3) "Easy access" is used by people who probably never handled or shot a firearm. What's wrong with "easy access" to firearms? Every kid I know has "easy access" to similarly wicked weapons, like kitchen knives. It's easy to kill someone by pushing them off the upstairs bannister. My siblings and I were always taught how dangerous such things were, and that we should see them with extra-heightened responsiblity. Hurting people was never considered a solution to problems.
4) It's become a national conversation and everyone feels compelled to give a personal opinion. Just shut up, everybody, and take your damned kids out of day care. Has it ever occurred to you that your continual absence is creating a hateful vacuum in their life without a single exposure to violent video games/movies?
Snake movement is actually performed by a wide variety of motions, depending on terrain and speed requirements. The classical "winding" movement is accomplished with the shearing forces of angled coils, as you say. They also have the option of very slow movement on smooth, low-friction terrain by rippling the scales on the undersides of their bodies. Typically, though, snakes will use natural objects or deformations on tough terrain. The ability of the snake to focus tremendous strength and precision on a single loop of its body is amazing. Moreover, with a single strong hold the arboreal snake can typically extend more than 75% of its total length into mid-air in search of a second hold. The really critical thing, I think, is that its "limbs" aren't jointed; they're continuous articulated limbs that can put controlled pressure on every point of contact, and the snake makes full use of that fact. My 6-foot reticulated python can put 5 feet of its body into the air searching for an escape route, and with a minor purchase on the lid of her cage, can then proceed to lift her whole body up and out. I've frequently seen snakes use a form of movement that involves pinching a large coil between two obstacles and then flexing the muscles to form a chimney stop. Then it hoists the rest of its body over the stop and repeats the movement with another coil. Snake movement is absolutely remarkable. MJP
displaying winapps remotely would be MINIMALLY faster than VNC [say if what they/you are talking about is something like a virtual framebuffer for an individual app, dumped over the network].
That's what VNC is.
Windows apps _REALLY_ running over the X protocol would involve a LOT more OS hacking than I think they could reasonably conceive of doing.
Regardless, Tektronix's WinDD and Insignia Solutions' NTrigue do it. It's not an "OS hacking" issue; it's a matter of API-level redirection.
VNC doesn't display Windows apps using X. It transfers a dumb compressed framebuffer using VNC's own protocol. Windows apps displayed over X would be much (much!) faster than VNC.
Yes, the market was defined so "narrowly" that it includes 90+% of the computers sold.
The percentages have nothing to do with the definitions themself. I'm sure you have the imagination to realize this. I hope. Because I could define the "pencil market" as consisting of only "#2 pencils" and thus capture at least 90% of the pencil market. Then again, would I have "a monopoly" on pencils. I really don't think so.
I say this realizing that nothing I tell you will get you off of the ideological committment you and thousands of others have to the notion that government should make your enemies pay, just because you dislike them. All I can tell you is that someday your enemies will come calling. I hope you remember what you've accomplished.
Are you saying that it _matters why_ Microsoft challenged the law?
Do you think this whole debate could descend to a less logical standard of conversation? Everywhere you look, it's geeks offering their "opinion" on Microsoft, based on whether or not Microsoft makes them feel good about themselves. For God's sake, why don't we just open up the whole goddamned Freudian bag and ask you what you think of your parents. Then you can all go and talk ad nauseum about "parental monopoly power".
I love when this happens: someone says Microsoft has no competitors, and then the other guy says, "wake up, shit-for-brains, I have a Macintosh", and then it gets really quiet from the other side. How come nobody ever responds after that?
I think it's cause the other guy is "blinded by the obvious". Which begs the question: why do these things have to be pointed out to your average Slashdot brain donor?
The only way to make Microsoft behave is to take away ALL its monetary power.
Yes, that's the "IRS method", and it works rather well on individuals, in case you were wondering. Put simply, the power to tax and fine is the power to rule. With tax money you can hire jackbooted thugs, dress them in pretty uniforms, and send them after your enemies.
It's unfortunate that while 3D hardware is nice and cheap, the nice-and-cheap kind is designed to throw many frames/second of low-polygon models at the screen. The benchmark is Quake III, and that means the most important features on a cheap 3D card are fill rate and texture-map speed.
