[vox] OS/2 and Linux, why has IBM changed?

[vox@lists.lugod.org]

Don Werve said:
> On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 08:39:47AM -0700, Eric D. Pierce wrote:
>> >
>> > [1] This actually goes against capitalist ideals; e.g., the 'ideal'
>> >     capitalist wants his products to stand on their own merits -- if
>> he needs to use force to promote them, then he deserves to be
>> kicked out of the marketplace.
>>
>> See John Locke (17th century english philosopher) on
>> "Natural Law" and "Property Rights".
>>
>> The philosophical foundation of the USA constitution was
>> mainly derived from Locke's work.
>
> I'm quite aware of that,

ah, excellent.

>although I don't recall making any statements
> about the constitution. *grin*

it was a contextualizing/exploratorial reference only. :)


>> Monopolists are basically trying to reverse the social
>> evolution towards "higher order" consciousness, compassion,
>> democracy, property rights, and so forth, and recreate some
>> elements of mercantilist economic system (like a corrupt
>> aristocracy).
>
> Monopolists want an oligarchy, where

My understanding is that Locke's "Natural Law" was proposed directly in
contrast to the "Divine Right of Kings".

(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=adams+defence+of+the+constitution)

Category terminology aside, any system where arbitrary heirarchy is
socially imposed, especially in service of "lower order" values
(ego/selfishness), is non-adaptive (unjust), and against the evolutionary
interests of the species.

Historically/traditionally the eccleasiastic elites controlled
thought/belief, and the aristocracy/oligarchy/whatever controlled
political, police/military and economic power.

Democracy and capitalism are products of broadly literate, entrepeneurial,
middle class society, something that is fairly recent in human history.


>> In other words, it is hard to imagine that any penalties
>> against monopolistic business practices could be overly
>> harsh.
>
> I disagree there; the entire point of market regulation is to keep the
> so-called playing field as level as possible.

Sorry, by really "overly harsh", I was thinking of Oliver Cromwell and his
Whig radicals romping through the english countryside (english civil war,
1640s?) cutting the off heads of  landed aristocracy who were resistant to
democratic/capitalist reform!


Thus, the goal in
> punishing a monopolist is to do two things:

...

Agreed. Excellent observations.

In my opinion, MS' attempts to label open-source as "communist" was
bizarre, but instructive of the relationship between power and the kind of
arrogance contribute to the erosion of the foundations of democracy.

regards,
ep