Welcome to my blog. My name is Steve Giardina. I consider myself to be a student of the philosophy of Objectivism, and these are my many thoughts. Feel free to leave comments, as well as your opinions.
"In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours." Ayn Rand
11/3/2003
I highly suggest reading this lecture given by Richard M. Salsman at Harvard University: The Injustice of Antitrust Laws.
I’ll provide rational evidence for the verdict that I pronounce: Microsoft is innocent of all charges. More accurately, it is innocent—with no means of showing it under the antitrust laws. Why? Because, as we’ll see, the antitrust laws presume all businesses to be guilty, no matter what they do. Microsoft has been assaulted and will likely be shackled and/or dismembered in some form not because it’s an “evil predator” or a “contract bully” or a “robber baron” or a “capitalist exploiter” for it’s none of these things—that is, it is none of these smears.
Right on.
Comments
The URL to TrackBack this entry is:
http://rationalegoist.rationalmind.net/b2trackback.php/164
Leave a Comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <b><i><strong><em><code><blockquote><p><br><strike><a>
You are making the Randish mistake of presuming perfect moral character. Regulation (as your quote calls “presumption of guilt") will always be a necessarry evil when morally imperfect players are involved. (And when is this not the case, since all Humans are imperfect???)
Comment by 11/4/2003 @ 10:49 pm
Rand does not presume perfect moral character in all individuals, but rather, she makes the distinction between economic and political power. Economic power is the ability to make a profit, political power is the ability to use force. Microsoft did not FORCE any of its customers to use its products. Instead, Microsoft created a superior product which its customers CHOSE to purchase. This contrasts with the competitors of Microsoft who were unable to match the ability of Microsoft, and therefore, used the gun of the government to knock Microsoft down. This is armed theft, whereas there was absolutely no force involved in Microsoft reaching the level of success that it did.
Get your facts straight.
Comment by 11/5/2003 @ 12:56 pm
“Rand does not presume perfect moral character in all individuals” “Steve…
Thats too bad, because her “system” doesn’t work too well without it..(because people would constantly be blurring the line between ethical selfishness and unethical selfishness, with no-one to stop them)
“she makes the distinction between economic and political power.”
A contrived distinction if I ever saw one…Only in Rands’ Fantasy Masturbatory rants is there ever a separation… When in the history of the world have you ever seen such a dichotomy? Whenever men have political power economic power follows (as the Baathists/other socialists have demonstrated) and whenever men have economic power, political power flows (As Evidenced by Halliburton, Bechtel, )
To assume that Microsoft is Different is simply inaccurate. Why just watch the News today, and you can see another example of this in Microsoft’s collaboration with the DOJ for its “bounty” program.(Its funny how Capitalists come crawling back to Gov’t when injustice is being done to THEM) But this is a limited example, here are a few more;
1) HOW GATES MADE HIS MONEY ORIGINALLY; Everything from learning how to use a computer on an MIT main-Frame financed by government during his private HS days, to Using his Mom’s Influence at IBM to score windows (IBM is a company essentially founded for government contracts which were financed by taxes)(and you will recall from your Early Objectivist education that taxes are essentially collected by physical force)
2.HOW HE KEEPS HIS MONEY; IF you believe that copyright laws, internet infrastructure and regulations etc are not influenced by Microsoft to their advantage, you are sadly Mistaken.
etc etcc. If I was a Microsoft Case Fetishist, I might be inlined to really go to town with this, and apply it more directly to this case… But Im sure you get the point… Microsoft made use of Political power first to gain its market share, and THEN used the market share it had consequentially gained to use economic power in Predatory ways…(even being so belligerant as to assume that it has the right to arbitrate contracts that dont directly involve it…If Government assumed that right, this would be seen as the most basic Intrusion of rights… But since some are under the Illusion that Microsoft Does not constitute a political force, this is excused)
Comment by 11/5/2003 @ 3:51 pm
We are clearly working from different premises. Seeing how this is so, and because of the fact that I do not have the time to discuss this fully, I will point out the flaws in your fundamental principles which result in the flaws explicitly stated by you in your recent comment.
