Slashdot Mirror

... check out The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism - Anti-Trust Resources.

Capitalism is the only moral social system because it is the only system that respects the freedom of the producers to think and the right of the individual to set his own goals and pursue his own happiness.

http://www.moraldefense.com/Philosophy/Essays/The_ Moral_Basis_of_Capitalism.htm

Seriously. Y'all need to read The Fountainhead(or read it again). Short of that, at least try reading this:

FAQ's on the Microsoft Antitrust Case from The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism

Capitalism has become a moral code in and of itself, rather than simply an economic system used to promote the values of a separate moral system. According to current political and social thinking in the western world, making money is the most important thing a corporation can do, and corporations are the most desireable form of citizenship. Anything that gets in the way of making money is not a moral value, but a hurdle that needs to be overcome. Right now, the human cost of waste products (ie: pollution) is low enough in poor regions of the world that it can be safely ignored. Maybe one day the cost of waste products will rise to a degree that will cause corporations to do something about it, but until we'll just have to hope our earth can sustain it.

Anyone else find it rather odd that supporting opinions from the Associate for Competative Technology and the Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism? Maybe not. But then they also were both formed in 1998. Call that a coincidence. Also, the Computing Technology Industry Association was formed in 2000 (as far as I can tell).

I didn't bother searching for the other two opinions for the settlement. Here's hoping that the judge can read between the lines here. Lord knows I can't figure out just who is the main contributer to these organizations.

1.We used to have these rights as consumers. Fair use, and all that. We used to be able to copy records to casettes. These rights are being taken away one by one.

Historic point, made more irrelevant by the change in media (digital media, CDs, DVDs). Fair use as in your example of copying records to cassettes is applicable because the copy will never equal the original in quality. Ditto for VHS/Beta consumer media.

2."You have the option not to buy this" - You'd have to be a hermit to live without music or movies. In essence, this is a monopoly, certainly a cartel - and being well trained in economics as you appear to be, you will know that different rules apply there.

And there is *nothing* inherently wrong with a monopoly... The recording and motion picture industry have immense profitability because they were savvy in business, despite some of the means (copyright laws, etc.) that they accomplished this.

It is *wrong* to punish an industry for doing something well.

Certainly different rules apply to ebooks, motion pictures, recorded music - these are generally intended for *entertainment* purposes. They're hardly necessities...

3."IP" - the proceeds evidently majorly do not go to the actual artists, who should own the IP.

Says who? In the record industry, lots of money is spent on promotion and distribution, a lot more than you may surmise...

In addition, it is the artists' responsibility to ensure adequate and fair compensation for their intellectual property. Remember, actors and musicians have unions/trade groups/guilds available to them. If these groups are weak or unwilling to support them, perhaps they should find a different profession?

Nobody is forcing them to choose their employment.

Remember, it is freedom and property rights that advances humanity and promotes yet more freedom. The free market can and does promote excellence and culls inferiority.

That you apply different standards of "freedom" is misleading and hypocritical. Those states that did so were socialist states, and hardly free.

www.lp.org

www.cato.org

www.moraldefense.com

Fair use from whom? Let me ask you this - who produced the content? Who offered it for use under license/copyright? Now let's look at this from the IP producers' and market point of view.

When I buy a CD or a DVD, I feel I have the right to listen to it/watch it on any device I like. So, I repeat: I paid! Now I want to listen to my CDs on the MP3-player, and watch the DVDs on my PC.

You have the *freedom* NOT to pay for said CD or DVD if you do not agree to the terms of the copyright/license/usage restrictions. The IP holders did not _force_ this upon you.

That's not contrary to IP rights.

Yes it is. The IP holder can and should dictate the terms of usage of his/her IP.

If the potential user does not like the terms of usage, he/she has the freedom NOT to purchase/license said IP.

Yes, the industry is afraid of this.

The industry is understandably trying to protect their investments and profits - when your revenue stream is threatened, wouldn't you try to protect it?

Like I mentioned in the previous post, these IP holders also have a responsibiity to investors and shareholders to maintain and improve performance.

IP protection via encryption, usage restrictions, etc. are all viable and acceptable means of maintaining revenue.

Again, if you don't like this, don't patronize the IP holders. They're not restricting your freedom to choose.

If consumers don't like this, the market will react. This is how the free market works.

www.lp.org

www.cato.org

www.moraldefense.com

Aren't we all forgetting something here? That is, content producers have _every_ right to protect their intellectual property. IP is still property, and content producers have a fiduciary DUTY to their shareholders to PROTECT their property.

Like it or not, IP is profitable and laws to protect that property are likewise just.

This bickering over the "morals" or "ethics" regarding IP remind me a lot of the environmental movement - crass restrictions and over-regulation of one's property and fruits of his/her effort by "well-meaning" (read - jealous, spiteful, envious) zealots that have no right meddling in another's affairs.

Please think about this if you _truly_ respect freedom.

www.lp.org

www.cato.org

www.moraldefense.com

Welp, I can't argue against those facts about communism, but can you deny that the excesses of captialism contributed to the appeal of Marxism in the same way that, oh, I dunno, Occidental Petroleum contributed to the local appeal of Mohammar Khadafy? I don't argue the concept of capitalism or its philosophy, as you state, it is probably a good econmoic model when applied morally.

So here we have a distinction: whither moral capitalism? In light of this page, one has to wonder to just what extreme a good capitalist is willing to contort himself to keep himself deluded as to his moral certainty.

Here's a quote from the article See the USA in Your SUV:

The environmentalists respond that nature is intrinsically valuable, not for anything it does or can do but simply because it is.
...
Clean air and water benefit people. But if the moderate environmentalists really wanted people to benefit, then they would support the SUV.

