suggest that we should look to other "guiding principles"? Like socialism, or communism, or fascim. All of these carry the same philosophy as yours.

The Findings of Fact in the Microsoft case, and the impending decision, have sparked a lot of controversey in the last week. In addition to debate over the correctness of the findings, and the possible outcome, there has been much talk about modern antitrust law and its relation to the "free market" economic model.

While I personally disagree, sites such as microsoft.aynrand.org (among many others) staunchly maintain that the antitrust laws used in the prosecution of Microsoft are in fact inimical to a free market. They argue that Microsoft should be left alone, not because of PR Marketing BS like the "freedom to innovate", but because they feel that market forces should ultimately (and are already starting to) make the final decision.

More specifically, some propose that modern antitrust law has become less appropriate or relevant to the high pace of the technology marketplace, and may be in need of revision to more accurately perform its desired function. Do you feel that antitrust law is still effective in the changing atmosphere of modern business, and if not, what changes do you feel could be made to increase its effectiveness?

Anthony


^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)

The ADA, and this lawsuit in particular, is an attack on freedom. The plaintiffs are attempting to short-circuit the market, short-circuit AOL's freedom to provide the services it chooses at the rates it chooses to customers who like these offerings by forcing AOL (by means of Government intervention, backed by the use of physical force) to coerce AOL to meet the demands of a particular group of consumers.

The fact that some people are blind, unable to fully access media that most people are able to does not constitute a claim on the time, money, and energy of producers. Arguing that AOL should be forced to develop and provide special services to any group that claims to need them effectively destroys the company. When the government begins making business decisions for a firm, the firm essentially becomes a new wing of the federal government.

For more on the moral defense of producers and innovators like AOL, see www.moraldefense.com. For a moral defense of Microsoft, see microsoft.aynrand.org. --Blake

Very good point. I believe the two characters are very similar, too. The Gates = Reardon similarity has obviously been noticed by a lot of people, not only the Objectivist bunch (who have a well-known Microsoft defense site , BTW).

Specifically Microsofties(what people who work at Microsoft call themselves) seem to allude to the connection a lot, I believe the new company of one of the original founders of WebTV (acquired by Microsoft) is named "Reardon Steel".

The Ayn Rand Institute is a firm believer that the excercise of anti-trust law in the DoJ trial against Microsoft is immoral, and that "Bill Gates, no less than the poorest citizen, has the rights to his property and his pursuit of happiness."

Economist Richard Salsman (whom, I assume, represents the Institute), will be explaining the Institute's position with regard to Microsoft in a talk entitled "The Lynching of Microsoft" at Carnegie Mellon University (in Pittsburgh, PA) on October 21st at 8:00 PM in Wean Hall 7500.

Please read; though it may sound like flamebait, it brings up a few poignant issues.

"Here's the situation. In the U.S. and abroad, governments just aren't providing the money colleges and universities need to meet sharply increased demands for computing services."

Yup, it starts off with the left-liberal complaint: lack of government funding. And it goes on:

"But the need for vendor assistance may override such concerns. As California State University (CSU) chancellor Charles Reed keeps saying, if you're nervous about vendor funding for campus computing infrastructures, there's only one remedy: "Get used to it."

It so happens that CSU chancellor Reed understands that efficient free markets and private business, NOT bureaucrats or government officials, should guide large institutional decisions.

It should be the students, NOT the taxpayers, that should subsidize any upgrade to a school campus. And if the students or institution cannot afford it, the school must either: [1] close, go out of business (since it was probably inefficient and mismanaged) or [2] seek vendor funding/support. There is absolutely nothing wrong with either scenario, and the long-term effect is better education for all students and the elimination of sub-standard schools.

Now how does this relate to Linux/Unix?

We already know that the Unix/Mac vendors have tried their so-called "monopolistic" practices in educational institutions for years - now there's outcry when Microsoft does the same? What hypocrisy!

And about Linux... this can be the true test of Linux' "freedom." Can anyone make an economically viable model that is as efficient as Microsoft's that can beat out MS's deal to universities in a free market? Didn't think so... so if Linux cannot survive the free market test, it cannot accurately be a "free" software.

After all, the markets will decide, and so far Microsoft is still winning. Linux is a good operating system technically, but the GNU General Public Virus is what makes it economically unviable. Its advocates should really examine the self-destructive nature of supporting the GPL in the Free Market of a truly Free Society.

To realize the power of truly free markets and pure freedom, check out these links:

http://www.capitalism.org

http://www.aynrand.org

http://www.lp.org

Art is that which serves no purpose but to be contemplated. Code is a means to a utilitarian end; a novel, a statue, or a symphony is not. Therefore, the Linux kernel is not art -- not in the strict sense of the term.

However, one can admire the work that went into it, the beauty of it, and the skill with which it was constructed. (Where applicable.)

(p.s. check out The Romantic Manifesto. Hey, it wouldn't be Slashdot without the occasional Ayn Rand Rant!)

-- Anonymous Coward

Bravo, mah brutha!
You read Ayn Rand at all?

The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk

Hmmm, longer and daily I think, and those after effects are pretty shocking. The people that said three people are a bit hard to undertsand all the time are right, but it does add to the flow of the conversation.

If you had special editions, with interviews with people who would be relevant or similar, would really add much to the whole concept.


----=----
Life is not the avoidance of death.
----=----

It's interesting to see this reference to Ayn Rand. Howard Roark, the main character of The Fountain Head, is an architect who is constantly turning his back on capitalist ventures which he feels compromise his artistic integrity. The real pay off for him isn't in the money, but in the art and beauty of his creations. That kind of sounds familiar.

More information about Ayn Rand and objectivism can be found at aynrand.org

bnf