On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 12:59:28PM -0600, Jesse Erdmann wrote: > Ben Lutgens wrote: > > WARNING! This is NOT A FLAME! :-) > > > > You take such a dark view of capitalist practices. Perhaps thier > > intentions are not malicious. Perhaps they just want to make some money. > > This is not a crime, nor is it immoral IMHO. After it is capitalism and > > the inherent strenghts and weaknesses that's made our countries economy > > strong enough to give us things like nationwide broadband Net access and > > buttloads of computer parts at reasonable prices. > > > > If you think any of this would be possible without the "Big Guns" the > > likes of say AT&T, U.S.West, and other so called "evil empires" *cough* > > microsoft *cough* you're mistaken. > > > Here's my random non-Linux related monthly contribution to list for > November. Read _Atlas Shrugged_ by Ayn Rand (this comment not directed > at Ben, just inspired by the comment). I'm about halfway through it, if > nothing else it's made me think a lot more about economics and > capitalism than I ever have before. Just be careful -- Ayn Rand's writing is one thing, her followers and their politics are completely another. The Ayn Rand Institute are about as savory as the Church of Scientology, and furthermore are very pro "Corporate-rights" (which are frankly contrary to Rand's own work many times.) Their web site supports Microsoft very heavily, at least as of a couple of years ago. I had the silly notion to try and reason with the president of said org several years ago, backed him into a corner, and he said, "well we won't be dissuaded by facts". The exchange went something like this: Phil: "Hang on -- you'd better define what rights you think a corporation has.'" Rand-ies: "A corporation has the same rights as the people that make up the corporation, of course." P: "Well, I don't think so. I have the right to vote; Microsoft doesn't. I have the right to bear arms. I sure as hell hope Microsoft doesn't. Therefore, they do not have all the rights of an individual, and your point is invalid." Rand-ies: "So?"... <Exit Phil, stage left, shaking head and muttering...> > Given that it was written in the 40s IIRC, it doesn't discuss things > like inteleectual property. Therfore, it's left to the student as an > exercise to apply theories therein to OSS or the Microsoft trial. Capitalism as it is practiced in Rand or the ideal assumes that there is absolute personal responsibility. The problem with capitalism in it's current degenerate form (not an moral judgment -- just a technical use of the word) is that the legal entity known as a corporation has the sole intent of limiting personal responsibility. Further, the assumption that consumers find the best value before making a purchase is a known flaw in most current economic models. (Wanna Ph.D. thesis topic in economics? Build models based on people buying when the find something 'good-enough' or on word of mouth.) So Rand is provoking, but not a very good model. (Good writer though -- but I like the Fountainhead or Anthem better.) That's just my two-cents worth -- though it's probably an inflated value! -- I used to like HP before computers, and once I even liked Compaq, but I liked DEC better than HP and Compaq put together.