I completely agree with Chris ("When faced with someone like this, we should try to welcome them on the points on which they agree, and not immediately try to begin educating them on the areas where they're wrong.") That seems to be the general direction that LPCA is also taking (read about their "Coalition Building" in their monthly newspapers).
BTW, I feel perfectly OK with the LPSF communicating with any prospect in the face of the earth, no matter where he/she lives.
Marcy
Don't get me wrong. We should try to get him to join. But let's not
make the same mistake that LP National made with Bill Maher. Without
him joining the party or even registering Libertarian, they ran a
press release about him claiming to be a libertarian. I even
remember a big spread in LP News covering two pages talking about all
the famous libertarians, and his photo was prominent. Unfortunately,
within two weeks, he made so many anti-gun, pro-government,
anti-liberty statements on his show, that we all basically had to
start disavowing him as a libertarian. Get McNealy and other famous
prospects to register Libertarian and join the party. But don't put
out the press release until we're sure they're serious.
- -----Original Message-----
Hi Everyone,
My wife and I were moving all weekend, and attending a
wedding. I would like to remind everyone about the
next Political Chat this Wednesday, at the Sheesh
Mahal Restaurant, on Polk St. between Sutter and Post,
from 7:00 PM - 10:00 PM.
This is the last Wednesday that I will be attending
for a while because I start my class at Hayward State
Univ. on the next Wednesday, and they meet every
Wednesday (even though I feel I learn more at the
chats than what I could ever learn in an Education
program at a State University). If the day and meeting
place for the chats change, I will post a message.
I would like to get some suggestions for a topic for
this Wednesday's Chat session. I'll suggest discussing
some of the propositions or ballots coming up soon.
Any other suggestions? Any particular ballots or
propositions?
Please e-mail if you will attend and what you would
like to discuss as the topic for the political
discussion.
Dave Barker.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
My wife and I were moving all weekend, and attending a
wedding. I would like to remind everyone about the
next Political Chat this Wednesday, at the Sheesh
Mahal Restaurant, on Polk St. between Sutter and Post,
from 7:00 PM - 10:00 PM.
Ordinarily, this being the third Wednesday, there would be a Direct Action
Forum instead.
However, as we've been invited to participate in a gubernatorial and
mayoral forum at the same time (5-9 pm) at the state office building, DAF
has been cancelled. LPers are certainly welcome to go to Sheesh Mahal, but
I would encourage everyone who can to come to the forum for all or part of
that time, as the LP will have a chance to ask questions of the candidates
and to staff a recruiting table.
See the activists' list for more details.
~Chris
- --
Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as
distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
~Ambrose Bierce / Freelance text nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA
Rob,
I agree with the need for caution when contemplating a rush to embrace some celebrity. LP News and party spokespeople have sometimes been too eager to claim someone as our own. But just letting people know that a famous person calls him or herself a libertarian is worthwhile, as long as the disclaimer is there. It shows that prominent people want to associate themselves with what we stand for, even when the claim is rather dubious.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
I worked for Scott for 7 years. He is a businessman. He definately thinks free-market,
but like was mentioned, he wants the Justice department to break up Microsoft.
I watched the monopoly of Microsoft, their cut-throat business tactics, how they stopped
innovating years ago and either buy innovation or use business dealings to squash
innovation ("Use the innovative competition's product, and you will not be allowed to
interface with our proprietary M$ OS"). I watched them make things INcompatible, with
full intent. They don't compete head to head. Their strategy is to use business
dealings to kill the competition. I watched Silicon Valley industries getting eaten or
copied. And I grew to hate Microsoft.
I use Linux almost exclusively. And Solaris. Linux is an answer to Microsoft. It didn't
spring from the free-market (it isn't a product), but from free minds.
-Mike
BTW: Was one of us going to contact Scott McNealy?
Starchild wrote:
Mike - I think the hardest thing about being
libertarian for me is maintaining a level of self
restraint for those issues that impact me close to
home. For instance, I would like to see panhandlers
off the street, slum lords in jail and cafe mocha's
under 3$. After all, it's in my self interest.
I've followed the Microsoft anti-trust case with great
interest for the past 5 years now, and you know - I
believe the hate you speak of for Microsoft is the
power that drove them into the courtroom. I also think
that hate is largely fueled by envy of Microsoft's
success.
While I don't intend to start up yet another MS vs.
