Slashdot Mirror

Secondly, the argument that there's no alternative is also bullshit. There are numerous vendors that offer to install GNU/Linux, and there are individuals who'll do that for money. E.g., RayServers. Furthermore, contracts between OEMs and MS to only sell their computers with MS Windows installed are voluntary private contracts that violate the rights of no-one. OEMs have the right to sell their PC's however they like to. No-one has the right to prevent them from only putting MS software on their PC's, or force them to put anythign on there that they don't want to. Doing such -- first and foremost -- is a violation of their property rights, which is also a violation of freedom of association (which really boils down to property rights).

Thirdly, anti-trust laws are nonsense. See The Case Against All Antitrust Legislation and The Truth About Sherman by Thomas DiLorenzo:

• If you raise prices, you're accused of "price-gouging".

• If you leave prices the same, you're accused of "price-collusion".

• If you cut prices, you're accused of "undercutting".

I would also suggest Monopoly and Competition from Murray Rothbard's treatise on economics, Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market .

Regarding "predatory pricing" in particular, it is the most ridiculous and idiotic idea that anyone's ever come up with. To make a law protecting us from "predatory pricing" is really no different than making a law protecting us against "unicorns" or "witches" -- things that simply don't exist. Of course, that doesn't stop the witch-hunt.

What price-cutting refers to is cutting prices below the level of any competitors to drive them out of business, and then afterwards raising prices to extremely high levels. This, of course, is total humbug. If any of you think this is a good idea, try suggesting it to an executive at your company. You'll be laughed out of the company. Any company that tried doing such a thing would go bankrupt, because companies cannot operate on a loss for a sustained period of time (and it would take a sustained period of time to drive competitors out of business). Furthermore, the second part -- that they can then just raise prices to be very high -- is flatly wrong, since that would encourage competitors to enter the field, thus forcing them to lower their prices or go out of business. In reality, such a scheme has never been implemented in the real world, and never will, because it is impossible. See Monopoly and Competition.

Secondly, the argument that there's no alternative is also bullshit. There are numerous vendors that offer to install GNU/Linux, and there are individuals who'll do that for money. E.g., RayServers. Furthermore, contracts between OEMs and MS to only sell their computers with MS Windows installed are voluntary private contracts that violate the rights of no-one. OEMs have the right to sell their PC's however they like to. No-one has the right to prevent them from only putting MS software on their PC's, or force them to put anythign on there that they don't want to. Doing such -- first and foremost -- is a violation of their property rights, which is also a violation of freedom of association (which really boils down to property rights).

Thirdly, anti-trust laws are nonsense. See The Case Against All Antitrust Legislation and The Truth About Sherman by Thomas DiLorenzo:

• If you raise prices, you're accused of "price-gouging".

• If you leave prices the same, you're accused of "price-collusion".

• If you cut prices, you're accused of "undercutting".

I would also suggest Monopoly and Competition from Murray Rothbard's treatise on economics, Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market .

Regarding "predatory pricing" in particular, it is the most ridiculous and idiotic idea that anyone's ever come up with. To make a law protecting us from "predatory pricing" is really no different than making a law protecting us against "unicorns" or "witches" -- things that simply don't exist. Of course, that doesn't stop the witch-hunt.

What price-cutting refers to is cutting prices below the level of any competitors to drive them out of business, and then afterwards raising prices to extremely high levels. This, of course, is total humbug. If any of you think this is a good idea, try suggesting it to an executive at your company. You'll be laughed out of the company. Any company that tried doing such a thing would go bankrupt, because companies cannot operate on a loss for a sustained period of time (and it would take a sustained period of time to drive competitors out of business). Furthermore, the second part -- that they can then just raise prices to be very high -- is flatly wrong, since that would encourage competitors to enter the field, thus forcing them to lower their prices or go out of business. In reality, such a scheme has never been implemented in the real world, and never will, because it is impossible. See Monopoly and Competition.

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
1. The condition of a slave; the state of entire subjection
of one person to the will of another.
2. A condition of subjection or submission characterized by
lack of freedom of action or of will.

"...doing what is best for the american economy is the "only" thing alan greenspan has to worry about."

No, deliberately inflating the money supply without causing bank runs is all Alan Greenspan has to worry about. Read this if you want the real story (it's short and it's free, so you don't have any reason not to).

1. Monopolize money supply
2. Profit!!!
3. ???

There's a very interesting article regarding market prediction of future events from both a Hayekian perspective and that of von Mises.

Human beings are not objects. We have free will, the ability to choose. All that any such searching for patterns would be doing is searching for patterns in the historical past -- that is, it would be the act of categorizing history. In the social sciences, there are no fixed relations. See Social Science and Natural Science.

Nope. Open source is still the best way to go, along with open government. When you let people hide "stuff", and when it's connected to massive political power and heaps 0 money, that's when crimes occur. The best bet is openness, bar none. It is not perfect, but it's the best design yet.

Relax, doesn't mean you're going to throw a brick through a Starbucks windows. Real anarchists don't do such destructive acts.

Some anarchists do, some don't.

Libertarian anarchists, or anarcho-capitalists, most certainly do not. Above all, rights are about the protection of private property. As such, there is still a rule of law, but it is not in the hands of the State. Each person or entity is responsible for providing for his own protection or defense of property, which is one reason why libertarians are strong advocates of the 2nd Amendment.

The best introduction to anarcho-capitalism is Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.

However, it's a big win for Lindows. They get $20 million just for changing their domain name and company name. It's pretty clear that MS would have lost this case. You don't get trademarks to everything that even sounds like what you have a trademark to.

As a libertarian, I'm against trademarks, tradesecrets, patents, and copyrights to begin with. See the following articles:

Against Intellectual Property. Kinsella, Stephan.

Do patents and copyrights undermine private property?

Patents and Copyrights: Do the Benefits Exceed the Costs? Cole, Julio H.

Government and Microsoft: A Libertarian View on Monopolies. Rideau, François-René.

