Homer wrote:
>Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
>
>> The plundering of the Earth by those that we call "businessmen" is a
>> fact that more people should be aware of. It seems that all sorts of
>> immoral, selfish, back-stabbing behavior is forgiven, if the result
>> is money made.
>
>But just to be clear, I'm not anti-business. I'm anti-monopoly and
>anti-Corporatist, certainly, but I have nothing against legitimate
>business.
Neither am I. Capitalism performs fairly well as a system, despite
that fact that many of the individuals are scumbags.
>In fact, as I've pointed out many times before, it's the
>/Corporatists/ who are anti-capitalist, since they seek a state of
>monopoly which suppresses the Free Market Economy. This is nothing
>more than State-endorsed racketeering, just like any other form of
>monopoly (e.g. patents).
Fortunately, not many companies are ever in a position to really "seek
a state of monopoly". The market usually prevents that from
happening. The unique nature of computer operating systems being an
exception to the rule.
>Microsoft are not unique in this regard, in fact they are not even
>the worst culprits, but in the context of Free Software they *are*
>the biggest threat to the kind of equal opportunities conducive to
>Freedom and choice.
Wal-Mart is at least as evil as M$, IMO. I'm sure that many others
are, also, but without the luck/timing/market/whatever to be as
successful as those two examples.
But I will state it clearly: There's nothing wrong with making a fair
profit.
>(snip)
>There's business ... then there's "bizniz". I'm not opposed to the
>former, but I am certainly opposed to the latter. If that makes me
>a "zealot" then so be it. I suppose the EU Commission; the US DOJ,
>and I, all bear the the same "zealot" hallmark.
|
|