Linux argument here, I do think it is worthwhile to
discuss the definition of the word 'force' (at least a
libertarian definition - i.e the threat of death or
bodily harm)
In that regard, Microsoft definitely hasn't 'forced'
anyone to do anything - be it the signing of
exclusive contracts, employment, marketing, use of
protocols, etc. There was/is always the option to 'opt
out'. Also, the last time I checked, being a
monopolist, non-innovator or agressive competitor was
still neither illegal nor immoral.
I also realize that people in IT hate mediocrity, as I
do, but for some reason most people in the US enjoy
McDonalds, Britney, Walmart, etc. and their purchase
decisions demand our respect.
Therefore, I ask that you reconsider Microsoft - at
least in the perspective that they are a successful
company providing valuable services to a majority of
computer users - all voluntarily.
cheers,
David
--- Mike Dilger <mike@...> wrote:
I worked for Scott for 7 years. He is a
businessman. He definately
thinks free-market,
but like was mentioned, he wants the Justice
department to break up
Microsoft.I watched the monopoly of Microsoft, their
cut-throat business tactics,
how they stopped
innovating years ago and either buy innovation or
use business dealings
to squash
innovation ("Use the innovative competition's
product, and you will not
be allowed to
interface with our proprietary M$ OS"). I watched
them make things
INcompatible, with
full intent. They don't compete head to head.
Their strategy is to use
business
dealings to kill the competition. I watched Silicon
Valley industries
getting eaten or
copied. And I grew to hate Microsoft.I use Linux almost exclusively. And Solaris. Linux
is an answer to
Microsoft. It didn't
spring from the free-market (it isn't a product),
but from free minds.-Mike
BTW: Was one of us going to contact Scott McNealy?
Starchild wrote:
>Rob,
>
> I agree with the need for caution when
contemplating a rush to embrace
>some celebrity. LP News and party spokespeople have
sometimes been too
>eager to claim someone as our own. But just letting
people know that a
>famous person calls him or herself a libertarian is
worthwhile, as long
>as the disclaimer is there. It shows that prominent
people want to
>associate themselves with what we stand for, even
when the claim is
>rather dubious.
>
>Yours in liberty,
> <<< Starchild >>>
>
>
>
>
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Don't get me wrong. We should try to get him to
join. But let's not
>>make the same mistake that LP National made with
Bill Maher. Without
>>him joining the party or even registering
Libertarian, they ran a
>>press release about him claiming to be a
libertarian. I even
>>remember a big spread in LP News covering two
pages talking about all
>>the famous libertarians, and his photo was
prominent. Unfortunately,
>>within two weeks, he made so many anti-gun,
pro-government,
>>anti-liberty statements on his show, that we all
basically had to
>>start disavowing him as a libertarian. Get
McNealy and other famous
>>prospects to register Libertarian and join the
party. But don't put
>>out the press release until we're sure they're
serious.
>>
>>- -----Original Message-----
>>From: Marcy Berry [mailto:amarcyb@…]
>>Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 7:45 AM
>>To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
>>Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] "Raging Libertarian"
>>
>>
>>I completely agree with Chris ("When faced with
someone like this, we
>>should
>>try to welcome them on the points on which they
agree, and not
>>immediately
>>try to begin educating them on the areas where
they're wrong.") That
>>seems
>>to be the general direction that LPCA is also
taking (read about
>>their
>>"Coalition Building" in their monthly newspapers).
>>
>>BTW, I feel perfectly OK with the LPSF
communicating with any
>>prospect in
>>the face of the earth, no matter where he/she
lives.
>>
>>Marcy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: "Christopher R. Maden" <crism@...>
>>>Reply-To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
>>>To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
>>>Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] "Raging Libertarian"
>>>Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:57:45 -0700
>>>
>>>
>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>A "raging libertarian" who uses the force of
government to try to
>>>>split apart a rival company outperforming his
own. For all the
>>>>talk about not liking big government, he sure is
cozy with the
>>>>Justice Department.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>True... that thought was definitely in my head.
>>>
>>>[FYI, Marcy, he doesn't live in San Francisco.]
>>>
>>>However, in the spirit of finding areas of
agreement rather than
>>>disagreement, he does seem *mostly* libertarian.
He believes
>>>(rightly or wrongly) that monopoly power is a
legitimate target for
>>>government
>>>coercion, and also (rightly or wrongly) that
Microsoft is a
>>>monopoly.
>>>
>>>When faced with someone like this, we should try
to welcome them on
>>>the points on which they agree, and not
immediately try to begin
>>>educating them on the areas where they're wrong.
Not, by any means,
>>>that I think Rob or most of the rest of us have a
problem doing this
>>>in person, but I know that it's my natural
tendency, and we all need
>>>to try to curb it.
