Since so many schools have to restrict student use of file sharing software because of bandwidth issues, try releaving that problem.
Go ahead and filter at the border, to make sure that your ISP (or peering partners) isn't overloaded. Look at what the students are using the network *for*, not just what the Ivory Tower dwellers think is "apropriate" use, and help it along.
Point 1. In fact, prior to 1912 in America, "modern industrial capitalism" was going along just fine. Bzzzzt, you loose.
Point 2. You have never looked at an inflation graph, nor were you alive (I must assume) for the depression of 1975-81. The massive continual artificial inflation, combined with continual bank bailouts, *are* an ongoing "depression" by pre-FederalReserve standards. Also, the FederalReserve is a government legislated monopoly, which is why it requires a law to exist at all. Bzzzt, you loose.
Your 2. Oh? I'm impressed by your knowledge of Microsofts business strategy. Oh, but wait, you call "not copying copyrighted software" as some form of coercion against an OEM. Aparently you have never heard of "theft", so BZZZZZT! You loose again.
Point 3. You merely assert that without legislated limited liability, your idea of "modern industrial capitalism" would not exist. Well, at least convince me that the present style of "modern industrial capitalism" is such a good thing. Yeah, it stumbles along, but so does a '49 Studabaker.
I will support an opposing position: Without limited liability, poluters could be directly prosecuted for the decision to polute. The Ford executive or committee who decided that a $2 part was "too expensive" to protect the gas tank of a Pinto from being ruptured in a crash could be sued for deliberately making such a life threatening decision. Would such liability stop some business from putting out some, maybe useful, product? Yes, but I find no proof that some, maybe useful, products are not produced under the present system.
I do wonder, how did you get an economics degree (unless econ means something else, forgive my assumption) without reading von Mises? Or knowing the history of the Federal Reserve?
"somewhere in there you defined "law enforcement" to mean, essentially, the physical persecution of innocents."
Yes. That is exactly what it means.
To explain, there is no need for a "law" against murder. I demonstrate harm done to a jury, and win my case against the murderer. This is the lesson of a thousand years of common law.
There is no need for a "law" against rape, or theft, or being beaten. It is only legislation by politicians robbing you blind which makes a thousand (or more) "legal" distinctions between being beaten with a blunt instrument, verses being beaten with a fist, verses being stabbed, verses being shot, verses being hit with a car, etc etc etc. And it is this "legislation" that then becomes so complex and self contradictory that there is no longer the possibility for someone to be not-guilty of any "crime". I fully expect that if you were to look it up, you break the "law" every time you leave your house in some way or another.
If you have a plant the government doesn't like, you are a criminal whether you know it or not. It requres laws for this sort of idiocy.
Or, to bring it back to computers, there is a "law" against your viewing a DVD you already bought on your computer unless you use sanctioned software of some kind.
All it really takes is finding what, for you, is legislated against that you disagree with. That's not semantics, that's reality. When I find that thing which you do not like the government passing a "law" against, which you feel harms no one, that you choose to do anyway, then you cannot argue for "law enforcement" unless you also argue for it used against yourself.
If you haven't heard the alternatives, it's because you cannot hear them. Restitution instead of prison. If there is no harm, there is no crime. Real jury trials, not stacked prosecutor cheering stands. Individual responsibility for individual actions, not legislated limited liability (best known as corporate welfare).
Yet it does all boil down to initiation of force. When there is harm done, there is no need of a "law" to prosecute it, since even that technically requires demonstrating harm.
Only persecution requires "laws". Only punishing people, or killing them, because they like to get high, or they choose to own a gun, or they want to work on the other side of some arbitrary line in the sand. Or they just want to view their DVD on their Linux box, or give someone else the software to do so themselves.
Well golly, prison isn't much of a deterrant either, if as you say people are being killed every day already.
The answer to muggings is to make mugging far more expensive for the mugger than the muggee. That's what handguns are good for, as the reduction in such random "violent" crimes everywhere that lawful firearms ownership is made easier demonstrates.
