Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: metaphors (Anti-Microsoft sentiment)

Author:Joshua Allen
Posted:9/16/2000; 9:22:25 PM
Topic:Debunking the OSS Bazaar?
Msg #:21426 (In response to 21420)
Prev/Next:21425 / 21427

Okay, now I'll address sports and war. I don't think the issue of killing is central. But a related effect is important, and this is that killing is final. People and things are truly diminished when ended permanently. This is why murder is such a big deal, compared to battery.

OK, so this is the main disconnect. We both agree that humans have an unalianable right to exist. On the other hand, you see a company being put out of business as the same type of crime as an individual dying, while I do not. I believe that the natural process of the market killing off companies and having the humans continually follow the collective market demand is the best way to effectively protect the "right to exist" that individual human beings have.

In addition, I feel that the only way you can mandate a company survive, you must also violate the "right to choose" that all human beings have. I mean, if nobody is buying software X, because software Y bundles the same functionality as software X at no cost, the only way you guarantee survival of software X is by forcing people to buy it. This is also where I think the idea of "dollar democracy" comes in. If you believe that software X has a moral right to survive, you can cast you vote by buying their software. I mean, if enough people really believed that software X should continue to exist, they would buy it, right? Why does the presence of software Y change your value proposition for software X? Now, governments are another way that the will of the people is exercised. Government does step in from time to time to tell one company to avoid competing with another (farms are the best example). On the other hand, in the case of software X vs. Y, one could claim that the people already expressed their will by choosing which software to purchase. I mean, if the issue is not even important enough to someone that they would be willing to give $40 to the company that they claim to support so much, for a piece of software that they say is so valuable that it needs to be protected, how can you justify bringing in the men with guns? Voting with your money and your effort seems a far more ethical way to operate.

Now as long as a company is put to death by the fact that individuals stop voting for them with dollars, that is the highest good. Companies shouldn't be killed by hiring spies, bribing reporters, and especially not by men with guns. So I agree that there are unethical and illegal things that a company or individual can do to contribute to a company's death. I guess I am saying that it is not wrong to kill a company (and the rules do allow it), but there are wrong ways to kill a company. I mentioned the antitrust laws as a way to make sure that companies compete (and sometimes put each other out of business) according to the rules. Our legal system is better and fairer than any others.

So our disconnect is: "I do not believe that companies have a right to exist, I believe that such a right would violate other fundamental human rights, and I believe it is moral for companies to die." You see company death as immoral in the way that killing is immoral, and thus the war analogy sticks.

I also believe I have stated my POV as clearly as I can, and am not demanding that you agree. Further attempts to clarify would probably start to repeat things I have already said and would piss off the good readers of this list, so I'll conceed to having failed to build consensus on this one..

-J

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:44 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.