>>>
>>>~Chris
>>>- --
>>>Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of
existing evils, as
>>>distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to
replace them with
>>>others. ~Ambrose Bierce / Freelance text nerd:
<URL:
>>>http://crism.maden.org/ > PGP Fingerprint: BBA6
4085 DED0 E176 D6D4
>>>5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA
>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8
>>>iQA/AwUBP2VU2axS+CWv7FjaEQJaeQCdF5njp51UzfI+UmEISmogpvqYCDcAoJm2
>>>g5dTKlktoRyyLLXdAiOtAMM/
>>>=1aAM
>>>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Try MSN Messenger 6.0 with integrated webcam
functionality!>>
>>
>>- ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>>- ---------------------~-->
=== message truncated ===
David Rhodes wrote:
Mike - I think the hardest thing about being
libertarian for me is maintaining a level of self
restraint for those issues that impact me close to
home. For instance, I would like to see panhandlers
off the street, slum lords in jail and cafe mocha's
under 3$. After all, it's in my self interest.
Mine too.
I've followed the Microsoft anti-trust case with great
interest for the past 5 years now, and you know - I
believe the hate you speak of for Microsoft is the
power that drove them into the courtroom. I also think
that hate is largely fueled by envy of Microsoft's
success.
For myself, it is fueled by a love of good products. It is hard
to watch good products and competition squashed. I prefer linux,
it's here, and I'm happy. The free market worked.
While I don't intend to start up yet another MS vs.
Linux argument here, I do think it is worthwhile to
discuss the definition of the word 'force' (at least a
libertarian definition - i.e the threat of death or
bodily harm)In that regard, Microsoft definitely hasn't 'forced'
anyone to do anything - be it the signing of
exclusive contracts, employment, marketing, use of
protocols, etc. There was/is always the option to 'opt
out'. Also, the last time I checked, being a
monopolist, non-innovator or agressive competitor was
still neither illegal nor immoral.
I don't think Microsoft is wrong. They are exercising their
natural rights.
So am I.
I also realize that people in IT hate mediocrity, as I
do, but for some reason most people in the US enjoy
McDonalds, Britney, Walmart, etc. and their purchase
decisions demand our respect.Therefore, I ask that you reconsider Microsoft - at
least in the perspective that they are a successful
company providing valuable services to a majority of
computer users - all voluntarily.
Don't get me wrong. I support the free market. All I was saying
is that I blacklist that company in my book, and I have every right
to do so.... unless someone feels this is an inappropriate topic
for this list. I suppose it is. Sorry.
-Mike
You can make a pretty good argument that Microsoft has gotten to where it is by massive rights violations that aren't illegal since the legal system doesn't have a clue about computer issues, or when they are the remedies are laughably inadequate to the damage caused.
So while the monopoly issue is of course bogus from a Libertarian standpoint, it is the nearest thing to a fair legal recourse there is, and I'm not going to criticize McNealy for using it.
One thing that rarely surfaces is that with MS controlling the OS, it can decide which software is allowed to run on it. The typical situation is that someone comes up with a new kind of software that sells like crazy. With millions streaming in, the company grows big and rich enough that the niche attracts MS. And they don't primarily compete by building a superior product, but by changing the OS so that the competitors product doesn't work properly anymore.So the original company dies, leaving MS to sell their mediocre replacement product to the masses, who are now left without a choice.
I don't see why that is morally different from burning down a competitors factory or any other type of sabotage in traditional industries. But I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise.
There is still the competition on the OS level, and that's a pretty fair one. You can use Linux or Macintosh or a few others. But as an independent software maker selling anything other than operating systems, you don't have a chance.
/Lars
No, it's not the same as burning down the competitor's factory.
It's not Microsoft's fault that people ride their coattails to success.
If I'm a cell phone battery maker, do I just make batteries for the most
popular Nokia phone, because it has the lion's share of the market? It would
certainly be cheaper to only pay for research, development, and equipment for
that one phone, so my profits would be larger. But I'd then be dependent on
Nokia not changing their phone's design. Battery makers know this, so they
also make the extra effort to support far less popular phones, just in case.
However, in the software industry, where the pace of development and release
is much, much faster, software companies take the understandable risk to put
all their eggs in one basket and only write code for one system. That's what
sometimes leads to their downfall. It's not that Microsoft having 90% of the
market makes it impossible to support other systems. It's just that they make
a (poor) gamble that Microsoft won't change their code, so they don't have to
invest in supporting other platforms.