Against Intellectual Property. Martin, Brian.

The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights. Long, Roderick T.

However, it's a big win for Lindows. They get $20 million just for changing their domain name and company name. It's pretty clear that MS would have lost this case. You don't get trademarks to everything that even sounds like what you have a trademark to.

As a libertarian, I'm against trademarks, tradesecrets, patents, and copyrights to begin with. See the following articles:

Against Intellectual Property. Kinsella, Stephan.

Do patents and copyrights undermine private property?

Patents and Copyrights: Do the Benefits Exceed the Costs? Cole, Julio H.

Government and Microsoft: A Libertarian View on Monopolies. Rideau, François-René.

Against Intellectual Property. Martin, Brian.

The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights. Long, Roderick T.

Microsoft, as a private entity, should be able to do with their property as they please; they should be able to give it away for free, for $10, or for $10,000 if they so please. If you don't like it, don't buy their product. The whole argument that "consumers got hurt" is bullshit. It's competitors (like Netscape and their bloatware) who get "hurt", because MS is able to out-compete them by providing superior products at superior prices. No-one has the "right" to make a profit, only to try.

If Microsoft's competitors can't hack it, that's tough for them (of course, I'm also anti-copyright and anti-patent, as those are just grants of monopoly priviledges, but all software companies have those grants, thus are on approximately equal footing with one-another). They don't have a right to make a profit anymore than MS does. Nor do they have a "right" to have their products installed by default on the computers of OEMs, or offered in various stores. This would be a violation of the rights of OEMs to their property.

If you don't like MS, you have the option not to use their products. It is simple as that. Personally, I think their products aren't worth the price when there's equivalently good software (imo) available for free. Obviously, the vast majority of people don't think that, otherwise they'd be using Linux (or they simply don't want to go to the bother). If you can't find a computer that comes installed with the OS of your choice by default, you can hire someone to do that for you. There really are no excuses. What you can't and shouldn't be allowed to do is to force others to engage in an involuntary transaction by providing you with the options you want at what you arbitrarily deem to be a "reasonable" price.

What you apparently want to do is prevent voluntary transactions from occuring and violate the property rights of others.

I'd suggest you read some articles about anti-trust laws. They are nothing but a bunch of humbug.

• Anti-trust, Anti-truth. DiLorenzo, Thomas.
• Antitrust for Fun and Profit. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• Antitrust and Microsoft. Armentano, Dominick.
• Antitrust: Enemy of Freedom. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• How Antitrust Ruined the Movies. Thornton, Mark.
• Antitrust Violates Rights. Anderson, William L.
• The Antitrust Economists' Paradox. DiLorenzo, Thomas.
• Antitrust Meets Women's Rights. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• The Truth About Sherman. DiLorenzo, Thomas.

My last paragraph was sarcastic. The point was to show the bullshit that is anti-trust laws. Companies can't win. No-matter how they price their products, they can be accused of some evil practice. A particularly heinous example is when companies raise the price of things like umbrellas during natural disasters; they're then accused of "price-gouging". The idi

Microsoft, as a private entity, should be able to do with their property as they please; they should be able to give it away for free, for $10, or for $10,000 if they so please. If you don't like it, don't buy their product. The whole argument that "consumers got hurt" is bullshit. It's competitors (like Netscape and their bloatware) who get "hurt", because MS is able to out-compete them by providing superior products at superior prices. No-one has the "right" to make a profit, only to try.

If Microsoft's competitors can't hack it, that's tough for them (of course, I'm also anti-copyright and anti-patent, as those are just grants of monopoly priviledges, but all software companies have those grants, thus are on approximately equal footing with one-another). They don't have a right to make a profit anymore than MS does. Nor do they have a "right" to have their products installed by default on the computers of OEMs, or offered in various stores. This would be a violation of the rights of OEMs to their property.

If you don't like MS, you have the option not to use their products. It is simple as that. Personally, I think their products aren't worth the price when there's equivalently good software (imo) available for free. Obviously, the vast majority of people don't think that, otherwise they'd be using Linux (or they simply don't want to go to the bother). If you can't find a computer that comes installed with the OS of your choice by default, you can hire someone to do that for you. There really are no excuses. What you can't and shouldn't be allowed to do is to force others to engage in an involuntary transaction by providing you with the options you want at what you arbitrarily deem to be a "reasonable" price.

What you apparently want to do is prevent voluntary transactions from occuring and violate the property rights of others.

I'd suggest you read some articles about anti-trust laws. They are nothing but a bunch of humbug.

• Anti-trust, Anti-truth. DiLorenzo, Thomas.
• Antitrust for Fun and Profit. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• Antitrust and Microsoft. Armentano, Dominick.
• Antitrust: Enemy of Freedom. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• How Antitrust Ruined the Movies. Thornton, Mark.
• Antitrust Violates Rights. Anderson, William L.
• The Antitrust Economists' Paradox. DiLorenzo, Thomas.
• Antitrust Meets Women's Rights. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• The Truth About Sherman. DiLorenzo, Thomas.

My last paragraph was sarcastic. The point was to show the bullshit that is anti-trust laws. Companies can't win. No-matter how they price their products, they can be accused of some evil practice. A particularly heinous example is when companies raise the price of things like umbrellas during natural disasters; they're then accused of "price-gouging". The idi

Microsoft, as a private entity, should be able to do with their property as they please; they should be able to give it away for free, for $10, or for $10,000 if they so please. If you don't like it, don't buy their product. The whole argument that "consumers got hurt" is bullshit. It's competitors (like Netscape and their bloatware) who get "hurt", because MS is able to out-compete them by providing superior products at superior prices. No-one has the "right" to make a profit, only to try.

If Microsoft's competitors can't hack it, that's tough for them (of course, I'm also anti-copyright and anti-patent, as those are just grants of monopoly priviledges, but all software companies have those grants, thus are on approximately equal footing with one-another). They don't have a right to make a profit anymore than MS does. Nor do they have a "right" to have their products installed by default on the computers of OEMs, or offered in various stores. This would be a violation of the rights of OEMs to their property.