That's where I get a little lost. One must have a firm foundation in logic and be themselves grounded in reality, I would think, to claim a moral basis for capitalism. I tend to think that the lure of lucre can sometimes make one wish that black is white. I simply refuse to do that, in the same way that I would think that hanging chads expressed voter intent even if I would have voted for GW, the guy who ruled that hand counting is the proper way to resolve a disputed election tally. heh, sorry... didn't mean to bring that all up agin...

Welp, I can't argue against those facts about communism, but can you deny that the excesses of captialism contributed to the appeal of Marxism in the same way that, oh, I dunno, Occidental Petroleum contributed to the local appeal of Mohammar Khadafy? I don't argue the concept of capitalism or its philosophy, as you state, it is probably a good econmoic model when applied morally.

So here we have a distinction: whither moral capitalism? In light of this page, one has to wonder to just what extreme a good capitalist is willing to contort himself to keep himself deluded as to his moral certainty.

Here's a quote from the article See the USA in Your SUV:

The environmentalists respond that nature is intrinsically valuable, not for anything it does or can do but simply because it is.
...
Clean air and water benefit people. But if the moderate environmentalists really wanted people to benefit, then they would support the SUV.

That's where I get a little lost. One must have a firm foundation in logic and be themselves grounded in reality, I would think, to claim a moral basis for capitalism. I tend to think that the lure of lucre can sometimes make one wish that black is white. I simply refuse to do that, in the same way that I would think that hanging chads expressed voter intent even if I would have voted for GW, the guy who ruled that hand counting is the proper way to resolve a disputed election tally. heh, sorry... didn't mean to bring that all up agin...

Here is the best defense of Microsoft I've read so far. This article makes several excellent points about the moral flaws of antitrust law and the weak arguments against MS's business practices. Have a look and tell me what you think.

Check out MoralDefense.com for some excellent Objectivist rhetoric.

I run Linux at home. And my personal boycott against MSFT products has been active since Windows 95. There's no reason to reiterate how much MSFT sucks to the /. community.

But, I also feel that a boycott should be the extent of my ability to limit Microsoft's power. Only the individual can lash out against a corporation: by not buying a product. The government has no place in this matter.

If you don't like Windows, be a geek, go to Fry's, and build your own friggin' computer so that Bill never gets his greasy hands on your prized possession. What's the issue?

Don't invite the government to save "the public" on this one. If you bought a MSFT product, you only hurt yourself. I hardly think that "the public" needs protection from MSFT.

Even worse with the case of MSFT is that they've actually provided a decent product to fill a market niche (albeit an incredibly large niche). MSFT has been offering a superior consumer product for years at an excellent price. Windows has brought law and order to the consumer computer market and helped to make computers useful for grandma smith and uncle bob. Windows is an excellent product in that regard.

Even worse, it's obvious that MSFT has had competition through the entire battle. As I recall, AAPL's headquarters are smack-dab in the middle of Silicon Valley; and SUNW's headquarters aren't far down the road. And SGI's and even the now defunct SCO (Tarantella?). There were plenty of choices out there if you really wanted an alternate. But, again: MSFT was providing a product that better suited people's needs at a much better price. Even today one can argue that Windows ME/2000 provides most people with more functionality than they'll ever need.

If you want to destroy Microsoft, don't waste your time with the government. Hack Eazel, GNOME, KDE; or some other Linux component that threatens the power or Redmond.

There's also a pro-Microsoft site pompously called The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism. The admin contact for that domain is in the Bahamas, which is strange since the organization claims to be in Virginia. Whoever's behind it takes Ayn Rand too seriously.

People really love him, and will rally to his cause before letting the government hurt MS.

I'm waiting for share traders -- if not the Government itself -- to decide that they are shooting themselves in the foot. The Nasdaq , along with most of MS's big competition, has fallen immensely since Jackson's findings. Red Hat and Corel stock value has fallen by 60%, to give but one example. The fact that the Government can intervene in a free market and attempt to cripple a company merely for being successful, has scared the investors (as well it should). MS hasn't done anything that Sun, IBM, etc. haven't done, and why would an investor put big money in a company when there is the threat hanging over his head that the Government will rip out his stock's value as soon as it gets large enough?

It's time that people woke up and saw MS as the great driver of the computing industry that it is. How low will the Nasdaq have to go before people realize?

For those of us who aren't breaking into our New Year's Champagne stash, here's a few links showing that there are still a few intelligent, freedom minded folks out there. They just don't happen to work for the DOJ.
A moral basis for defending MS.
and a factual one.

Disclaimer: I, nor any family or friends of mine, have any interest in the outcome of the case.

Today is a sad day for the freedom of individuals and companies to pursue their goals in a free market.

It's a sad day for anyone who has hopes of developing an innovative company with vast customers.

The most successful company in all of history -- the company whose products are more widely used by people all over the world in many different industries has been attacked because of its success.

Yes, I use linux. Yes, I still defend Microsoft. No, that's not a contradiction.


See www.moraldefense.com and microsoft.aynrand.org if you want to know why.

The Moral Defense of Microsoft

Wow, I had to do a whois on the domain to make sure microsoft wasn't running it themselves. But it's connected to capitalism.org
Joe.

See www.moraldefense.com for a moral defense of companies like AOL.

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

See www.moraldefense.com

I know this is probably not a popular thing to say, but I assure you it is not intended as flame bait. I supported MS during the lawsuit. Not because I like their products, I steer clear wherever I can, but on a purely moralistic and freedom based argument.
Here's a few reasons why any freedom minded person should have supported MS.

Check out THIS and read the Q&A.

-- An Ayn-onymous Coward