Remember when Nintendo had 90% of the market? But the smart game makers knew
that they needed to make their games portable, so they also usually ported the
game to a far less profitable PC version. That way, when people switched to
Sega then Sony, and the game makers needed time to code to the new standards,
they still had some PC game revenues flowing in to finance the work.
Symantec, Real, and a host of other companies are making a very poor business
decision to put all their eggs in the Microsoft basket, and that's why they're
always the ones getting screwed when Microsoft changes their code.
Being bad at business does not give a company the right to use the force of
government on their competitors.
Rob Power wrote:
No, it's not the same as burning down the competitor's factory.
It's not Microsoft's fault that people ride their coattails to success.
If I'm a cell phone battery maker, do I just make batteries for the most
popular Nokia phone, because it has the lion's share of the market? It would
certainly be cheaper to only pay for research, development, and equipment for
that one phone, so my profits would be larger. But I'd then be dependent on
Nokia not changing their phone's design. Battery makers know this, so they
also make the extra effort to support far less popular phones, just in case.However, in the software industry, where the pace of development and release
is much, much faster, software companies take the understandable risk to put
all their eggs in one basket and only write code for one system. That's what
sometimes leads to their downfall. It's not that Microsoft having 90% of the
market makes it impossible to support other systems. It's just that they make
a (poor) gamble that Microsoft won't change their code, so they don't have to
invest in supporting other platforms.
I agree with this view. Netscape (for instance) went in will full knowledge that their market was controlled by Microsoft and thus they were fully subject to Microsoft's whims. Once Microsoft created IE, Netscape's fate was sealed. No one was coerced or manipulated by force.
Remember when Nintendo had 90% of the market? But the smart game makers knew
that they needed to make their games portable, so they also usually ported the
game to a far less profitable PC version. That way, when people switched to
Sega then Sony, and the game makers needed time to code to the new standards,
they still had some PC game revenues flowing in to finance the work. Symantec, Real, and a host of other companies are making a very poor business
decision to put all their eggs in the Microsoft basket, and that's why they're
always the ones getting screwed when Microsoft changes their code.Being bad at business does not give a company the right to use the force of
government on their competitors.
Yep.
I'm continually surprised at how few people are willing to take responsibility for their own actions. People bash lots of companies, and buy their products (thus supporting them) at the same time.
-Mike
Don't get me wrong. I support the free market. All
I was saying
is that I blacklist that company in my book, and I
have every right
to do so.... unless someone feels this is an
inappropriate topic
for this list. I suppose it is. Sorry.
I did not mean to imply that it was wrong to
personally not choose MS or Linux or that your
comments here were inappropriate.
My commentary was meant to address the fact that
Microsoft's aggressive business tactics should not be
compared on the same level as those that McNealy has
sunken to in wrongly leveraging government. That is
much, much worse in my opinion. And it's not like Sun
is lily white on the business tactics either. They
have been sued for patent/tm violations, etc. as well.
BTW - I'm looking for any supporting material on a
comparison between competitive markets vs. free
markets, if you know of any. Very subtle difference
between the two...I've found many neo-libs to say they
support the free-market(like McNealy) but what they
really want is 'a level playing field' on their own
terms - i.e. no domination. Doesn't sound free to me.
ideas on this?
It seems to me that an ideal market would be one with the following characteristics:
• No government interference
• Wide variety of consumer choice
• Low barriers to entry
• Highly competitive (not dominated by any single company or small group of companies)
• Favorable conditions for innovation, creativity, and technological progress
In the computer industry, a lot of the issues that come up, and that determine which companies prosper and how, are going to be issues of intellectual property. Now given that intellectual property is such a grey area of libertarian philosophy to begin with (should government enforce patents? should they eventually expire? etc.), might it be worth tolerating a little government interference if that interference was designed to enhance the other four characteristics noted above?
Your devil's advocate,
<<< Starchild >>>
Hi. My name is Lars, and I sometimes ramble. I hope this still is somewhat useful and/or interesting...
/Lars
No, it's not the same as burning down the competitor's factory.
It's not Microsoft's fault that people ride their coattails to success.
If I'm a cell phone battery maker, do I just make batteries for the most
popular Nokia phone, because it has the lion's share of the market? It would
certainly be cheaper to only pay for research, development, and equipment for
that one phone, so my profits would be larger. But I'd then be dependent on
Nokia not changing their phone's design. Battery makers know this, so they
also make the extra effort to support far less popular phones, just in case.
That's certainly one logical way of looking at it. Maybe it is even the correct one. But let me explain how I think how the MS situation is different.