Higher-end cards, those designed with more advanced features like geometry setup and anti-aliasing, are much more suitable targets for whatever 3D-like user interfaces eventually arrive. You can count on such interfaces to make use of high-precision models, high polygon counts, and almost no dependence on texture-mapping (or even fill-rate, for that matter).
The key is _detail_, and that will require very high resolution rendering of anti-aliased models in very large memory spaces. Hopefully, NVidia's entry signals a new era for high-end 3D graphics pipelines, one of increasing affordability.
Response 5: Oh my God I want one of those so badly!
Response 6: This isn't news, I saw this before.
If Slashdot had the ability to automatically moderate all such posts to 'Redundant', I'm willing to bet the signal-to-noise ratio would rise dramatically.
Good to see the old pattern is still working like a champ:
Announcement: New faster/better/bigger XYZ!
Response 1: Do we really need faster/better/bigger? Most consumers don't need it! And I'm the first person ever to ask such a profound, socially-conscious question!
Response 2: I bet that makes a lot of heat. Hyuk, hyuk!
Response 3: Huh, I bet that would make a kickass Beowulf cluster.
Repeat responses 1, 2, and 3 as necessary. Presto, automatic Slashdot conversation generator.
I am trying to snow the conversation? You are the one who spuriously throws in the comment about what "Countless scholars and professionals" think knowing full well that much of that is simple Microsoft propaganda.
I don't know that "full well", and to claim as much would be a blatant lie.
If you want more information on the "countless scholars and professionals" who defend Microsoft, see the ARI's Web site (http://www.aynrand.org) or the Website for The Moral Defense of Microsoft (http://www.moraldefense.com/microsoft). Be careful not to trip over any facts, now...
You also were careful not to address my gibe about the benefits of antitrust legislation. It appears you seem to think that nothing was wrong with Rockefeller's Standard Oil or that the breakup of AT&T hasn't actually benefitted consumers and the economy. Isn't only picking out the points you want to address in an argument a way to "snow" the conversation?
How can either of us say whether it has "benefitted" when neither of us know what would have happened had government stayed its hand? Pretending to know the past that did not happen is as ridiculous as claiming to predict the future.
Your rule would appear to be "regulate first, ask questions later".
Criminals bribing judges are manipulating the government into leaving them alone, Chinese agents close to the Clinton administration apparently manipulated the government into leaving an agent at Los Alamos alone and Microsoft attempts to manipulate the legislature to change the law to leave them alone.
Criminal acts are a completely different subject. You know the difference between a criminal trial and a civil suit, am I right?
Had they took a principled stand in 1995, maybe you would have an argument. As it stands, they were caught in the act, they can't win in a court of law, so they try to influence the legislature to wiggle out from under the consequences of their actions.
This is ridiculous. An unjust government practice does not become just simply because Microsoft agreed to it, no more than a forced confession is admissible in criminal proceedings simply because everyone agrees that the defendant is guilty.
Oh yes, Microsoft is a bastion of principle here.
Nobody has made this claim, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. This is about Microsoft's rights, not about whether or not you like the company.
If people like you had your way, we'd all still be in the freaking stone ages.
That's an assertion that is as unfounded as it is, frankly, stupid.
people would die young from industrial pollution of the air, land, and sea by mega-corporations
I'm left wondering how the mega-corporations would get away with this when wrongful death suits were filed. Seeing as how a jury of our peers would award a settlement, I'd think it would get rather expensive to continue to infringe on other peoples' rights this way. Wouldn't you? Or hadn't you thought much about it, Captain Planet?
While Congress has pretty much discretionary power over its normal legislative syllabus, the Founders felt they had made the Constitutional amendment process so difficult to achieve that it couldn't be done without widespread, real support and enough time to allow elections to influence the matter. Unfortunately, I think they miscalculated. Among other travesties, we now have the direct election of Senators, which seriously breaks the check-balance represented by the Senate.
As for the issue of law enforcement, anyone could be expected to "enforce" the law. Anyone could be hired to do it. In general, law was historically intended to provide protections, not privileges.
Breaking the law and failing to provide restitution for your crime meant that you lost your protections and anyone (including your victim's family) could hunt you down and kill you. This is where we get the word "outlaw": a person who literally is _outside_ of the law and therefore is no longer protected by it.
