Re: The Monolith (was: As long as everyone else is doing it...)

[Harry Binswanger hb@xxxxxxxx]

Shawn Harrison wrote:
>My statement was more an expression of frustration than a logically
>defensible thesis. Nevertheless the root idea is that, as the world
>becomes more and more filled with Microsoft and only Microsoft, there
>will be less and less freedom for those of us who don't like those
>products. I hear continually about this and that person who is being
>forced to give up his favorite operating system or program in order to
>"conform to our standards." I am wary of the oppressive nature of
>monopolies. So forgive my somewhat incoherent expression of frustration.
>
Now you're on my turf, meaning no disrespect. :) "Freedom" means
the absence of physical force. The fact that people *freely
choose* Microsoft (or anything else) does not coerce anyone into
anything. Equating physical force with merely not being provided
with what one wishes is a major and devasting equivocation that
whitewashes *actual* physical force, as under a dictatorship.

Microsoft is not a "monopoly" in the proper meaning of that
term--a market from which competition has been banned by legal
priviliges granted one or more sellers. The post office is a
monopoly. The taxi industry in NYC is one--even though there are
17,000 cabs: the government prevents entry by threat of jail. I
don't believe Gates has put anyone in jail--he's merely offered
his product for sale on his terms. That's his right.

Pardon the lecture. It's a topic that gets my juices flowing (and
on which I've written).

Regards,

Harry Binswanger
hb@xxxxxxxx