Again, I am not the definitive authority on Libertarianism, but let me respond to your post anyway.
Not so, Jerry. fair and just is violated when coercion occurs.
You need to define what you mean by "coercion." There is the kind of coercion that occurs because you are presented with a deal which you don't like but you would agree to it because it makes you better off than you would be without it. Then there is the kind where someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to do something, breaches a contract, or defrauds you.
IMO, MSFT is guilty of coercion, and if force of law is needed to make them play fairly and justly, so be it ... according to libertarians worldwide, the only just use of government is to protect from coercion.
Marc Andressen's statement about the bloody computer monitor in his bed notwithstanding, I would put forth for your consideration the argument that whatever "coercion" Microsoft engages in is of the former variety, not the latter -- even when they tell the OEMs they have to take Windows "as is," including IE, or not at all, and even if not taking Windows means the OEMs are out of business. The former may or may not be actionable under the antitrust or unfair trade practices laws, but I would suggest that a Libertarian would only object to the latter. Only the latter involves a genuine deprivation of the right not to accept the terms of the trade voluntarily.
You might say that such a narrow definition of coercion is unrealistic in a market characterized by grossly unequal bargaining positions. I would argue that that would make you a social democrat, not a Libertarian. ;)
The appropriate response for a libertarian is to ask whether MSFT's actions amount to coercion. If so, they're guilty of immoral action, and need to be checked.
Again, if the coercion involves someone holding a gun to your head, stealing something from you without your consent, or breaching a contract, that's theft. If it involves deceiving you, it's fraud. If it's anything else, it's not "coercion" as I think a Libertarian would understand it.
Read the document that members are asked to sign. It expressly objects to coercion.
My e-mail address is in my profile. Post or send me the document, and I'll be glad to read it.
Actually, IMO, government is subject to market discipline, it's just that the buyers (voters) are not sufficiently educated.
Government is not subject to market discipline. The transactions it engages in are usually marked by an element of coercion. For example, as a taxpayer, you are forced to give up a share of your income or other wealth to the government, which then redistributes that wealth to someone else to serve its own ends. Even the Post Office, which is the quintessential governmental business, is a legally sanctioned monopoly in most of the markets it serves. If you try to deliver first class mail, the government will put you out of business.
Furthermore, in a market, individuals have individual choices. If you want to buy Unix and I want some other OS, you buy yours and I buy mine. In the governmental process, even a democratic one, someone decides for the whole group. It may be some bureaucrat or it may be a majority of voters, but the minority has no right to disobey the laws passed by the governmental process. So, if the government passes a law that says we all must use Unix, I cannot choose my other OS like I'd be able to do in a market.
You may agree that your taxes are well spent and that the choices made by the democratic body-politic are fair. But they are not market-based.
If you vote for the politician that doesn't do the <tm>Right Thing</tm>, but still manages to fill the local pork barrel, isn't that a market system?
NO!
A Libertarian would say that markets are based on voluntary exchanges among consenting individuals.
What you describe is a political system for distributing the wealth a Libertarian would say is "stolen" by government through taxes and other means from those who produced it. And the people who try to manipulate government to obtain those kinds of distributions are called "rent-seekers."
That's a big given. Personally, I view the practices of MSFT on the whole as being largely unethical, especially from a libertarian viewpoint. My main objection isn't to the threat to my ability to earn a living, but to their predatory practices in the marketplace. Rest assured, I'll be able to earn a comfortable living writing Unix software for many years to come, but I strenuously object to MSFT stifling competition and true innovation (not dancing paperclips).
I'm not saying the arguments you are making are wrong, just that they are not Libertarian, at least as I understand the term. Your arguments about ethics and coercion presuppose an ideological view of the world with decidedly social democratic implications.
Also, wouldn't a Libertarian say that the market, not the government, should be the arbiter of Microsoft's unethical behavior?
If you are wondering where I am getting all these crazy ideas, there is a book called "Libertarianism, A Primer," by John Boatz, who, at least at one point, was Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute, which has a reputation as a Libertarian think tank. There is also a companion volume, called "The Libertarian Reader," which consists basically of excerpts from classical liberal and Libertarian thinkers down through history. Boatz classifies classical liberals as Libertarians and says the modern Libertarian movement is the direct descendant of classical liberal ideology.
I don't know if his is the only version of what passes for Libertarianism around; maybe you know of some other version. |