To enforce law requires so-called "coercive" power. I thought only government had "coercive" power -- everything else being free association?
Yes, but that "coercive power" is allowable because the subject of that coercion has presumably forfeited his lawful protections by committing a grievous crime. This assumes that you mean enforcement of criminal codes.
In cases of civil dispute, or Tort Law, the issue of enforcement takes on a somewhat different character.
If someone other than "government" says you broke a law and they use coercive power to punish you how are they not government?
Obviously, arbitration must needs be conducted by an "impartial" third-party of some sort. Historically, this was the responsibility of a local magistrate or judge, someone who shared in the community's standards and beliefs. This could be considered "government", from a certain perspective, but I don't see the relevance. What authority would such an arbitration body have to regulate the Marketplace?!
If they have no power to punish you how is it a law?
Law is not a police force, and it's not Judge Dredd. Law is simply the code that binds our actions. Most of us celebrate the Rule of Law that established our country (the Constitution) while we bemoan the bureaucratic Congressional code that, practically speaking, runs our lives.
The executive branch is the enforcement branch that provides power to back up the bureaucracy. It is not, technically, law enforcement; it is rather the guarantor of the Federal government's wishes. At times, it suits the government to punish criminals and uphold the righteous (Romans 13) but at other times it suits the government to do quite the opposite.
The Founders viewed government as the greatest threat to each man's health and wealth, which is why they framed the Constitution as a governmental restraint rather than a code of laws for the people. The greatest danger, the Founders knew, did not come from criminals, but from the armed agents of government who trade us their security for our freedom.
So tell us all how a monopoly can be considered a free market, Buttercup?
The market is free from regulatory pressure from the governing body. Governing bodies typically arise from some kind of armed struggle, and then those bodies impose taxes and other restrictions upon the marketplace to suit their invasive purposes.
In the United States, we established our own government through rebellion, so we don't have the yoke of some other people about our necks. Our market has been mostly free to do as it will, and the result has been a country richer than any other in this world.
"Monopoly" is a word invented to describe what some consider to be an unbalanced market phenomenon. Whether or not it is unbalanced, it does not threaten the freedom of the market because it is _inside_ the market and subject to the same conditions, laws, and influences which affect everyone else.
Explain to us how the government cannot be involved when the monopolist relies on the coercive power of that same government to enforce its contracts --those famous anti-competitive exclusionary contracts?
Actually, contracts are entered voluntarily and kept voluntarily. When a contract is breached it's discussed by the involved parties. When a solution cannot be reached, then and only then is the matter elevated to public arbitration through the court system.
Most Americans, these days, make the mistake of thinking that one "goes to court" to win something or get something. When you "go to court" you have publically stated that you cannot reach a compromise and you are submitting the matter to the will of the court. It is the voluntary act of filing a suit that hands the situation over to the government. Until then, it is _your_ responsibility.
No, the gov is always already involved, and if it does not curb monopoly abuses it in effect enforces them, it passively lends its weight to leverage the monopolist's arm-twisting.
I don't know what legal commentary led you to that conclusion, but it's a crock.
You're pretty much all over the place with your argument, so I'll leave the rest until you can sort out what you're trying to say.
Congress exercises is legislative authority but it cannot breach the authority of the Constitution. In other words, Congress is bound by the Rule of Law and subject to it, so therefore the bureaucratic code created by Congress is always subject to the Constitution itself.
Rule of Law is a different thing from common legislation. Understanding the difference would require that you do some reading on the subject of Law.
Ok, fine. Let's get rid of corporations. Why should the government be involved by granting them protections. Let's get rid of tax benefits and loopholes that the big companies exploit. Let's get rid of trade restrictions. Let's get the government to stop protecting our companies from foreign competitors. They should stand on their own two feet and deal with it instead of whining to the government for protection.
This is where you need to start, if you want to clear up your confusion about the issue. You have made a sad and unfortunate mistake in crossing Law and the government.
Government does not protect corporations. The Law does. It grants me, and everyone else, the same privileges and rights that allow me to pursue my business.
Or, at least, it should. Since the very origin of our Rule of Law, it's been attacked by special interests that seek to manipulate the government for their own short-term interests. Anti-trust legislation is a prime example of this short-sighted thinking.
