RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)

[Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net>]

> >Bullshit, monopolies exist because of the regulation.
> 
> I'm afraid sir, that your ingonorance is showing.

Is it?

> Pick up any college (hell, high school) economics 
> textbook.

Yes, why don't we try anyone from the Austrian or Chicago Schools, or
have you not gotten that far in your Econ 101 textbook?

I'll even give you a couple to start with: Friedrich A. Hayek, Ludwig
von Mises, Carl Menger, Adam Smith, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman,
Alan Greenspan. You also might try Frederic Bastiat, Ayn Rand. Try
reading some of the studies done by the CATO Institute

No, you can keep your Western Illinois school of voodoo economics to
yourself.

> Certain types of businesses are inheritly advantagious to 
> monopolies.  The electric company is the classic example-

There are very few natural monopolies. Few to none. The sewer system or
local access roads are better examples than electricity -- all
electricity requires is right-of-way access, it is not scarce on
property like roads. Copper/fiber is already run by three separate
entities (phone, cable, electric) to the home and there is evidence to
show that it came be made much for free (see fiber-running in Helsinki).

Right-of-way is the source of the monopoly. Problem is government will
assume it is a natural monopoly and create a coercive one. Take
telephony for example, which is so blatantly obvious today that it is
not a natural monopoly -- yet try getting dry copper circuits and
providing dial-tone and see the mess of regulation you run into.

> Certain types of businesses are suited to certain types of 
> competition, and, unregulated, monopolies are exactly what 
> you get.

Show me an example of an unregulated coercive monopoly whose source of
monopoly power is not ultimately the government. Efficient monopolies
(e.g. ALCOA) exist in early markets, but they are not coercive, they
cannot prevent competition, they can only be efficient enough that they
capital market won't see the returns to justify a second entrant.

> This was exactly the situation that occured at the turn of 
> the century and it happened because regulation was non-existant!

I suggest you question the motivation of your sources. We are living in
the shadow of socialism and big government, who proclaimed the evils of
capitalism and stepped in to save the day. Were they justified?

Read what Greenspan thinks turn-of-the-century monopolists and resulting
regulation: http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html

	Matt

PS. Your spelling is as bad as Jim's. One starts to wonder if bad
spelling and bad logic go hand in hand.