If you don't like MS, you have the option not to use their products. It is simple as that. Personally, I think their products aren't worth the price when there's equivalently good software (imo) available for free. Obviously, the vast majority of people don't think that, otherwise they'd be using Linux (or they simply don't want to go to the bother). If you can't find a computer that comes installed with the OS of your choice by default, you can hire someone to do that for you. There really are no excuses. What you can't and shouldn't be allowed to do is to force others to engage in an involuntary transaction by providing you with the options you want at what you arbitrarily deem to be a "reasonable" price.

What you apparently want to do is prevent voluntary transactions from occuring and violate the property rights of others.

I'd suggest you read some articles about anti-trust laws. They are nothing but a bunch of humbug.

• Anti-trust, Anti-truth. DiLorenzo, Thomas.
• Antitrust for Fun and Profit. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• Antitrust and Microsoft. Armentano, Dominick.
• Antitrust: Enemy of Freedom. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• How Antitrust Ruined the Movies. Thornton, Mark.
• Antitrust Violates Rights. Anderson, William L.
• The Antitrust Economists' Paradox. DiLorenzo, Thomas.
• Antitrust Meets Women's Rights. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• The Truth About Sherman. DiLorenzo, Thomas.

My last paragraph was sarcastic. The point was to show the bullshit that is anti-trust laws. Companies can't win. No-matter how they price their products, they can be accused of some evil practice. A particularly heinous example is when companies raise the price of things like umbrellas during natural disasters; they're then accused of "price-gouging". The idi

Microsoft, as a private entity, should be able to do with their property as they please; they should be able to give it away for free, for $10, or for $10,000 if they so please. If you don't like it, don't buy their product. The whole argument that "consumers got hurt" is bullshit. It's competitors (like Netscape and their bloatware) who get "hurt", because MS is able to out-compete them by providing superior products at superior prices. No-one has the "right" to make a profit, only to try.

If Microsoft's competitors can't hack it, that's tough for them (of course, I'm also anti-copyright and anti-patent, as those are just grants of monopoly priviledges, but all software companies have those grants, thus are on approximately equal footing with one-another). They don't have a right to make a profit anymore than MS does. Nor do they have a "right" to have their products installed by default on the computers of OEMs, or offered in various stores. This would be a violation of the rights of OEMs to their property.

If you don't like MS, you have the option not to use their products. It is simple as that. Personally, I think their products aren't worth the price when there's equivalently good software (imo) available for free. Obviously, the vast majority of people don't think that, otherwise they'd be using Linux (or they simply don't want to go to the bother). If you can't find a computer that comes installed with the OS of your choice by default, you can hire someone to do that for you. There really are no excuses. What you can't and shouldn't be allowed to do is to force others to engage in an involuntary transaction by providing you with the options you want at what you arbitrarily deem to be a "reasonable" price.

What you apparently want to do is prevent voluntary transactions from occuring and violate the property rights of others.

I'd suggest you read some articles about anti-trust laws. They are nothing but a bunch of humbug.

• Anti-trust, Anti-truth. DiLorenzo, Thomas.
• Antitrust for Fun and Profit. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• Antitrust and Microsoft. Armentano, Dominick.
• Antitrust: Enemy of Freedom. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• How Antitrust Ruined the Movies. Thornton, Mark.
• Antitrust Violates Rights. Anderson, William L.
• The Antitrust Economists' Paradox. DiLorenzo, Thomas.
• Antitrust Meets Women's Rights. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• The Truth About Sherman. DiLorenzo, Thomas.

My last paragraph was sarcastic. The point was to show the bullshit that is anti-trust laws. Companies can't win. No-matter how they price their products, they can be accused of some evil practice. A particularly heinous example is when companies raise the price of things like umbrellas during natural disasters; they're then accused of "price-gouging". The idi

Microsoft, as a private entity, should be able to do with their property as they please; they should be able to give it away for free, for $10, or for $10,000 if they so please. If you don't like it, don't buy their product. The whole argument that "consumers got hurt" is bullshit. It's competitors (like Netscape and their bloatware) who get "hurt", because MS is able to out-compete them by providing superior products at superior prices. No-one has the "right" to make a profit, only to try.

If Microsoft's competitors can't hack it, that's tough for them (of course, I'm also anti-copyright and anti-patent, as those are just grants of monopoly priviledges, but all software companies have those grants, thus are on approximately equal footing with one-another). They don't have a right to make a profit anymore than MS does. Nor do they have a "right" to have their products installed by default on the computers of OEMs, or offered in various stores. This would be a violation of the rights of OEMs to their property.

If you don't like MS, you have the option not to use their products. It is simple as that. Personally, I think their products aren't worth the price when there's equivalently good software (imo) available for free. Obviously, the vast majority of people don't think that, otherwise they'd be using Linux (or they simply don't want to go to the bother). If you can't find a computer that comes installed with the OS of your choice by default, you can hire someone to do that for you. There really are no excuses. What you can't and shouldn't be allowed to do is to force others to engage in an involuntary transaction by providing you with the options you want at what you arbitrarily deem to be a "reasonable" price.

What you apparently want to do is prevent voluntary transactions from occuring and violate the property rights of others.

I'd suggest you read some articles about anti-trust laws. They are nothing but a bunch of humbug.

• Anti-trust, Anti-truth. DiLorenzo, Thomas.
• Antitrust for Fun and Profit. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• Antitrust and Microsoft. Armentano, Dominick.
• Antitrust: Enemy of Freedom. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• How Antitrust Ruined the Movies. Thornton, Mark.
• Antitrust Violates Rights. Anderson, William L.
• The Antitrust Economists' Paradox. DiLorenzo, Thomas.
• Antitrust Meets Women's Rights. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• The Truth About Sherman. DiLorenzo, Thomas.

