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

Re: metaphors (Anti-Microsoft sentiment)

Author:David McCusker
Posted:9/16/2000; 9:48:38 PM
Topic:Debunking the OSS Bazaar?
Msg #:21429 (In response to 21426)
Prev/Next:21428 / 21430

David McCusker: 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.

Josh Allen: 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.

(To nearly agree with your statement, I must change your wording to either being-put/crime/being-killed, or going/tragedy/dying:

)

Perhaps our disconnect is caused by my expectation that companies do not die unless they are finished off by either competitors or really bad management. I would expect instead to see companies doing badly to become smaller and weaker, without going completely out of business. Basically I see no reason why an existing business cannot make a good seed for a re-emerging business after a mistake.

However, a company that was once a thorn in the side might become so again in the future. A thorough competitor might prefer that this not happen. So when a former nuisance becomes weak, it might see prudent to finish it off by one means or another. However, I see this as immoral action.

Just as an example, the only reason Apple did not go out of business is because Microsoft showed mercy. This surprised some folks, but I knew it was a necessary play on Microsoft's part, since it would have made the denial of monopoly an untenable position to present. If it were not for this critical situation with monopoly status, I would have expected Apple to get bumped off.

Note this line of thinking on my part allows you to construct an ad hominem innuendo, that I now trash Microsoft out of resentment over past conflicts. Since I've now done this for you, I pray you refrain from doing so. (I find ad hominem implications annoying unless stated baldly. They are valid criticisms when relevant, so they're not always fallacious.)

Josh Allen: 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.

I think the Darwinian metaphor causes a misleading assumption that companies naturally die off just like individual members of animal species. But corporations are granular, and composed of separable resources that can be downsized. I'd expect companies to most naturally become weaker and retrench after mistakes, rather than dying. So I see the Darwinian metaphor as a sophist justification for murder. :-)

There are responses to this message:

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

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.