The vast increases that Britain has seen in muggings and murders since prohibiting legal firearms ownership shows that the reverse is also true.
You see, one of the mistakes in arguments against the libertarian "non-initiation of force" is that there is no such restriction on retaliation. While there is little point in a CRIMINAL prosecution of a tennant who doesn't pay the rent, since no rent will be gained by putting them in jail (which was the reason I objected to criminal prosection for such non-violent "crime"), someone who does comit violent crime has therefore made the choice to abrogate their rights not to be "violated" in return.
Thus my statement, that the extreme argument against civil restitution is that it is difficult to come up with a socially acceptable restitution for murder. My trying to avoid the obvious extreme question, "Oh yeah? How do you restitute murder?" was unsuccessful.
I think I see the flaw in your argumentation concerning civil society.
The government monopoly is on the initiation of force. This is embodied in the "special police power" that cops have as part of their official duty, "the power to arrest someone for a misdemenor."
Everyone has the "power" to arrest someone who presents a danger, or has caused damages. A citizen who is not a cop has the responsibility to contact a policeman or otherwise bring the arrested individual before a magistrate as quickly as possible, or they are liable for "kidnapping" or "false arrest" charges.
Technically, the police also have that responsibility, however because of the limited liability granted to "on duty cops" by politicians, it has become assumed, as you do, that only police have the power of arrest because they flaunt it so brazenly.
That is why bountyhunters and private security guards are able to arrest. It's the same citizens power.
However, you use the term "enforce the law". This demonstrates your government public school education clearer than anything else. The civil power and responsibilities concerning arrest resolve around harm done or direct threat of harm, where "law enforcement" means the initiation of force against people who have done no harm.
If I initiate force against you, I am in the wrong. If a cop does it, they merely show that it is "policy", such as with beating the crap out of Rodney King, or that I am suspected of breaking some law regardless of any lack of harm. This would include things like being in posession of a potted plant.
"If you're a libertarian, shouldn't you be happy with the rights of a andlord to bring criminal punishment upon a tenant for breach of contract?"
No. As a libertarian, Civil damages are brought for restitution of damages done.
And I assure you, the argumentum ad absurdum of "Well then how do you restitute crimes like murder?" have been and are argued about by some very considerate and thoughtful people every day.
Either "constructionist" means "as reasoned by those that constructed it", or the term is meaningless.
I didn't invent "constructionist" as a term, nor did I invent going back to the arguments and reasons for something to discover its arguments and reasons for existing. That particular discovery technique somewhat predates me as you would know if you read a book.
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable
one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson,
June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 32.
Did you ever read the arguments and documentation behind the inclusion of the "interstate commerce clause"? It's fascinating reading.
The instigation and reasoning was that individual states were erecting trade barriers against products/labor in other states. This was considered "bad". In fact, this was one major reason used to call the Constitutional Convention at all.
So, by a "strict constructionist" interpretation, the only use of the interstate commerce clause is negative: to prevent any restrictions on the flow of material, labor or produce across state lines. It placed such restrictions outside of the perview of the states.
Even the commentators of the time, such as Alexander Hamilton, had to address how this clause might be abused. The "Anti Federalists" were agast that the Fed.Gov was being granted control over anything that might possibly cross state lines, a concern that has since been proven overly optimistic in even its most dire warnings. Every abuse they warned about has come to pass, and far, far more.
It's too bad that the Federalist papers are no longer taught in the government schools. You can bet that the Anti-Federalist papers were avoided like the plague!
Currency is a perfect example of something provided by private individuals for thousands of years, at least. When apropriated by governments, for instance when the English King decided to mint his own coins, they did so with the excuse that they were doing "quality assurance."
However, a funny thing started happening. Gold coins circulated through the Kings coffers were losing weight. They were being peeled for gold in itty bitty increments, the resultant bits being made into more coins. Inflation.