My last paragraph was sarcastic. The point was to show the bullshit that is anti-trust laws. Companies can't win. No-matter how they price their products, they can be accused of some evil practice. A particularly heinous example is when companies raise the price of things like umbrellas during natural disasters; they're then accused of "price-gouging". The idi

Microsoft, as a private entity, should be able to do with their property as they please; they should be able to give it away for free, for $10, or for $10,000 if they so please. If you don't like it, don't buy their product. The whole argument that "consumers got hurt" is bullshit. It's competitors (like Netscape and their bloatware) who get "hurt", because MS is able to out-compete them by providing superior products at superior prices. No-one has the "right" to make a profit, only to try.

If Microsoft's competitors can't hack it, that's tough for them (of course, I'm also anti-copyright and anti-patent, as those are just grants of monopoly priviledges, but all software companies have those grants, thus are on approximately equal footing with one-another). They don't have a right to make a profit anymore than MS does. Nor do they have a "right" to have their products installed by default on the computers of OEMs, or offered in various stores. This would be a violation of the rights of OEMs to their property.

If you don't like MS, you have the option not to use their products. It is simple as that. Personally, I think their products aren't worth the price when there's equivalently good software (imo) available for free. Obviously, the vast majority of people don't think that, otherwise they'd be using Linux (or they simply don't want to go to the bother). If you can't find a computer that comes installed with the OS of your choice by default, you can hire someone to do that for you. There really are no excuses. What you can't and shouldn't be allowed to do is to force others to engage in an involuntary transaction by providing you with the options you want at what you arbitrarily deem to be a "reasonable" price.

What you apparently want to do is prevent voluntary transactions from occuring and violate the property rights of others.

I'd suggest you read some articles about anti-trust laws. They are nothing but a bunch of humbug.

• Anti-trust, Anti-truth. DiLorenzo, Thomas.
• Antitrust for Fun and Profit. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• Antitrust and Microsoft. Armentano, Dominick.
• Antitrust: Enemy of Freedom. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• How Antitrust Ruined the Movies. Thornton, Mark.
• Antitrust Violates Rights. Anderson, William L.
• The Antitrust Economists' Paradox. DiLorenzo, Thomas.
• Antitrust Meets Women's Rights. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• The Truth About Sherman. DiLorenzo, Thomas.

My last paragraph was sarcastic. The point was to show the bullshit that is anti-trust laws. Companies can't win. No-matter how they price their products, they can be accused of some evil practice. A particularly heinous example is when companies raise the price of things like umbrellas during natural disasters; they're then accused of "price-gouging". The idi

Microsoft, as a private entity, should be able to do with their property as they please; they should be able to give it away for free, for $10, or for $10,000 if they so please. If you don't like it, don't buy their product. The whole argument that "consumers got hurt" is bullshit. It's competitors (like Netscape and their bloatware) who get "hurt", because MS is able to out-compete them by providing superior products at superior prices. No-one has the "right" to make a profit, only to try.

If Microsoft's competitors can't hack it, that's tough for them (of course, I'm also anti-copyright and anti-patent, as those are just grants of monopoly priviledges, but all software companies have those grants, thus are on approximately equal footing with one-another). They don't have a right to make a profit anymore than MS does. Nor do they have a "right" to have their products installed by default on the computers of OEMs, or offered in various stores. This would be a violation of the rights of OEMs to their property.

If you don't like MS, you have the option not to use their products. It is simple as that. Personally, I think their products aren't worth the price when there's equivalently good software (imo) available for free. Obviously, the vast majority of people don't think that, otherwise they'd be using Linux (or they simply don't want to go to the bother). If you can't find a computer that comes installed with the OS of your choice by default, you can hire someone to do that for you. There really are no excuses. What you can't and shouldn't be allowed to do is to force others to engage in an involuntary transaction by providing you with the options you want at what you arbitrarily deem to be a "reasonable" price.

What you apparently want to do is prevent voluntary transactions from occuring and violate the property rights of others.

I'd suggest you read some articles about anti-trust laws. They are nothing but a bunch of humbug.

• Anti-trust, Anti-truth. DiLorenzo, Thomas.
• Antitrust for Fun and Profit. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• Antitrust and Microsoft. Armentano, Dominick.
• Antitrust: Enemy of Freedom. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• How Antitrust Ruined the Movies. Thornton, Mark.
• Antitrust Violates Rights. Anderson, William L.
• The Antitrust Economists' Paradox. DiLorenzo, Thomas.
• Antitrust Meets Women's Rights. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• The Truth About Sherman. DiLorenzo, Thomas.

My last paragraph was sarcastic. The point was to show the bullshit that is anti-trust laws. Companies can't win. No-matter how they price their products, they can be accused of some evil practice. A particularly heinous example is when companies raise the price of things like umbrellas during natural disasters; they're then accused of "price-gouging". The idi

Microsoft, as a private entity, should be able to do with their property as they please; they should be able to give it away for free, for $10, or for $10,000 if they so please. If you don't like it, don't buy their product. The whole argument that "consumers got hurt" is bullshit. It's competitors (like Netscape and their bloatware) who get "hurt", because MS is able to out-compete them by providing superior products at superior prices. No-one has the "right" to make a profit, only to try.

If Microsoft's competitors can't hack it, that's tough for them (of course, I'm also anti-copyright and anti-patent, as those are just grants of monopoly priviledges, but all software companies have those grants, thus are on approximately equal footing with one-another). They don't have a right to make a profit anymore than MS does. Nor do they have a "right" to have their products installed by default on the computers of OEMs, or offered in various stores. This would be a violation of the rights of OEMs to their property.

If you don't like MS, you have the option not to use their products. It is simple as that. Personally, I think their products aren't worth the price when there's equivalently good software (imo) available for free. Obviously, the vast majority of people don't think that, otherwise they'd be using Linux (or they simply don't want to go to the bother). If you can't find a computer that comes installed with the OS of your choice by default, you can hire someone to do that for you. There really are no excuses. What you can't and shouldn't be allowed to do is to force others to engage in an involuntary transaction by providing you with the options you want at what you arbitrarily deem to be a "reasonable" price.