Of course, I'd love to get rid of trade restrictions and tariffs. I don't know why you bring them up, since they're also great examples of government "protection" gone horribly awry.
As for the tax code, I refer you to a good solution: http://flattax.gov.
Not even Robert Bork, a long time enemy of Anti-Trust legislation "takes antitrust legislation to be a breach of free-market principles."
Bork doesn't represent intellectual conservatism, anymore. Bork's views have -- in the words of Reason Magazine -- "ahem, evolved". During the early stages of the trial he was grilled with long quotations from his own book, The Antitrust Paradox, and it showed embarrassingly how much Bork has recanted his views on the subject.
Some of those "Countless scholars" said they never would have "weighed in" if they had known that Microsoft was footing the bill for the "Independent" council that ran the NYT ad.
Of course they did, what's your point? And what does this have to do with anti-trust activity? You are attempting to snow the conversation, apparently.
Microsoft has noticed that too. That's why they are using their considerable influence to manipulate the government into leaving them alone.
"Manipulate the government into leaving them alone", now that is expert spin control. The ironic thing is, I totally agree. I would love to "manipulate the government into leaving me alone".
Yeah, that's right. If Free Market principles mean that you control your market, and have the capability of preventing competition.
This "preventing competition" rhetoric is so much naive bombast, but it's also rather laughable. If Microsoft could prevent competition, they probably would; unfortunately for Microsoft, they haven't quite been able to accomplish that. Would you like to assert that Microsoft has no competition?
Yes, holds to free-market principles that *anyone* is free to compete in the market. Not that one company is free to make it so that no one else can compete in the market.
And when Microsoft has achieved that, come back and shout us all down. But as far as I can tell, the tech sector -- especially operating systems -- is chock full of competitors running profitable businesses. We've seen the introduction of new operating systems every year in the past decade.
Emotions on your side of this issue seem to run very deep, but facts are remarkably hard to come by. The trial has so far existed on vitriol such as you express here, and it's a sad sign of where our activist-run government is headed.
Are you saying that Microsoft's principles changed? Because any other conclusion just isn't logical. It *is* the governments job to see that the market stays free. Otherwise, you just have a tyranny, just not a political one, but an economic tyrant.
No, I'm saying that Scott McNealy's principles changed. I wonder how it can be the government's job to see that the market stays free, when it is the government's own power that presents the greatest threat to freedom. Every company that participates lawfully in a free market is subject to the natural forces that govern that realm.
But when government gets involved it plays by different rules, and fights with unstoppable weapons. The government's intervention is unilaterally unsound for a free market, and continued meddling is going to play havoc on the development of critical industries like high-technology.
I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the history of economies and government. I'd also suggest you arm yourself with some facts, if you want to suggest that Microsoft is an "economic tyrant".
If you're against manipulation of the government by private interests, you've definitely got a lot of ground to cover. Look into the Agricultural commission, for starters.
Then, when you've seen the way corruption really works, you might understand that Microsoft doesn't actually do any of that. Perhaps you've forgotten the manner in which Netscape, Sun, AOL, and others instigated this trial against Microsoft.
The most political activity I've ever seen Microsoft engaged in has been its fight to decrease restrictions on the importation of skilled labor. Gates considers technically-skilled non-Americans to be essential to his business.
Microsoft makes no secret of the fact that it takes antitrust legislation to be a breach of free-market principles. Countless scholars and professionals have weighed in with agreement, and even Scott McNealy -- outside of his vested interest in the downfall of Microsoft -- holds to strong free-market principles.
Funny how principles change when you realize that the government can be manipulated into doing your dirty work...
Slashdot Mirror
I'd add to that
3) "Easy access" is used by people who probably never handled or shot a firearm. What's wrong with "easy access" to firearms? Every kid I know has "easy access" to similarly wicked weapons, like kitchen knives. It's easy to kill someone by pushing them off the upstairs bannister. My siblings and I were always taught how dangerous such things were, and that we should see them with extra-heightened responsiblity. Hurting people was never considered a solution to problems.
4) It's become a national conversation and everyone feels compelled to give a personal opinion. Just shut up, everybody, and take your damned kids out of day care. Has it ever occurred to you that your continual absence is creating a hateful vacuum in their life without a single exposure to violent video games/movies?
