Duke, Surely you have sufficient faith in the Free Enterprise System to believe that we all benefit when the interplay of the forces involved in free competition are allowed maximum lattitude. You apparently have some perception of my views that I have never stated, and do not believe. I am a libertarian, if not a Libertarian, with a very strong sense of the rights of property (which is becoming more and more rare in the US), and feel a very strong reliance on our constitutional institutions in both my business practices and my personal beliefs. I do not, however believe that a libertarian view need be equated with anarchy. Nor do I believe that "might makes right"... Enlightened capitalism is not the law of the jungle. It is not "aggressive business practices" when a member of the Mafia kneecaps an opponent, in my opinion, and it is no less objectionable to me when a Microsoft attempts to operate above the law. If our anit-trust law is wrong, fine, there is a way to get that modified for those who believe in democratic institutions. To advocate that Microsoft has some right to ignore those laws puts the decision process in the wrong hands -- either in Microsoft's or in those of its apologists. The surest route to a destruction of our free "Free Enterprise System", in my opinion is to permit its abuse without complaint. And moreso to justify illegal behavior simply because it is profitable, and one has an investment in the perpetrator. Surely, of all the things we have to disagree about, we can agree that some kind of adherence to the Rule of Law is essential if our system is to continue without the NECESSITY of constant governement interference -- can't we?
tso |