What you apparently want to do is prevent voluntary transactions from occuring and violate the property rights of others.

I'd suggest you read some articles about anti-trust laws. They are nothing but a bunch of humbug.

• Anti-trust, Anti-truth. DiLorenzo, Thomas.
• Antitrust for Fun and Profit. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• Antitrust and Microsoft. Armentano, Dominick.
• Antitrust: Enemy of Freedom. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• How Antitrust Ruined the Movies. Thornton, Mark.
• Antitrust Violates Rights. Anderson, William L.
• The Antitrust Economists' Paradox. DiLorenzo, Thomas.
• Antitrust Meets Women's Rights. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• The Truth About Sherman. DiLorenzo, Thomas.

My last paragraph was sarcastic. The point was to show the bullshit that is anti-trust laws. Companies can't win. No-matter how they price their products, they can be accused of some evil practice. A particularly heinous example is when companies raise the price of things like umbrellas during natural disasters; they're then accused of "price-gouging". The idi

Microsoft, as a private entity, should be able to do with their property as they please; they should be able to give it away for free, for $10, or for $10,000 if they so please. If you don't like it, don't buy their product. The whole argument that "consumers got hurt" is bullshit. It's competitors (like Netscape and their bloatware) who get "hurt", because MS is able to out-compete them by providing superior products at superior prices. No-one has the "right" to make a profit, only to try.

If Microsoft's competitors can't hack it, that's tough for them (of course, I'm also anti-copyright and anti-patent, as those are just grants of monopoly priviledges, but all software companies have those grants, thus are on approximately equal footing with one-another). They don't have a right to make a profit anymore than MS does. Nor do they have a "right" to have their products installed by default on the computers of OEMs, or offered in various stores. This would be a violation of the rights of OEMs to their property.

If you don't like MS, you have the option not to use their products. It is simple as that. Personally, I think their products aren't worth the price when there's equivalently good software (imo) available for free. Obviously, the vast majority of people don't think that, otherwise they'd be using Linux (or they simply don't want to go to the bother). If you can't find a computer that comes installed with the OS of your choice by default, you can hire someone to do that for you. There really are no excuses. What you can't and shouldn't be allowed to do is to force others to engage in an involuntary transaction by providing you with the options you want at what you arbitrarily deem to be a "reasonable" price.

What you apparently want to do is prevent voluntary transactions from occuring and violate the property rights of others.

I'd suggest you read some articles about anti-trust laws. They are nothing but a bunch of humbug.

• Anti-trust, Anti-truth. DiLorenzo, Thomas.
• Antitrust for Fun and Profit. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• Antitrust and Microsoft. Armentano, Dominick.
• Antitrust: Enemy of Freedom. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• How Antitrust Ruined the Movies. Thornton, Mark.
• Antitrust Violates Rights. Anderson, William L.
• The Antitrust Economists' Paradox. DiLorenzo, Thomas.
• Antitrust Meets Women's Rights. Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr.
• The Truth About Sherman. DiLorenzo, Thomas.

My last paragraph was sarcastic. The point was to show the bullshit that is anti-trust laws. Companies can't win. No-matter how they price their products, they can be accused of some evil practice. A particularly heinous example is when companies raise the price of things like umbrellas during natural disasters; they're then accused of "price-gouging". The idi

Murry Rothbard's "Conceived in Liberty" (Vols. 1-4, New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1973-1979), would make a great start, but unfortunately only a couple of chapters are online. Try the library, since it's $100 they may be the only place that has it.

For material online, I can whole heartedly suggest The Ludwig von Mises Institute online library which has numerous different authors and titles which concern the efficiencies of competitive market forces while documenting the absurd inefficiencies and distortions of forced regulation and command economies.

The daily articles are one of the things I start my day with, along with Dilbert and UserFriendly.

I do appreciate your comment of "don't just correct, educate", but I can only point you in the direction. One way to know that private mail came first is to recall that Benjamin Franklin was appointed as the first Postmaster General. Ok, so what existed before that? Private mail.

Bob-

Murry Rothbard's "Conceived in Liberty" (Vols. 1-4, New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1973-1979), would make a great start, but unfortunately only a couple of chapters are online. Try the library, since it's $100 they may be the only place that has it.

For material online, I can whole heartedly suggest The Ludwig von Mises Institute online library which has numerous different authors and titles which concern the efficiencies of competitive market forces while documenting the absurd inefficiencies and distortions of forced regulation and command economies.

The daily articles are one of the things I start my day with, along with Dilbert and UserFriendly.

I do appreciate your comment of "don't just correct, educate", but I can only point you in the direction. One way to know that private mail came first is to recall that Benjamin Franklin was appointed as the first Postmaster General. Ok, so what existed before that? Private mail.

Bob-

Firstly, regarding anti-trust laws, they were instituted specifically to benefit inefficient competitors. Before the anti-trust laws took effect, Rockefeller was systematically increasing the output of oil and decreasing the price.

Your "justification" for violating property rights is nonsense. Simply because some law prohibits something doesn't mean that that law is justified. The Nazi's had lots of laws too. Didn't mean any of them should have been respected.

Your idiotic idea of why corporations exist is non-sense. They were not created by States. They were created by individuals voluntarily interacting with one-another.

Your moral relativism is also non-sense. We cannot legislate morality, or natural law. Whether or not the US Constitution recognizes it, it is criminal to violate property rights.

By the way, did you read any of the links I referenced? I realize they're rather lengthy, but for a brief summary of the problems with anti-trust laws, see my notes from the Mises University: Monopoly and Competition. I'm also going to (eventually) be posting DiLorezno's lecture on The Case Against All Anti-Trust Legislation. There's signicant literature on it here.