In order to prevent competition to such things, governments then mandated that only their issued bills/coins are "money". They then get to decide what is money, and print more when convenient. More inflation.
It's astounding that the history of currency, of a continual slow deflation as manufacturing and distribution became more efficient, that savings became more valuable over time, has been lost. I believe that history has been deliberately supressed by those who print "money" because of the astounding profits they enjoy with their legislated monopoly.
Guess what? An ounce of gold a hundred years ago bought a good suit. It still does. In real currency terms, the old slow process continues. It is only in fiat "money" printed by government that has given us the great depressions, the bubble economies, great currency instabilities, and the like.
It takes a very great deal of deliberate ignorance and I dare say stupidity to "forget" that the "great depression" only happened after the founding of the Federal Reserve, designed to prevent just that sort of thing, or at least that's what was said by those who designed it.
Number 3 is another falacy, taught to you by the politicans who benefit from selling those limited liability contracts called "corporations", and then defending those who bought them from the reprocussions of their own actions. That you can defend such hypocrisy with a straight face demonstrates the remarkable effectiveness of government schooling.
And number 2? Defense of contracts? Tell that to the Microsoft bashers who are so furious that Microsoft was able to negotiate contracts that favored Microsoft. Anti-trust legislation defeats your point number 2 very well indeed.
There is also the recent decision backing the laws that defeat employer/employee contracts concerning arbitration. Another "contract" violated by government. How much more is needed before you realize that one of the most profitable business government is in is enforcing contract violations?
A well educated citizenry being necessary to the sucess of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
So we can only keep and read books that relate to education? We can only keep and read books that are permitted by the state?
The most apalling interpretation is that the right is somehow "granted", when it specifically says that the right shall not be infringed. The plain english is that government cannot "grant", it can only "infringe" on a pre-existing right.
Pre-windows, the government contracts said "IBM Compatable."
Then they said, "Windows Compatable." So did most big companies, because of the economies of scale.
When I was working on a government pre-"Internet" internet project, using SunOS, I had to repeatedly ask for things to be sent to me in something other than MS-Word format. We even had a Windows machine for just such things.
I don't blame the government for standardizing, it's cheaper that way. Now, with good cheap alternatives to Windows, I believe OpenSource(tm) solutions would be cheaper, but I'm not writing the contracts.
The government bought many millions of copies of Windows and MS Office, then upgrades, upgrades, upgrades, etc. To then prosecute Microsoft for being "too big" smells of hypocrisy.
You might want to read a book before posting next time. I can suggest Ludwig von Mises "Human Action" as an excellent trist on the subject.
Here's why capitalism is like crabgrass: Any time property rights are protected to any degree, and freedom to associate is allowed to any degree, people begin to trade their skills and materials with others. If money is available, money is used.
Those with high skills or materials in demand trade their skills or materials at a higher "price" than lesser skills or materials.
Bingo. Capitalism. Supply and demand. A good barber in Kabul the day after the Taliban runs out has more business than a bad barber. No one plans it, the myriad decisions of each individual creates capitalism spontainiously.
So, Eryq, do you wish to say why you believe "capitalism" does not exist except by some plan or decision from On High? Care to give an example? Would you please support your assertion?
Bloody heck, now my posting on this subject will be rated as "redundant".
Very well said, Elmegil. I'd mod you up if I could.
I remember an interview by Vin Sprynowicz of a state-level politician during campaign season in Nevada. One of his questions, which had to be reworded twice before the politician caught on, was "What kinds of things might someone ask you do to do that, because of state or federal constitutional restrictions, the (office you're running for) cannot do?"
The answer was, "Oh, I think such an excuse would just be a cop-out."
Where in the constitution is power granted to government to violate voluntary contracts? Yes, voluntary. The resellers wanted to resell Microsoft products, as cheaply as possible, and so signed the exclusivity contracts. Just because Microsoft is good at bargaining, is it a "monopoly"? The anti-trust laws are so vague that merely breaking the law is a matter of opinion.