MJP
Snake movement is actually performed by a wide variety of motions, depending on terrain and speed requirements. The classical "winding" movement is accomplished with the shearing forces of angled coils, as you say. They also have the option of very slow movement on smooth, low-friction terrain by rippling the scales on the undersides of their bodies. Typically, though, snakes will use natural objects or deformations on tough terrain. The ability of the snake to focus tremendous strength and precision on a single loop of its body is amazing. Moreover, with a single strong hold the arboreal snake can typically extend more than 75% of its total length into mid-air in search of a second hold. The really critical thing, I think, is that its "limbs" aren't jointed; they're continuous articulated limbs that can put controlled pressure on every point of contact, and the snake makes full use of that fact. My 6-foot reticulated python can put 5 feet of its body into the air searching for an escape route, and with a minor purchase on the lid of her cage, can then proceed to lift her whole body up and out. I've frequently seen snakes use a form of movement that involves pinching a large coil between two obstacles and then flexing the muscles to form a chimney stop. Then it hoists the rest of its body over the stop and repeats the movement with another coil. Snake movement is absolutely remarkable. MJP
displaying winapps remotely would be MINIMALLY faster than VNC [say if what they/you are talking about is something like a virtual framebuffer for an individual app, dumped over the network].
That's what VNC is.
Windows apps _REALLY_ running over the X protocol would involve a LOT more OS hacking than I think they could reasonably conceive of doing.
Regardless, Tektronix's WinDD and Insignia Solutions' NTrigue do it. It's not an "OS hacking" issue; it's a matter of API-level redirection.
MJP
VNC doesn't display Windows apps using X. It transfers a dumb compressed framebuffer using VNC's own protocol. Windows apps displayed over X would be much (much!) faster than VNC.
MJP
Yes, the market was defined so "narrowly" that it includes 90+% of the computers sold.
The percentages have nothing to do with the definitions themself. I'm sure you have the imagination to realize this. I hope. Because I could define the "pencil market" as consisting of only "#2 pencils" and thus capture at least 90% of the pencil market. Then again, would I have "a monopoly" on pencils. I really don't think so.
I say this realizing that nothing I tell you will get you off of the ideological committment you and thousands of others have to the notion that government should make your enemies pay, just because you dislike them. All I can tell you is that someday your enemies will come calling. I hope you remember what you've accomplished.
MJP
Are you saying that it _matters why_ Microsoft challenged the law?
Do you think this whole debate could descend to a less logical standard of conversation? Everywhere you look, it's geeks offering their "opinion" on Microsoft, based on whether or not Microsoft makes them feel good about themselves. For God's sake, why don't we just open up the whole goddamned Freudian bag and ask you what you think of your parents. Then you can all go and talk ad nauseum about "parental monopoly power".
MJP
I love when this happens: someone says Microsoft has no competitors, and then the other guy says, "wake up, shit-for-brains, I have a Macintosh", and then it gets really quiet from the other side. How come nobody ever responds after that?
I think it's cause the other guy is "blinded by the obvious". Which begs the question: why do these things have to be pointed out to your average Slashdot brain donor?
MJP
The only way to make Microsoft behave is to take away ALL its monetary power.
Yes, that's the "IRS method", and it works rather well on individuals, in case you were wondering. Put simply, the power to tax and fine is the power to rule. With tax money you can hire jackbooted thugs, dress them in pretty uniforms, and send them after your enemies.
MJP
It's unfortunate that while 3D hardware is nice and cheap, the nice-and-cheap kind is designed to throw many frames/second of low-polygon models at the screen. The benchmark is Quake III, and that means the most important features on a cheap 3D card are fill rate and texture-map speed.
Higher-end cards, those designed with more advanced features like geometry setup and anti-aliasing, are much more suitable targets for whatever 3D-like user interfaces eventually arrive. You can count on such interfaces to make use of high-precision models, high polygon counts, and almost no dependence on texture-mapping (or even fill-rate, for that matter).
The key is _detail_, and that will require very high resolution rendering of anti-aliased models in very large memory spaces. Hopefully, NVidia's entry signals a new era for high-end 3D graphics pipelines, one of increasing affordability.
