On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> I cannot really follow your sentence
I sort of picked up on that in your previous posting :)
But really,
> Linux is also growing in an environment that is not very regulated. Would
> you rather replace MS, as abusive as it is, with a government imposed
> lack-of-freedom?
The fact that I don't embrace your model does not instantly imply that I
promote what you perceive to be the exact opposite. Many discussions would
benefit from not making such assumptions.
> What does hawks and doves have to do with intelligent, productive,
> conscious human beings? I think this metaphor is completely flawed.
> Laissez-Faire does not mean that everyone can do _whatever_ he pleases.
> (or "Ish hayashar be'eynav ya'aseh"). It means that everyone can do
> anything _legal_ he pleases.
Laws are regulatory measures. Laissez-Faire is intolerant of *any*
regulatory measures.
>I don't think there will be a wolf-eat-wolf
> society when everyone obeys the objective law, yet acts on their own best
> interests.
There always has been before.
The question is of course "their own best interest".
In the iterated prisoner's dillema, when constantly looks out for their
own best interest, almost everyone ends up losing. Cooperative measures
make for slower long term gains for everyone. There are many such examples
in game theory, and analyses that demonstrate its applicability to
economics.
>
> Linux is also growing in an environment that is not very regulated. Would
> you rather replace MS, as abusive as it is, with a government imposed
> lack-of-freedom? I'd take some competition, FUD, etc. from MS anyday, just
> that free software (or any software for that matter) can remain free,
> unregulated and non-restricted. Think about it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Shlomi Fish
Restrictions on media cross-owndership, restrictions on ownership by
foreign investors, and on manipulation of profits by same, designation of
certain jobs as preferred jobs, all of these are forms of intervention.
Are these automatically evil? Do they mean lack of freedom?
I think they're good restriction, even economies stronger than our own
take some protective measures.
We need laws to protect the weak from the strong, and corporations are
much stronger than individuals, and some corporations are much stronger
than others.
Or, going back to the US, Foreign Aid is a form of market intervention -
since the bulk of the money must be spent buying US made products.
Is that good or bad?
It's good for the US.
This not a bi-polar question as you try to make it to be. The argument
that MS must be regulated back into acting according to the rules of the
free market, which is what the newsforge article argues, is absurd.
Thanks,
Uri
http://translation.israel.net
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