People talk about "Microsoft using its monopoly power to..." without recognizing that the only power Microsoft has is the price at which they sell their product.
If the suit had been brought by some reseller who had been defrauded, or someone suing how Internet Explorer is falsely advertized as "compatable" without actually being compatable, all they have to do is prove their case. Demonstrate harm.
This whole "anti-trust" stuff is crap. Anison suing Bufferin because Bufferin merely repackaged the asperine in a sugar coating or whatever.
Microsoft never broke down someones door and forced them to buy a product at gun point. I can't say the same thing about government.
I respect Bork in many ways. He is, unfortunately, a party to this action. He is hardly going to say "government should be a last resort" out of one side of his face, and take Netscape's money to say how evil Microsoft has been out of the other side. Principle says "Then make a better product." Pragmatism says, "Oh, for a fee, I'll change the principle."
You state, "I'd have no problem giving up the first class monopoly but the competetors would need to play by the same rules - deliver to every mailbox in the whole country six days a week, no skimming on just the high volume routes. Any takers on that basis?"
If there is a market for such a level of service, there will be entepreneurs who step up to provide that service.
Your criteria is something that you believe in. Are you emotionally prepared to give up the ability to enforce what you want on others by the power of the sword?
The risk is that the service provided will not be to your satisfaction. So what? AOL doesn't deliver service to my satisfaction, that doesn't mean I'm going to advocate a law banning AOL.
I would also expect to find that, like with other "low cost" agencies, the costs of buildings, sallaries, retirements, and the like, simply do not exist since the buildings, people, or other such things are paid for on other balance sheets.
Do be aware, Mr. Coward, that it is still illegal to use any other service than the USPS for "first class mail" as defined by law. People/Companies have been prosecuted and fined for such "over-use" of services like FedEx and UPS.
Were the USPS sold for scrap, it wouldn't bother me at all if the resultant company chose to allow advertizing. It is only when the government monopoly on force is used to promote private, for-profit enterprises that I object.
If the USPS were sold off for scrap, I wouldn't care who they let advertize in their buildnigs. I object to my money being used to pay for buildings in which Microsoft gets to advertize.
The problem is that if I object by taking my money elsewhere, the TaxManCommith and I get taken away in chains while my money is removed and used against my will anyway.
Now THAT is monopoly power. Too bad congress is exempt from their own anti-trust laws.
Woody's working fine for me, I've been pulling down 2.4.x kernels
as they've been made available.
You're absolutely right, though, Woody base install still
uses 2.2.19(?), the 2.4.x kernels are available options.
I still keep 2.2.19 in lilo as an alternative in case I run into
any problems, but once I got all the module configs fixed
for 2.4, there's been no need to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, "militia" isn't everyone either, it's all males 16 to 45 as defined by the same people who wrote the 2nd amendment.
How about "A well educated electorate..." and then asking if only registered voters are therefore allowed to own books?
Bob-
Since so many schools have to restrict student use of file sharing software because of bandwidth issues, try releaving that problem.
Go ahead and filter at the border, to make sure that your ISP (or peering partners) isn't overloaded. Look at what the students are using the network *for*, not just what the Ivory Tower dwellers think is "apropriate" use, and help it along.
Bob-
Point 1. In fact, prior to 1912 in America, "modern industrial capitalism" was going along just fine. Bzzzzt, you loose.
Point 2. You have never looked at an inflation graph, nor were you alive (I must assume) for the depression of 1975-81. The massive continual artificial inflation, combined with continual bank bailouts, *are* an ongoing "depression" by pre-FederalReserve standards. Also, the FederalReserve is a government legislated monopoly, which is why it requires a law to exist at all. Bzzzt, you loose.