MJP
Good thoughts, concisely worded... but I wonder if I'm permitted to use my firearms offensively against animals?
MJP
I forgot a few classics:
Response 4: This is vaporware!
Response 5: Oh my God I want one of those so badly!
Response 6: This isn't news, I saw this before.
If Slashdot had the ability to automatically moderate all such posts to 'Redundant', I'm willing to bet the signal-to-noise ratio would rise dramatically.
MJP
Good to see the old pattern is still working like a champ:
Announcement: New faster/better/bigger XYZ!
Response 1: Do we really need faster/better/bigger? Most consumers don't need it! And I'm the first person ever to ask such a profound, socially-conscious question!
Response 2: I bet that makes a lot of heat. Hyuk, hyuk!
Response 3: Huh, I bet that would make a kickass Beowulf cluster.
Repeat responses 1, 2, and 3 as necessary. Presto, automatic Slashdot conversation generator.
MJP
I am trying to snow the conversation? You are the one who spuriously throws in the comment about what "Countless scholars and professionals" think knowing full well that much of that is simple Microsoft propaganda.
I don't know that "full well", and to claim as much would be a blatant lie.
If you want more information on the "countless scholars and professionals" who defend Microsoft, see the ARI's Web site (http://www.aynrand.org) or the Website for The Moral Defense of Microsoft (http://www.moraldefense.com/microsoft). Be careful not to trip over any facts, now...
You also were careful not to address my gibe about the benefits of antitrust legislation. It appears you seem to think that nothing was wrong with Rockefeller's Standard Oil or that the breakup of AT&T hasn't actually benefitted consumers and the economy. Isn't only picking out the points you want to address in an argument a way to "snow" the conversation?
How can either of us say whether it has "benefitted" when neither of us know what would have happened had government stayed its hand? Pretending to know the past that did not happen is as ridiculous as claiming to predict the future.
Your rule would appear to be "regulate first, ask questions later".
Criminals bribing judges are manipulating the government into leaving them alone, Chinese agents close to the Clinton administration apparently manipulated the government into leaving an agent at Los Alamos alone and Microsoft attempts to manipulate the legislature to change the law to leave them alone.
Criminal acts are a completely different subject. You know the difference between a criminal trial and a civil suit, am I right?
Had they took a principled stand in 1995, maybe you would have an argument. As it stands, they were caught in the act, they can't win in a court of law, so they try to influence the legislature to wiggle out from under the consequences of their actions.
This is ridiculous. An unjust government practice does not become just simply because Microsoft agreed to it, no more than a forced confession is admissible in criminal proceedings simply because everyone agrees that the defendant is guilty.
Oh yes, Microsoft is a bastion of principle here.
Nobody has made this claim, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. This is about Microsoft's rights, not about whether or not you like the company.
MJP
"Rule of law" and "government regulation" aren't the same things. Look into it.
MJP
If people like you had your way, we'd all still be in the freaking stone ages.
h tml
That's an assertion that is as unfounded as it is, frankly, stupid.
people would die young from industrial pollution of the air, land, and sea by mega-corporations
I'm left wondering how the mega-corporations would get away with this when wrongful death suits were filed. Seeing as how a jury of our peers would award a settlement, I'd think it would get rather expensive to continue to infringe on other peoples' rights this way. Wouldn't you? Or hadn't you thought much about it, Captain Planet?
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Academic/Coase_World.
Sorry, bud, but "anything goes" capitalism is an unbelievably stupid idea, and I for one will fight it
In other words, you will fight for your "right" to tell me what to do.
even if that means getting attacked by extremist right wingers such as yourself and your buddies at Microsoft.
Don't develop a persecution-complex, just yet. I don't know anybody who works for Microsoft, and I'm not going to "attack" you.
MJP
While Congress has pretty much discretionary power over its normal legislative syllabus, the Founders felt they had made the Constitutional amendment process so difficult to achieve that it couldn't be done without widespread, real support and enough time to allow elections to influence the matter. Unfortunately, I think they miscalculated. Among other travesties, we now have the direct election of Senators, which seriously breaks the check-balance represented by the Senate.
As for the issue of law enforcement, anyone could be expected to "enforce" the law. Anyone could be hired to do it. In general, law was historically intended to provide protections, not privileges.