The purpose of a phone is to make phone calls. That is why one buys it, and as long as it does that well, everything's fine (from a legal and moral standpoint). If someone can make a buck selling batteries to it, fine, but Nokia doesn't owe it to anyone to make sure third party batteries work well.
The purpose of a computer operating system is to allow other programs to run in an efficient and convenient manner, making sure the programs don't interfere with each other, giving them access to the hardware that makes up the computer, and presenting this to the user in a good way. The OS does nothing useful by itself.
What if the phone was deliberately manufactured to not make phone calls properly, in a way that greatly benefited Nokia, while they claimed that it did no such thing? We probably all agree that would be a crime (fraud, at least) for which Nokia should be punished and its victims be compensated. And if there is a good reason to not see Microsofts transgressions (deliberately making its OS not run certain software, while claiming they did no such thing) the same way, I wish someone could explain to me what it is.
Remember, we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars, the livelihood of millions of people, and the entire foundation for the existence of the software industry. It's not some minor legalistic detail.
Maybe it is the right principle that the OS manufacturer can arbitrarily and secretly pick and choose which software will run under their OS. But you should understand that that means that there can be no independent software industry and no competition within it other than for the operating systems themselves. I doubt most who defend MS on free market grounds are at all aware of that.
However, in the software industry, where the pace of development and release
is much, much faster, software companies take the understandable risk to put
all their eggs in one basket and only write code for one system. That's what
sometimes leads to their downfall. It's not that Microsoft having 90% of the
market makes it impossible to support other systems. It's just that they make
a (poor) gamble that Microsoft won't change their code, so they don't have to
invest in supporting other platforms.Remember when Nintendo had 90% of the market? But the smart game makers knew
that they needed to make their games portable, so they also usually ported the
game to a far less profitable PC version. That way, when people switched to
Sega then Sony, and the game makers needed time to code to the new standards,
they still had some PC game revenues flowing in to finance the work.
Symantec, Real, and a host of other companies are making a very poor business
decision to put all their eggs in the Microsoft basket, and that's why they're
always the ones getting screwed when Microsoft changes their code.
I don't see how this applies to what I was talking about. Having a Mac or Linux version of your software makes little difference either way if Microsoft decides kill your Windows version. Netscape had both Mac and Linux versions of their browser, and it didn't make any difference.
The game console market situation you talk about is different in that the Nintendo only manufacturers got into trouble because Nintendo's market share declined. So they went down with the mother ship, so to speak. Nothing of the kind happened to MS, of course. If Nintendo had deliberately sabotaged some of the games for their consoles while they had retained a 90% share, the situation would have been more similar.
I have to say I like Starchild's argument about how intellectual property rights in the Internet environment are such a confused and fuzzy area in libertarian philosophy. In most issues, it is very easy to apply libertarian principles to any new phenomenon that Smith or Jefferson couldn't even have imagined would exist. And that is a huge strength of those ideas. But for this kind of stuff, they just don't seem to apply well at all. I think because these are genuinely new issues.
The legal system doesn't understand this new stuff at all, so it is desperately trying to map the new things back on old things it does understand. So the concept of "intellectual property" is invented, since it is analogous to the good old physical property. Copyright infringement then maps to "theft", even though it is a very different thing. And so on. There has got to be a better way.
When you're not sure what is right and wrong, it can be good to do a reality check. See what a suggested set of principles results in in reality. And I can't think that what I see in this area is the best free enterprise, personal freedom, limited government etc can accomplish.
/Lars
Hi. My name is Rob, and I sometimes clip a long post and add my
one-line pithy retort.
- -----Original Message-----
What if the phone was deliberately manufactured to not make phone
calls properly, in a way that greatly benefited Nokia, while they
claimed that it did no such thing? We probably all agree that would
be a crime (fraud, at least) for which Nokia should be punished and
its victims be compensated.
(begin pithy retort)
By that logic, Nextel should be obliterated for adding its
walkie-talkie feature that only works with other Nextel phones.
(end pithy retort)
I'm sorry, but as a businessman, if I decide to make a product that
isn't compatible with my competitors products but has more features,
why the hell is that any of Janet Reno's or John Ashcroft's business?
If the market values compatibility over features, I will lose. If
the market values features over compatibility, my competitors lose.
Market Darwinism, plain and simple. The reason why IBM went from a
near monopoly to playing catch-up with Compaq and Dell in just barely
a decade. Bad business plan fails, and good business plan succeeds.
How is that not, as Candide 
would put it, "the best of all
possible worlds"?
Rob