Your 2. Oh? I'm impressed by your knowledge of Microsofts business strategy. Oh, but wait, you call "not copying copyrighted software" as some form of coercion against an OEM. Aparently you have never heard of "theft", so BZZZZZT! You loose again.
Point 3. You merely assert that without legislated limited liability, your idea of "modern industrial capitalism" would not exist. Well, at least convince me that the present style of "modern industrial capitalism" is such a good thing. Yeah, it stumbles along, but so does a '49 Studabaker.
I will support an opposing position: Without limited liability, poluters could be directly prosecuted for the decision to polute. The Ford executive or committee who decided that a $2 part was "too expensive" to protect the gas tank of a Pinto from being ruptured in a crash could be sued for deliberately making such a life threatening decision. Would such liability stop some business from putting out some, maybe useful, product? Yes, but I find no proof that some, maybe useful, products are not produced under the present system.
I do wonder, how did you get an economics degree (unless econ means something else, forgive my assumption) without reading von Mises? Or knowing the history of the Federal Reserve?
Bob-
"somewhere in there you defined "law enforcement" to mean, essentially, the physical persecution of innocents."
Yes. That is exactly what it means.
To explain, there is no need for a "law" against murder. I demonstrate harm done to a jury, and win my case against the murderer. This is the lesson of a thousand years of common law.
There is no need for a "law" against rape, or theft, or being beaten. It is only legislation by politicians robbing you blind which makes a thousand (or more) "legal" distinctions between being beaten with a blunt instrument, verses being beaten with a fist, verses being stabbed, verses being shot, verses being hit with a car, etc etc etc. And it is this "legislation" that then becomes so complex and self contradictory that there is no longer the possibility for someone to be not-guilty of any "crime". I fully expect that if you were to look it up, you break the "law" every time you leave your house in some way or another.
If you have a plant the government doesn't like, you are a criminal whether you know it or not. It requres laws for this sort of idiocy.
Or, to bring it back to computers, there is a "law" against your viewing a DVD you already bought on your computer unless you use sanctioned software of some kind.
All it really takes is finding what, for you, is legislated against that you disagree with. That's not semantics, that's reality. When I find that thing which you do not like the government passing a "law" against, which you feel harms no one, that you choose to do anyway, then you cannot argue for "law enforcement" unless you also argue for it used against yourself.
If you haven't heard the alternatives, it's because you cannot hear them. Restitution instead of prison. If there is no harm, there is no crime. Real jury trials, not stacked prosecutor cheering stands. Individual responsibility for individual actions, not legislated limited liability (best known as corporate welfare).
Yet it does all boil down to initiation of force. When there is harm done, there is no need of a "law" to prosecute it, since even that technically requires demonstrating harm.
Only persecution requires "laws". Only punishing people, or killing them, because they like to get high, or they choose to own a gun, or they want to work on the other side of some arbitrary line in the sand. Or they just want to view their DVD on their Linux box, or give someone else the software to do so themselves.
Bob-
Well golly, prison isn't much of a deterrant either, if as you say people are being killed every day already.
The answer to muggings is to make mugging far more expensive for the mugger than the muggee. That's what handguns are good for, as the reduction in such random "violent" crimes everywhere that lawful firearms ownership is made easier demonstrates.
The vast increases that Britain has seen in muggings and murders since prohibiting legal firearms ownership shows that the reverse is also true.
You see, one of the mistakes in arguments against the libertarian "non-initiation of force" is that there is no such restriction on retaliation. While there is little point in a CRIMINAL prosecution of a tennant who doesn't pay the rent, since no rent will be gained by putting them in jail (which was the reason I objected to criminal prosection for such non-violent "crime"), someone who does comit violent crime has therefore made the choice to abrogate their rights not to be "violated" in return.
Thus my statement, that the extreme argument against civil restitution is that it is difficult to come up with a socially acceptable restitution for murder. My trying to avoid the obvious extreme question, "Oh yeah? How do you restitute murder?" was unsuccessful.
Gee, that rambled. Better score it with a 1.
