NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/10802

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 3.9 KB | 83 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!orchard.la.locus.com!prodnet.la.locus.com!lowell
From: [e-mail] (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: ftc and ms
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:34:00 GMT
Lines: 72

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lowell Morrison) writes:
>
>|> >If there was a law in Germany mandating that all Jews be killed would you
>|> >said that Hitler had every right to do it, Period???
>|>
>|> Very Bad Example.  The German Decree was Written by Hitler after the
>|> disolution of the Bundestag (parlement) and was an Illegal Executive
>|> Order.  Not Law at all.  And even if the Bundestag has agreed, the
>|> German constitution (if my memory serves me correctly) would have made
>|> That Agreement Illegal.  And of course, Genocide is illegal by international
>|> laws dating from before WWI.
>
>Ok are you saying that if international laws allowed genocide it would be
>all right?  My point was only that just because there is a law which
>allows it doesn't mean that it is right or that the law is just.

Nope, that is a religeous argument, not a legal one.  And Morality is what
your religion says it is.  Witness the Spanish Inquisition, (the Holy order
of Santa Irmendad (spelling?), which I call Utterly Immoral, but sanctioned
by Rome.


>
>
>|> >
>|> >Just because the FTC has a "legal" right to steal and destroy doesn't make
>|> >it right.
>|> Try telling that to the IRS, they do it much better and with more verve.
>|> They make YOU tell them you have sinned and then fine you for it...<grin>
>
>Indeed.
>
>
>|> >Won't you please consider what is going on from a moral standpoint?
>|> >Is this really the kind of country that you want to live in?
>|>
>|> Yep, this is the kind of country I want to live in.  It may be the
>|> worst form of government, with the worst laws, until you consider
>|> all the rest.
>
>Are you saying that this is the best we can do?  Its pretty nice but I
>think we should be above government sponsored theft.  Call me an idealist
>but I don't think its too much to expect that the government and your
>competators respect your ownership of your things.
No, I am saying that is the best we have done, and we must work to make it
better.  Allowing Microsoft to control and restrain trade is not in the
best interest of making things better.
Ownership is such a nebulous thing, Do you own an Item, or is it held in
trust for the good of society.  To be taken away when you mis-use your
trust.  The laws of emenent domain clearly indicate that "Ownership"
is only a trust, and this has been a part of our legal systems since before
Harabi could toddle.  You see, I am an Idealist also, and seem to have
a very different set of Ideals than you espouse.

In one sense, this can not be considered government theft, since Microsoft
is chartered under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States
of America.  In obtaining that charter, that license to exist, Microsoft
explicitly placed them selves under these rules.  Rules which allowed Bill
Gates to Become the richest single man on earth.  Now, It seems rather
asanine to complain or perhaps assert that you are not covered by rules
that you not only agreed too in the first place, but have allowed you to
make 5.5 billion dollars. And it also seems some what specious for others
to claim that a company is not covered by rules that it agreed to abibe by
in it's inception.

If they wern't willing to abide by these rules, then Billy Gates should have
charterd the company in Somalia or Tonga or anywhere except the United States.


--Lowell Morrison
--Uncle Wolf