i am getting an e-mail a minute, without exception from unc.edu. are these guys on crack?? well, i am on the phone with them right now, so we shall see...
it is hard to believe that people in this day and age still cite economics definitions like these as if they were laws of physics. don't believe everything you learn in college. economic laws, unlike physics laws are made by men for men, and above definition is completely arbitrary. you can make laws to restrict or unrestrict non-rivalry and non-excludability, or you can chose not to make such laws. the point is, if there is POLITICAL WILL to say some good such as software SHOULD be non-excludable, then you pass the law and bang, free software is the norm. there is nothing inherent here. it is a CHOICE to exclude something, or NOT to exclude something.
and by the way, not even physics laws are a give. everyone knows that. its a million times more true for economics.
Slashdot Mirror
i am getting an e-mail a minute, without exception from unc.edu. are these guys on crack?? well, i am on the phone with them right now, so we shall see...
it is hard to believe that people in this day and age still cite economics definitions like these as if they were laws of physics. don't believe everything you learn in college. economic laws, unlike physics laws are made by men for men, and above definition is completely arbitrary. you can make laws to restrict or unrestrict non-rivalry and non-excludability, or you can chose not to make such laws. the point is, if there is POLITICAL WILL to say some good such as software SHOULD be non-excludable, then you pass the law and bang, free software is the norm. there is nothing inherent here. it is a CHOICE to exclude something, or NOT to exclude something.
and by the way, not even physics laws are a give. everyone knows that. its a million times more true for economics.