Bob-
I think their business practices deserve crushing, preferably by atomic bomb if my emotions were to be indulged in.
However, I prefer to do it by not using their product. And since Microsoft cannot compell use of their product, unlike government, I am able to.
Bob-
I think I see the flaw in your argumentation concerning civil society.
The government monopoly is on the initiation of force. This is embodied in the "special police power" that cops have as part of their official duty, "the power to arrest someone for a misdemenor."
Everyone has the "power" to arrest someone who presents a danger, or has caused damages. A citizen who is not a cop has the responsibility to contact a policeman or otherwise bring the arrested individual before a magistrate as quickly as possible, or they are liable for "kidnapping" or "false arrest" charges.
Technically, the police also have that responsibility, however because of the limited liability granted to "on duty cops" by politicians, it has become assumed, as you do, that only police have the power of arrest because they flaunt it so brazenly.
That is why bountyhunters and private security guards are able to arrest. It's the same citizens power.
However, you use the term "enforce the law". This demonstrates your government public school education clearer than anything else. The civil power and responsibilities concerning arrest resolve around harm done or direct threat of harm, where "law enforcement" means the initiation of force against people who have done no harm.
If I initiate force against you, I am in the wrong. If a cop does it, they merely show that it is "policy", such as with beating the crap out of Rodney King, or that I am suspected of breaking some law regardless of any lack of harm. This would include things like being in posession of a potted plant.
Do you understand?
Bob-
"If you're a libertarian, shouldn't you be happy with the rights of a andlord to bring criminal punishment upon a tenant for breach of contract?"
No. As a libertarian, Civil damages are brought for restitution of damages done.
And I assure you, the argumentum ad absurdum of "Well then how do you restitute crimes like murder?" have been and are argued about by some very considerate and thoughtful people every day.
Bob-
Either "constructionist" means "as reasoned by those that constructed it", or the term is meaningless.
I didn't invent "constructionist" as a term, nor did I invent going back to the arguments and reasons for something to discover its arguments and reasons for existing. That particular discovery technique somewhat predates me as you would know if you read a book.
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable
one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson,
June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 32.
Bob-
Did you ever read the arguments and documentation behind the inclusion of the "interstate commerce clause"? It's fascinating reading.
The instigation and reasoning was that individual states were erecting trade barriers against products/labor in other states. This was considered "bad". In fact, this was one major reason used to call the Constitutional Convention at all.
So, by a "strict constructionist" interpretation, the only use of the interstate commerce clause is negative: to prevent any restrictions on the flow of material, labor or produce across state lines. It placed such restrictions outside of the perview of the states.
Even the commentators of the time, such as Alexander Hamilton, had to address how this clause might be abused. The "Anti Federalists" were agast that the Fed.Gov was being granted control over anything that might possibly cross state lines, a concern that has since been proven overly optimistic in even its most dire warnings. Every abuse they warned about has come to pass, and far, far more.
It's too bad that the Federalist papers are no longer taught in the government schools. You can bet that the Anti-Federalist papers were avoided like the plague!
Bob-
The Chinese are already using better software than Microsoft. Look up "Red Flag Linux".
And since I'm no fan of Microsoft software, your accusations are falicious on their face.
Bob-
Currency is a perfect example of something provided by private individuals for thousands of years, at least. When apropriated by governments, for instance when the English King decided to mint his own coins, they did so with the excuse that they were doing "quality assurance."
However, a funny thing started happening. Gold coins circulated through the Kings coffers were losing weight. They were being peeled for gold in itty bitty increments, the resultant bits being made into more coins. Inflation.
In order to prevent competition to such things, governments then mandated that only their issued bills/coins are "money". They then get to decide what is money, and print more when convenient. More inflation.
It's astounding that the history of currency, of a continual slow deflation as manufacturing and distribution became more efficient, that savings became more valuable over time, has been lost. I believe that history has been deliberately supressed by those who print "money" because of the astounding profits they enjoy with their legislated monopoly.