One of the great fallacies of anti-trust is comparing what exists to what would exist in never-never-land (if we had "perfect competition). This is called the nirvana fallacy. What we really should be doing is comparing what we've got to zero, which is what we'd get without the company.

MS should have the right to ship their software any way they like. If you don't like that, don't buy MS software. "But, I'm *forced* to use MS software at work". No, you're not. If it means that much to you, quit your job and look for an employer that uses FOSS. The complete lack of respect for the rights of others on Slashdot is amazing to me, sometimes. According to /., MS has some kind of obligation to help out its competitors and provide customers with zillions of options. No, they don't. They can put out their product and package it in any way they want. If you don't like it, tough. Don't buy the package.

Microsoft isn't a monopoly and never has been, except in the sense that they have a few monopoly priviledges (patents, copyrights) that are granted by the State, and would not exist otherwise. However, all software companies have copyrights and patents, and FOSS developers have copyrights as well.

A monopoly does not occur when one firm has a huge market-share, or even 100% market-share. In the classical (and true) sense of the word -- before Statists started redefining it -- a monopoly only exists when the State creates artificial barriers to entry, making one firm the protected only provider of a service. The best example of a monopoly would be the State. See:

Monopoly and Competition (part a)

Monopoly and Competition (part b)

Monopoly and Competition (part c)

Monopoly and Competition (part d)

Monopoly and Competition (part e)

a href=

MS should have the right to ship their software any way they like. If you don't like that, don't buy MS software. "But, I'm *forced* to use MS software at work". No, you're not. If it means that much to you, quit your job and look for an employer that uses FOSS. The complete lack of respect for the rights of others on Slashdot is amazing to me, sometimes. According to /., MS has some kind of obligation to help out its competitors and provide customers with zillions of options. No, they don't. They can put out their product and package it in any way they want. If you don't like it, tough. Don't buy the package.

Microsoft isn't a monopoly and never has been, except in the sense that they have a few monopoly priviledges (patents, copyrights) that are granted by the State, and would not exist otherwise. However, all software companies have copyrights and patents, and FOSS developers have copyrights as well.

A monopoly does not occur when one firm has a huge market-share, or even 100% market-share. In the classical (and true) sense of the word -- before Statists started redefining it -- a monopoly only exists when the State creates artificial barriers to entry, making one firm the protected only provider of a service. The best example of a monopoly would be the State. See:

Monopoly and Competition (part a)

Monopoly and Competition (part b)

Monopoly and Competition (part c)

Monopoly and Competition (part d)

Monopoly and Competition (part e)

a href=

MS should have the right to ship their software any way they like. If you don't like that, don't buy MS software. "But, I'm *forced* to use MS software at work". No, you're not. If it means that much to you, quit your job and look for an employer that uses FOSS. The complete lack of respect for the rights of others on Slashdot is amazing to me, sometimes. According to /., MS has some kind of obligation to help out its competitors and provide customers with zillions of options. No, they don't. They can put out their product and package it in any way they want. If you don't like it, tough. Don't buy the package.

Microsoft isn't a monopoly and never has been, except in the sense that they have a few monopoly priviledges (patents, copyrights) that are granted by the State, and would not exist otherwise. However, all software companies have copyrights and patents, and FOSS developers have copyrights as well.

A monopoly does not occur when one firm has a huge market-share, or even 100% market-share. In the classical (and true) sense of the word -- before Statists started redefining it -- a monopoly only exists when the State creates artificial barriers to entry, making one firm the protected only provider of a service. The best example of a monopoly would be the State. See:

Monopoly and Competition (part a)

Monopoly and Competition (part b)

Monopoly and Competition (part c)

Monopoly and Competition (part d)

Monopoly and Competition (part e)

a href=

MS should have the right to ship their software any way they like. If you don't like that, don't buy MS software. "But, I'm *forced* to use MS software at work". No, you're not. If it means that much to you, quit your job and look for an employer that uses FOSS. The complete lack of respect for the rights of others on Slashdot is amazing to me, sometimes. According to /., MS has some kind of obligation to help out its competitors and provide customers with zillions of options. No, they don't. They can put out their product and package it in any way they want. If you don't like it, tough. Don't buy the package.

Microsoft isn't a monopoly and never has been, except in the sense that they have a few monopoly priviledges (patents, copyrights) that are granted by the State, and would not exist otherwise. However, all software companies have copyrights and patents, and FOSS developers have copyrights as well.

A monopoly does not occur when one firm has a huge market-share, or even 100% market-share. In the classical (and true) sense of the word -- before Statists started redefining it -- a monopoly only exists when the State creates artificial barriers to entry, making one firm the protected only provider of a service. The best example of a monopoly would be the State. See:

Monopoly and Competition (part a)

Monopoly and Competition (part b)

Monopoly and Competition (part c)

Monopoly and Competition (part d)

Monopoly and Competition (part e)

a href=

MS should have the right to ship their software any way they like. If you don't like that, don't buy MS software. "But, I'm *forced* to use MS software at work". No, you're not. If it means that much to you, quit your job and look for an employer that uses FOSS. The complete lack of respect for the rights of others on Slashdot is amazing to me, sometimes. According to /., MS has some kind of obligation to help out its competitors and provide customers with zillions of options. No, they don't. They can put out their product and package it in any way they want. If you don't like it, tough. Don't buy the package.

Microsoft isn't a monopoly and never has been, except in the sense that they have a few monopoly priviledges (patents, copyrights) that are granted by the State, and would not exist otherwise. However, all software companies have copyrights and patents, and FOSS developers have copyrights as well.

A monopoly does not occur when one firm has a huge market-share, or even 100% market-share. In the classical (and true) sense of the word -- before Statists started redefining it -- a monopoly only exists when the State creates artificial barriers to entry, making one firm the protected only provider of a service. The best example of a monopoly would be the State. See:

Monopoly and Competition (part a)

Monopoly and Competition (part b)

Monopoly and Competition (part c)

Monopoly and Competition (part d)

Monopoly and Competition (part e)

a href=

This is the fallacy of the centrally planned economy, and why Ludwig von Mises predicted that the Soviet Union would ultimately fail long before the Cold War. Central planners have no way to tell if an economic plan is sensible or ruinous without the price signals that free trade (really free trade, not the so-called free trade of NAFTA and GATT) provides.