First, my comment about morality. By that I meant that under a capitalist system, everyone is free to be either immoral or moral, as long as they do not initiate force against others. In capitalism, one does not have to be perfectly moral in order to be acting legally. However, I would argue that being moral is a requirement of being a good businessman, but that is another story.
In all currently existing systems of government, the distinction between economic power and political power IS blurred (that is exactly what is wrong with them). There are many examples of businesses in America (as well as many other countries) being subsidized and nationalized by the government, thus blurring the distinction between economic power and political power. However, this blur is not NECESSARILY inherent in government as such. Rand advocated capitalism, which is by definition, the complete separation of state and economics. Under a capitalist system, no matter how well you did economically, you would NEVER have the power to influence politics. To put it more simply, economic power is the ability to sell a product well; whereas political power is the ability to use force. Under a capitalist system, the very essence of the system is that these two are made completely separate. In sum, under a capitalist society, the government would not have the power to give any political power to businesses, and businesses would not have the power to seize political power. I must stress, this is not true in any other system of government.
As to your allegations against Microsoft, they are absurd and irrational. You make arbitrary claims with floating abstractions that have no connection to reality.
In closing, it is clear that you have very little knowledge of what capitalism actually is, or what Rand actually stated. I would ask that you please refrain from commenting on Rand’s view until you actually understand what it is. Finally, if your motivation for these comments is just blind hatred of capitalism or Ayn Rand; as opposed to rational discussion with the purpose of arriving at the truth; please do not post here again.
Comment by 11/5/2003 @ 4:41 pm
“In all currently existing systems of government, the distinction between economic power and political power IS blurred “Steve..
A)why dont you be COMPLETELY accurate and say in all post-agricultural revolution governments?
“However, this blur is not NECESSARILY inherent in government as such”
Yes it is. To prove otherwise you would have to either give an example to the contrary(Which you cant do), or lay out a workable vision in which people with money would NOT be vying for political power and vice versa
“As to your allegations against Microsoft, they are absurd and irrational. You make arbitrary claims with floating abstractions that have no connection to reality.”
Care to point any of these out??? Care to get specific by presenting counter-evidence, or a rational refute? Cause right now you just sound like a kid in a religious school chanting “for the bible tells me so!” YOu can do better than that…
“Finally, if your motivation for these comments is just blind hatred of capitalism or Ayn Rand; as opposed to rational discussion with the purpose of arriving at the truth; please do not post here again”
I assure you its not a hatred of Ayn Rand, or Capitilism. I am intrigued by what you write, and LOVE the articles you pick…AYN rand is one of my favorite authors, and keeps my philosophy and politics grounded (especially when I am tempted by the likes of Chomsky, or Daniel Quinn) as Far as capitilism goes… How can I hate it… It was greed that provided me with the Air Conditioned room Im in, the car I drove to get here, and the choice of lollipops Im sucking?? On top of that, the research is in, and Capitilism has been the driving force of liberal democracy,security, and the allevement of suffering throughout the world. No steve, Im not anti-capitilism… Im just anti-"kids who begged their mom to influence IBM’s board to buy my inferior product and then try to tell me what programs I am allowed to sell to MY consumers”
Comment by 11/5/2003 @ 6:08 pm
My suggestion to you, Aaron, for all of your comments, is to 1. read my earlier posts, and 2. gain a better knowledege of Rand in order to have a well-informed opinion. While I appreciate the comments, I think the majority of your questions/opinions would be answered by reading more of what Rand wrote. I can give basic responses, but I can not give answers at length at this point in time for two reasons: 1. such discussion requires agreement on some basic premises, 2. I do not currently have the time to engage in such debate due to a lot of school work (which is very important to me).
I can not unearth every premise that you differ in on economics and politics, my suggestion would be to read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. A very enlightening book indeed.
Comment by 11/6/2003 @ 3:40 pm
Steve…
1. Out of respect for your schoolwork, etc, I will try to keep this post short. I will also try to limit my posts to this web page (which admittedly has me fascinated.