Guess what? An ounce of gold a hundred years ago bought a good suit. It still does. In real currency terms, the old slow process continues. It is only in fiat "money" printed by government that has given us the great depressions, the bubble economies, great currency instabilities, and the like.
It takes a very great deal of deliberate ignorance and I dare say stupidity to "forget" that the "great depression" only happened after the founding of the Federal Reserve, designed to prevent just that sort of thing, or at least that's what was said by those who designed it.
Number 3 is another falacy, taught to you by the politicans who benefit from selling those limited liability contracts called "corporations", and then defending those who bought them from the reprocussions of their own actions. That you can defend such hypocrisy with a straight face demonstrates the remarkable effectiveness of government schooling.
And number 2? Defense of contracts? Tell that to the Microsoft bashers who are so furious that Microsoft was able to negotiate contracts that favored Microsoft. Anti-trust legislation defeats your point number 2 very well indeed.
There is also the recent decision backing the laws that defeat employer/employee contracts concerning arbitration. Another "contract" violated by government. How much more is needed before you realize that one of the most profitable business government is in is enforcing contract violations?
Bob-
A well educated citizenry being necessary to the sucess of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
So we can only keep and read books that relate to education? We can only keep and read books that are permitted by the state?
The most apalling interpretation is that the right is somehow "granted", when it specifically says that the right shall not be infringed. The plain english is that government cannot "grant", it can only "infringe" on a pre-existing right.
Offtopic, here I come.
Bob-
You demonatrate my point. They wanted to package Microsoft products, and Microsoft negotiated contracts in Microsoft's favor.
If you don't like how restrictive Microsoft is in their contracts, don't use their products. You Do Have That Choice.
Blast, I'm replying to a coward again. I gotta get a shrink.
Bob-
The only difference between "conservative" and "liberal" is in what things about your life they wish to control through government force.
Some people suggest it's "economic control" verses "private choice control", but it all ends up being control.
I consider Bork to be a hypocrite in so far that he both argues for "limited governemnt" and for "one that enforces what I think is right."
Freedom means freedom to do what other people find objectionable, the limit being force or fraud.
Bob-
Pre-windows, the government contracts said "IBM Compatable."
Then they said, "Windows Compatable." So did most big companies, because of the economies of scale.
When I was working on a government pre-"Internet" internet project, using SunOS, I had to repeatedly ask for things to be sent to me in something other than MS-Word format. We even had a Windows machine for just such things.
I don't blame the government for standardizing, it's cheaper that way. Now, with good cheap alternatives to Windows, I believe OpenSource(tm) solutions would be cheaper, but I'm not writing the contracts.
The government bought many millions of copies of Windows and MS Office, then upgrades, upgrades, upgrades, etc. To then prosecute Microsoft for being "too big" smells of hypocrisy.
You might want to read a book before posting next time. I can suggest Ludwig von Mises "Human Action" as an excellent trist on the subject.
Here's why capitalism is like crabgrass: Any time property rights are protected to any degree, and freedom to associate is allowed to any degree, people begin to trade their skills and materials with others. If money is available, money is used.
Those with high skills or materials in demand trade their skills or materials at a higher "price" than lesser skills or materials.
Bingo. Capitalism. Supply and demand. A good barber in Kabul the day after the Taliban runs out has more business than a bad barber. No one plans it, the myriad decisions of each individual creates capitalism spontainiously.
So, Eryq, do you wish to say why you believe "capitalism" does not exist except by some plan or decision from On High? Care to give an example? Would you please support your assertion?
Bob-
Bloody heck, now my posting on this subject will be rated as "redundant".
Very well said, Elmegil. I'd mod you up if I could.
I remember an interview by Vin Sprynowicz of a state-level politician during campaign season in Nevada. One of his questions, which had to be reworded twice before the politician caught on, was "What kinds of things might someone ask you do to do that, because of state or federal constitutional restrictions, the (office you're running for) cannot do?"