Breaking the law and failing to provide restitution for your crime meant that you lost your protections and anyone (including your victim's family) could hunt you down and kill you. This is where we get the word "outlaw": a person who literally is _outside_ of the law and therefore is no longer protected by it.
To enforce law requires so-called "coercive" power. I thought only government had "coercive" power -- everything else being free association?
Yes, but that "coercive power" is allowable because the subject of that coercion has presumably forfeited his lawful protections by committing a grievous crime. This assumes that you mean enforcement of criminal codes.
In cases of civil dispute, or Tort Law, the issue of enforcement takes on a somewhat different character.
If someone other than "government" says you broke a law and they use coercive power to punish you how are they not government?
Obviously, arbitration must needs be conducted by an "impartial" third-party of some sort. Historically, this was the responsibility of a local magistrate or judge, someone who shared in the community's standards and beliefs. This could be considered "government", from a certain perspective, but I don't see the relevance. What authority would such an arbitration body have to regulate the Marketplace?!
If they have no power to punish you how is it a law?
Law is not a police force, and it's not Judge Dredd. Law is simply the code that binds our actions. Most of us celebrate the Rule of Law that established our country (the Constitution) while we bemoan the bureaucratic Congressional code that, practically speaking, runs our lives.
The executive branch is the enforcement branch that provides power to back up the bureaucracy. It is not, technically, law enforcement; it is rather the guarantor of the Federal government's wishes. At times, it suits the government to punish criminals and uphold the righteous (Romans 13) but at other times it suits the government to do quite the opposite.
The Founders viewed government as the greatest threat to each man's health and wealth, which is why they framed the Constitution as a governmental restraint rather than a code of laws for the people. The greatest danger, the Founders knew, did not come from criminals, but from the armed agents of government who trade us their security for our freedom.
MJP
So tell us all how a monopoly can be considered a free market, Buttercup?
The market is free from regulatory pressure from the governing body. Governing bodies typically arise from some kind of armed struggle, and then those bodies impose taxes and other restrictions upon the marketplace to suit their invasive purposes.
In the United States, we established our own government through rebellion, so we don't have the yoke of some other people about our necks. Our market has been mostly free to do as it will, and the result has been a country richer than any other in this world.
"Monopoly" is a word invented to describe what some consider to be an unbalanced market phenomenon. Whether or not it is unbalanced, it does not threaten the freedom of the market because it is _inside_ the market and subject to the same conditions, laws, and influences which affect everyone else.
Explain to us how the government cannot be involved when the monopolist relies on the coercive power of that same government to enforce its contracts --those famous anti-competitive exclusionary contracts?
Actually, contracts are entered voluntarily and kept voluntarily. When a contract is breached it's discussed by the involved parties. When a solution cannot be reached, then and only then is the matter elevated to public arbitration through the court system.
Most Americans, these days, make the mistake of thinking that one "goes to court" to win something or get something. When you "go to court" you have publically stated that you cannot reach a compromise and you are submitting the matter to the will of the court. It is the voluntary act of filing a suit that hands the situation over to the government. Until then, it is _your_ responsibility.
No, the gov is always already involved, and if it does not curb monopoly abuses it in effect enforces them, it passively lends its weight to leverage the monopolist's arm-twisting.
I don't know what legal commentary led you to that conclusion, but it's a crock.
You're pretty much all over the place with your argument, so I'll leave the rest until you can sort out what you're trying to say.
MJP
Congress exercises is legislative authority but it cannot breach the authority of the Constitution. In other words, Congress is bound by the Rule of Law and subject to it, so therefore the bureaucratic code created by Congress is always subject to the Constitution itself.
Rule of Law is a different thing from common legislation. Understanding the difference would require that you do some reading on the subject of Law.
MJP
Ok, fine. Let's get rid of corporations. Why should the government be involved by granting them protections. Let's get rid of tax benefits and loopholes that the big companies exploit. Let's get rid of trade restrictions. Let's get the government to stop protecting our companies from foreign competitors. They should stand on their own two feet and deal with it instead of whining to the government for protection.
This is where you need to start, if you want to clear up your confusion about the issue. You have made a sad and unfortunate mistake in crossing Law and the government.
Government does not protect corporations. The Law does. It grants me, and everyone else, the same privileges and rights that allow me to pursue my business.