Free markets, it also seems, is the last best hope for peace, since engaging in commerce with people means you're a lot less likely to want to kill them.

The reason we have the problems we have is because the airwaves have been socialized. What should occur is that the State shouldn't be involved in leasing out the airwaves and regulating them. Rather, we should allow the airwaves to be homesteaded and privately owned. This solves the "pornography" problem quite easily. Someone who doesn't like porn doesn't have to allow it on the airwaves which constitute their property. See For a New Liberty: Personal Liberty. Murray N. Rothbard. Refer to the section Freedom of Radio and Television and Pornography.

See The Great Accounting System

The Stock Market, Profits, and Credit Expansion

Accounting for the Austrian School

Should Stock Options Be Expensed

See The Great Accounting System

The Stock Market, Profits, and Credit Expansion

Accounting for the Austrian School

Should Stock Options Be Expensed

See The Great Accounting System

The Stock Market, Profits, and Credit Expansion

Accounting for the Austrian School

Should Stock Options Be Expensed

See The Great Accounting System

The Stock Market, Profits, and Credit Expansion

Accounting for the Austrian School

Should Stock Options Be Expensed

Deregulation is the antithesis of the bureaucratic "quick fix". As such it avoids the problem that von Mises talked about, that each regulation causes problems that require more regulations to fix, which in turn require yet more regulations, causing far more problems and costing anyone who tries to do business a fortune in compliance costs.

Deregulation simplifies new entrants into a market. This means that if a "problem" can be solved, be it technical or price, someone will step up and make a profit solving it.

The difference is one of time. While the benefits of deregulation are long term, the bureaucratic "quick fix" ensures that special interest groups and politicians can claim to have "done something". By the time their "something" has blossomed into a Frankenstein's Monster, they have either retired or can point fingers at anyone and everyone else.

After all, they have the moral high ground having "done something".

That's also the reason bureaucrats hate entrepreneurs. Bureaucrats are only "seen" to do something, entrepreneurs actually do it whether you see them or not.

Bob-

When real free-market think-tanks are publishing their material on the Web there is no justification left for DRM. Works that are put into formats that are easily archived and copied will be preserved. Over half of all of the movies made by commercial studios have already been lost through degradation of the media. I like to believe that some of what I write will be worth reading in a century or two. Perhaps the general public won't have any interest since they don't seem to have much now. But my descendants might. I intend to make sure that they can read it. DRM schemes enforced by hardware and software that will be long-dead by then won't help.

When real free-market think-tanks are publishing their material on the Web there is no justification left for DRM. Works that are put into formats that are easily archived and copied will be preserved. Over half of all of the movies made by commercial studios have already been lost through degradation of the media. I like to believe that some of what I write will be worth reading in a century or two. Perhaps the general public won't have any interest since they don't seem to have much now. But my descendants might. I intend to make sure that they can read it. DRM schemes enforced by hardware and software that will be long-dead by then won't help.

You probably should read the proposed EU constitution and then reconsider your views. It concerns far more than economic matters.

And even if this new constitution did concern merely economic matters there are two points you ought to consider:
(1) A huge share of Federal legislation in the US is enacted under the commerce clause.
(2) One of the most important lessons learned from political developments in the 20th century was that economic freedom and political freedom are inseparable.

The FCC is a symptom, not a problem. The problem is figuring out how to construct a government to ensure liberty for the people rather than fueling big government and big business. The FCC is but one branch of a centralized (so-called "federal") government that continues to usurp power contrary to the Tenth Amendment.

Re-elect Bush and see what happens to your buck...

Actually, it has more to do with the relative rate at which the US and Canada are inflating their currencies. Inflation, regardless of what the media is babbling about the Consumer Price Index, is about the number of units of currency and the available goods. Period. If the government prints more money, every dollar is worth less. However, that devaluation is not instant. It does take a while for prices to rise. The people who hold the money immediately after it is printed get nearly full value for it.

That's not to say that Pres. Bush and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unrelated to the inflation of the US currency. However, the US Federal Reserve is also engaged in some pro-cyclic activities in an attempt first to get the US out of the most recent recession and then to keep the recovery going. That would be happening even if all of the US military was guarding airports in the US.

See For a New Liberty: The New Libertarian Manifesto -- Personal Liberty. Murray N. Rothbard. Search for "Freedom of Radio and Television"

The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is a half-assed supporter of economic freedom and liberty, and unfortunately negatively reflects on free-market ideas. In fact, they don't really support freedom at all. They are enemies of freedom, like Milton Friedman was critical in the development of the witholding tax. Far from being a libertarian, free-market supporter, and laissez faire supporter -- like his son, David Friedman, or Murray Rothbard -- Milton Friedman is a technician of the State, who works to make it more efficient in its task of robbing from and stealing from its victims (the tax-payers). The de Tocqueville Institution is a State-supporting Institution, supporting State grants of monopoly priviledge (patents/copyrights).

Unfortunately, there is this general opinion out there that the institution is a champion of capitalism. The de Toqueville institution is a champion of Statist Intervention.

For a real libertarian analysis of intellectual property "rights", see:

Against Intellectual Property. Stephan Kinsella.. Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol 15(2).

Finally, lest you think that free-market advocates are anti-GNU/Linux, see:

• Free Software Entrepreneurs. David Heinrich. I wrote this article.
  
  
• What has SCO done to our GNU/Linux? Tim Swanson. The title of this article was modelled after Murray Rothbard's What Has Government Done to Our Money?