The answer was, "Oh, I think such an excuse would just be a cop-out."
Food for thought.
Bob-
Where in the constitution is power granted to government to violate voluntary contracts? Yes, voluntary. The resellers wanted to resell Microsoft products, as cheaply as possible, and so signed the exclusivity contracts. Just because Microsoft is good at bargaining, is it a "monopoly"? The anti-trust laws are so vague that merely breaking the law is a matter of opinion.
People talk about "Microsoft using its monopoly power to..." without recognizing that the only power Microsoft has is the price at which they sell their product.
If the suit had been brought by some reseller who had been defrauded, or someone suing how Internet Explorer is falsely advertized as "compatable" without actually being compatable, all they have to do is prove their case. Demonstrate harm.
This whole "anti-trust" stuff is crap. Anison suing Bufferin because Bufferin merely repackaged the asperine in a sugar coating or whatever.
Microsoft never broke down someones door and forced them to buy a product at gun point. I can't say the same thing about government.
I respect Bork in many ways. He is, unfortunately, a party to this action. He is hardly going to say "government should be a last resort" out of one side of his face, and take Netscape's money to say how evil Microsoft has been out of the other side. Principle says "Then make a better product." Pragmatism says, "Oh, for a fee, I'll change the principle."
Bob-
You state, "I'd have no problem giving up the first class monopoly but the competetors would need to play by the same rules - deliver to every mailbox in the whole country six days a week, no skimming on just the high volume routes. Any takers on that basis?"
If there is a market for such a level of service, there will be entepreneurs who step up to provide that service.
Your criteria is something that you believe in. Are you emotionally prepared to give up the ability to enforce what you want on others by the power of the sword?
The risk is that the service provided will not be to your satisfaction. So what? AOL doesn't deliver service to my satisfaction, that doesn't mean I'm going to advocate a law banning AOL.
....no matter how much fun that would be.
Bob-
A quick look at http://www.usps.com/financials/ shows repeated influxes of Federal funds to keep them afloat.
I would also expect to find that, like with other "low cost" agencies, the costs of buildings, sallaries, retirements, and the like, simply do not exist since the buildings, people, or other such things are paid for on other balance sheets.
Do be aware, Mr. Coward, that it is still illegal to use any other service than the USPS for "first class mail" as defined by law. People/Companies have been prosecuted and fined for such "over-use" of services like FedEx and UPS.
Were the USPS sold for scrap, it wouldn't bother me at all if the resultant company chose to allow advertizing. It is only when the government monopoly on force is used to promote private, for-profit enterprises that I object.
Bob-
If the USPS were sold off for scrap, I wouldn't care who they let advertize in their buildnigs. I object to my money being used to pay for buildings in which Microsoft gets to advertize.
The problem is that if I object by taking my money elsewhere, the TaxManCommith and I get taken away in chains while my money is removed and used against my will anyway.
Now THAT is monopoly power. Too bad congress is exempt from their own anti-trust laws.
Bob-
I do find it very interesting that you can quote Ayn Rand in your sig, and still write as if "government" takes care of people.
It seems an irreconsilable contradiction.
I can suggest the essay "Government Is Evil" on LewRockwell.com as a primer for my "opinion" that you say you disagree with.
On the other hand, you may just disagree with my definition of "socialist", which is also interesting in of itself.
Bob-
The Million Mom March was short by about the same number, too.
This must be a redefinition of "million" in preparation for the devaluation of the Dollar.
Bob-
Woody's working fine for me, I've been pulling down 2.4.x kernels
as they've been made available.
You're absolutely right, though, Woody base install still
uses 2.2.19(?), the 2.4.x kernels are available options.
I still keep 2.2.19 in lilo as an alternative in case I run into
any problems, but once I got all the module configs fixed
for 2.4, there's been no need to use it.
Bob-