[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
At 9:07 PM -0500 9/30/98, Jim Choate wrote:
>> From: Matthew James Gering <[email protected]>
>> Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
>> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 18:24:02 -0700
>> Jim Choate wrote:
>> > The reality is that we don't live in a free-market, but
>> > rather a rather lightly regulated one.
>> Lightly? You jest.
>No I don't. I can start a business for as little as $15 to register a DBA
>and I don't need licenses or other sorts of regulatory permissions. If I
>sell a product or service (some are exempt, check your local area) I'll need
>a tax number to pay my state sales tax (though they do nothing to regulate
>my business other than specify that I must pay x% of my sales to the
>community). Getting that tax number is free. Outside of that (at least in
>Texas) I'm ready to go.
That does not apply to very many business at all. Most are rather
heavily regualted, and state regulations in some places can be extremely
>Yep, that's a lot of regulation, no forms or permission slips from some
>in loco parentis, no reports or annual fees.
Unless you have a partner, or an employee, or a need to incorporate.
>> No, we certainly don't live in a free market, we have
>> a mixed economy. We *should* have a free market,
>No we shouldn't. The fact that monopolies can exist in this lightly
>regulated economy is ample evidence that the non-regulated or free-market
>theory is nothing more than another pie-in-the-sky utopian dream.
>Unrealistic and unrealizable.
Crap. In most cases monopolies are GIFTS from the government, where
they aren't they are either (a) natural monopolies (were the market is too
small to support competition, or there is some other feature of that market
which makes competition difficult or undesirable) there aren't too many of
these, or places where the government (city, state, fed) felt a monopoly
would be of benefit to the citizens. I.e. Gas/power/light companies,
The government was (as usual) wrong.
>If you seriously think this is a heavily regulated market you should do more
>research into such places as Nazi Germany, Russia, China, etc.
France, England etc.
We are _going_ that route, with more and more regualtion being
dumped on the backs of businesses daily.
If you think that registering a DBA is the only step you need to
_legally_ start and run a business, you're smokin crack.
>> are much more destructive and pervasive than any potential abuses by
>> market leaders.
>Monopolies are monopolies, claiming that they will be less abusive in a
>regulated market than in a free-market just demonstrates a lack of
>understanding of basic human instincts.
>You are claiming that if we do away with the food regulations that McDonalds
>will be *more* concerned about their meat being cooked thoroughly then you
>obviously don't understand people who chase the bottem line to the exclusion
>of all else.
If there were no food regulations, would you eat at Mc Donalds?
Your life, your choice.
>> Also, the latter abuses are naturally corrected by
>If a market monopolizes there is *NO* competition. If the market is one that
>takes a large investment in intellectual or capital materials then there
>won't be any opportunity to even attempt to start a competitive venture.
Like...Operating systems? Nope, Linux is NO competition for NT,
neither are the free BSDs.
>> The answer for establishing "rules" which insure "fairness," such as
>Fairness is about the consumer, not the manufacturer. This misunderstanding
>(if not intentional misdirection) by free-market mavens is at least one
>indication why it won't work.
Why shouldn't it go both ways? In a healthy market, the consumers
ARE the manufacturers.
[email protected] work related issues. I don't speak for Playboy.
[email protected] everthing else. They wouldn't like that.
Economic speech IS political speech. wouldn't like that.