2.Your feelings that I have not familiarized myself with Rand are not accurate. With the exception of one or two short essays/interviews, I am VERY familiar with her works… It is a COP OUT to not respond by implying I just dont know enough about Rand. (Its not a response, its more of an attempt at character assasination IMO)
3.In regards to Microsoft, I think you have missed my point. Regulation of Monopolies might not be necessarry in a context where business and government are NOT deeply entrenched. But such is not the case (nor is it likely to be the case for quite some time), and monopolies are particulary Dangerous within such a context. Microsoft, like many Monopolies, did not establish its initial sucess or its later sucesses because of that which Rand values (being a creator, initiating honest contracts between parties) In fact, if you do a lot of reading about the History of Microsoft, you will find that quite the opposite happened.
That is why regulation of predatory(those that dont seek to sell product, but instead to merely eliminate competition) market practices is necessarry in today’s world. If the advantages that companies had stemmed from “Natural” advantages, regulation would not be necessarry. But this virtually never happens, in fact, I challenge you to name one Monopoly where this is the case.
Comment by 11/7/2003 @ 1:21 pm
My comment that your knowledge of Rand is lacking, and that you should read her works, was not an attempt at an argument. I agree with you completely that an appeal to authority is never an argument. However, I made that statement not as an argument, but as recognizing the fact that one can not have a good argument unless there is a mutual understanding of basic premises. In my opinion, based on the statements you have made in this regard, you have a lack of understanding in the basic premises of Rand’s views, particularly on capitalism.
I think you would agree that we could not have a cogent argument on the matter if your definition of capitalism is completely different than mine, or if you have no idea what the separation between economic power and political power is all about, etc.
As to your comments about Microsoft, I don’t know what to make of them. I can only repeat so many times the distinction between economic power and political power and that in capitalism the two are legally completely separate. I think that no further argument can be held on the matter without a basic understanding of the premises I am working from. Have you read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal?
Comment by 11/10/2003 @ 1:29 pm
“As to your comments about Microsoft, I don’t know what to make of them. I can only repeat…"Steve
What I am getting at Steve is that Bill Gates personally, and Microsoft organizationally , has taken advantantage of political force from its inception on, and most organizations which near monopoly status in our present economy have done so. I am challenging you to name ONE company which has successfull litigation against it that did not invoke political force during its initiation or growth. (aka a “merit based” monopoly)
Comment by 11/11/2003 @ 10:58 pm
Your request will not be fulfilled. You have made a positive assertion (that Microsoft used political force), and therefore it is YOUR responsibility to demonstrate this to be so (which you have not done in the slightest). A rational discussion does not involve an arbitrary claim made on one side followed by the other side having to prove that the arbitrary claim is not true. A rational discussion involves the presentation of evidence for a particular claim, and either a demonstration that such evidence (or interpration of evidence) is faulty or an acceptance of the other’s position as correct.
Comment by 11/17/2003 @ 1:38 pm
” You have made a positive assertion (that Microsoft used political force), and therefore it is YOUR responsibility to demonstrate this to be so"Steve
Sorry, Steve, I thought you would have done your homework on something like this before posting an article onit;
1. Gates Learned how to use computers on a government funded mainframe (MIT’s)… 1b) The jobs he got after that were all for Government Funded companies such as Honey-well
2. Gates’ family born of privelage, used his Mom’s influence at IBM…(Another beneficiary of political force) to get his big product viewed. (Access is everything steve)… this is of course, something that the original programmer had no means of doing…
3. But thats all in the periphery… here..
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,575239,00.asp
http://www.cyberspaces.org/webzine/archives/000185.html
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-835267.html
Microsoft has lobbied hard against everything from open source software at the pentagon(pushing the government to spend more of YOUR money) to broadband regulations to cutting the funding of the DOJ
Now,
I have done some of your homework for you… care to respond to my challenge now???
Comment by name 11/17/2003 @ 6:24 pm
when I said the original programmer… I meant the poor schmuck who wrote the code that made Gates Rich, the poor schmuch whose mom didnt have an “in” on the IBM board of Directors.
Comment by Aaron 11/17/2003 @ 6:26 pm