The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is a half-assed supporter of economic freedom and liberty, and unfortunately negatively reflects on free-market ideas. In fact, they don't really support freedom at all. They are enemies of freedom, like Milton Friedman was critical in the development of the witholding tax. Far from being a libertarian, free-market supporter, and laissez faire supporter -- like his son, David Friedman, or Murray Rothbard -- Milton Friedman is a technician of the State, who works to make it more efficient in its task of robbing from and stealing from its victims (the tax-payers). The de Tocqueville Institution is a State-supporting Institution, supporting State grants of monopoly priviledge (patents/copyrights).

Unfortunately, there is this general opinion out there that the institution is a champion of capitalism. The de Toqueville institution is a champion of Statist Intervention.

For a real libertarian analysis of intellectual property "rights", see:

Against Intellectual Property. Stephan Kinsella.. Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol 15(2).

Finally, lest you think that free-market advocates are anti-GNU/Linux, see:

• Free Software Entrepreneurs. David Heinrich. I wrote this article.
  
  
• What has SCO done to our GNU/Linux? Tim Swanson. The title of this article was modelled after Murray Rothbard's What Has Government Done to Our Money?

The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is a half-assed supporter of economic freedom and liberty, and unfortunately negatively reflects on free-market ideas. In fact, they don't really support freedom at all. They are enemies of freedom, like Milton Friedman was critical in the development of the witholding tax. Far from being a libertarian, free-market supporter, and laissez faire supporter -- like his son, David Friedman, or Murray Rothbard -- Milton Friedman is a technician of the State, who works to make it more efficient in its task of robbing from and stealing from its victims (the tax-payers). The de Tocqueville Institution is a State-supporting Institution, supporting State grants of monopoly priviledge (patents/copyrights).

Unfortunately, there is this general opinion out there that the institution is a champion of capitalism. The de Toqueville institution is a champion of Statist Intervention.

For a real libertarian analysis of intellectual property "rights", see:

Against Intellectual Property. Stephan Kinsella.. Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol 15(2).

Finally, lest you think that free-market advocates are anti-GNU/Linux, see:

• Free Software Entrepreneurs. David Heinrich. I wrote this article.
  
  
• What has SCO done to our GNU/Linux? Tim Swanson. The title of this article was modelled after Murray Rothbard's What Has Government Done to Our Money?

The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is a half-assed supporter of economic freedom and liberty, and unfortunately negatively reflects on free-market ideas. In fact, they don't really support freedom at all. They are enemies of freedom, like Milton Friedman was critical in the development of the witholding tax. Far from being a libertarian, free-market supporter, and laissez faire supporter -- like his son, David Friedman, or Murray Rothbard -- Milton Friedman is a technician of the State, who works to make it more efficient in its task of robbing from and stealing from its victims (the tax-payers). The de Tocqueville Institution is a State-supporting Institution, supporting State grants of monopoly priviledge (patents/copyrights).

Unfortunately, there is this general opinion out there that the institution is a champion of capitalism. The de Toqueville institution is a champion of Statist Intervention.

For a real libertarian analysis of intellectual property "rights", see:

Against Intellectual Property. Stephan Kinsella.. Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol 15(2).

Finally, lest you think that free-market advocates are anti-GNU/Linux, see:

• Free Software Entrepreneurs. David Heinrich. I wrote this article.
  
  
• What has SCO done to our GNU/Linux? Tim Swanson. The title of this article was modelled after Murray Rothbard's What Has Government Done to Our Money?

What makes everyone here think that Microsoft is somehow obligated to run their business so as to help their competitors out, or provide products at whatever price a bunch of computer-enthusiasts arbitrarily deem is "appropriate"?

If you don't like Microsoft, you are welcomed *not* to use Microsoft products. See Articles on Microsoft.

Here's a very insightful article regarding this(CAUTION - read till the end):

Read this story till the last line

The Nation That Lost Its Jobs, But Got Them Back - ON GOOGLE

Sorry, but I disagree on your interpretation of the linked article. I thought the article stated that the reason companies committed fraud had to do with 1) companies having incentives to decieve, 2) little enforcement of existing laws, and 3) politicians that have little knowledge of business. Now, admittedly, I just skimmed the article. But I think that's the same thing you did, given how you seem to have focused on only one or two paragraphs out of the article.

And why so caustic? "Digital turd"? Is that really called for?

Heh - actually, you've (inadvertently) touched on another of my ranting points :-)

Many Libertarians (myself included) consider the contemporary use of the term 'liberal' to be equivalent to domain hijacking, as 'liberal' historically meant support for human rights, minimal Government, no / low compulsory taxation, free trade, etc. etc. See Liberalism, by Ludwig von Mises, for a more thorough treatment of this.

But anyway, thanks greatly for the opportunity for a discussion. It's rare around here! :-)

The second clip is just as bogus as the first. Clinton didn't influence the advent of HTML and the resulting, massive speculation on the stock market. It's ludicrous to blame a president for that.

Hmm, you sound convincing. Perhaps one shouldn't blame (or credit) a president for flukes in the economy (even if you don't understand what caused the dot-com bubble...hint: it wasn't HTML).

blame Reagan and all the easily fooled people who voted for a Hollywood actor with wonderful, soundbite answers to complex issues.

Wow, hope you didn't injure yourself spinning around that quickly.

The truth of the matter is that Enron and their ilk ignored laws already on the books. New laws would change nothing. Instead, enforcement of existing laws is the real answer, and the lack of enforcement during the Clinton administration was the cause of not just the accounting debacles at Enron and company, but also the dot-com bubble (which were really two sides of the same coin). For more information, see here.

It's not incorrect to call a Social Democracy Socialist, but you are right, to an extent "Socialism" is a continuum. I actually had a Socialist professor at UC Berkeley who felt "Socialism" was never truly implemented anywhere, and thus should not be referred to as a failed ideology... Alas, such idiocy is far too common in American colleges.

As a die-hard capitalist, it's my opinion that many governments in Europe have exceedingly unhealthy Socialist tendencies. Many in Europe are beginning to come to this realization as well. For example, there is the great Henrik Hansen
at the Copenhagen Business School