Or, at least, it should. Since the very origin of our Rule of Law, it's been attacked by special interests that seek to manipulate the government for their own short-term interests. Anti-trust legislation is a prime example of this short-sighted thinking.
Of course, I'd love to get rid of trade restrictions and tariffs. I don't know why you bring them up, since they're also great examples of government "protection" gone horribly awry.
As for the tax code, I refer you to a good solution: http://flattax.gov.
MJP
What is this, a contest for the most creative strawman? Contract law is absolutely vital for the operation of a market economy.
Perhaps you are confusing "Law" with "Government". That would be a very common and very unfortunate mistake.
MJP
Not even Robert Bork, a long time enemy of Anti-Trust legislation "takes antitrust legislation to be a breach of free-market principles."
Bork doesn't represent intellectual conservatism, anymore. Bork's views have -- in the words of Reason Magazine -- "ahem, evolved". During the early stages of the trial he was grilled with long quotations from his own book, The Antitrust Paradox, and it showed embarrassingly how much Bork has recanted his views on the subject.
Some of those "Countless scholars" said they never would have "weighed in" if they had known that Microsoft was footing the bill for the "Independent" council that ran the NYT ad.
Of course they did, what's your point? And what does this have to do with anti-trust activity? You are attempting to snow the conversation, apparently.
Microsoft has noticed that too. That's why they are using their considerable influence to manipulate the government into leaving them alone.
"Manipulate the government into leaving them alone", now that is expert spin control. The ironic thing is, I totally agree. I would love to "manipulate the government into leaving me alone".
MJP
Yeah, that's right. If Free Market principles mean that you control your market, and have the capability of preventing competition.
This "preventing competition" rhetoric is so much naive bombast, but it's also rather laughable. If Microsoft could prevent competition, they probably would; unfortunately for Microsoft, they haven't quite been able to accomplish that. Would you like to assert that Microsoft has no competition?
Yes, holds to free-market principles that *anyone* is free to compete in the market. Not that one company is free to make it so that no one else can compete in the market.
And when Microsoft has achieved that, come back and shout us all down. But as far as I can tell, the tech sector -- especially operating systems -- is chock full of competitors running profitable businesses. We've seen the introduction of new operating systems every year in the past decade.
Emotions on your side of this issue seem to run very deep, but facts are remarkably hard to come by. The trial has so far existed on vitriol such as you express here, and it's a sad sign of where our activist-run government is headed.
Are you saying that Microsoft's principles changed? Because any other conclusion just isn't logical. It *is* the governments job to see that the market stays free. Otherwise, you just have a tyranny, just not a political one, but an economic tyrant.
No, I'm saying that Scott McNealy's principles changed. I wonder how it can be the government's job to see that the market stays free, when it is the government's own power that presents the greatest threat to freedom. Every company that participates lawfully in a free market is subject to the natural forces that govern that realm.
But when government gets involved it plays by different rules, and fights with unstoppable weapons. The government's intervention is unilaterally unsound for a free market, and continued meddling is going to play havoc on the development of critical industries like high-technology.
I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the history of economies and government. I'd also suggest you arm yourself with some facts, if you want to suggest that Microsoft is an "economic tyrant".
MJP
If you're against manipulation of the government by private interests, you've definitely got a lot of ground to cover. Look into the Agricultural commission, for starters.
Then, when you've seen the way corruption really works, you might understand that Microsoft doesn't actually do any of that. Perhaps you've forgotten the manner in which Netscape, Sun, AOL, and others instigated this trial against Microsoft.
The most political activity I've ever seen Microsoft engaged in has been its fight to decrease restrictions on the importation of skilled labor. Gates considers technically-skilled non-Americans to be essential to his business.
MJP
Microsoft makes no secret of the fact that it takes antitrust legislation to be a breach of free-market principles. Countless scholars and professionals have weighed in with agreement, and even Scott McNealy -- outside of his vested interest in the downfall of Microsoft -- holds to strong free-market principles.
Funny how principles change when you realize that the government can be manipulated into doing your dirty work...
MJP
Both were essentially oppressive toliterantian regimes which wrapped themselves in ideology to try to keep the people's loyalty.
...a system frequently known as "socialism".
MJP