Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Semi-Equips - Buy when BLOOD is running in the streets! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Clarksterh who wrote (4252)	12/31/1997 5:38:00 PM
From: Ian@SI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10921

OT Clark, The government's job is to level the playing field (for individuals and corporations) while minimizing interference (so as to maximize incentive to the most productive). Is this in the constitution somewhere? Or is it merely a role that you, personally, would like the government to perform? Is there any deserving group that would benefit from such a government role? Should we all regard the government as a patriarch and willingly let that government usurp our freedom to choose for ourselves? Are we all incapable of deciding how to use our resources in an acceptable fashion, but, of course, government is? Have you considered the impact on society when government is given a monopoly for many key aspects of life and business? Is this truly your alternative of first choice? Surely, you've seen ample evidence during the past decade that centralized control by government is the most harmful thing a population can do to itself. Clark, the stated goals are admirable. However, expecting increased government intervention and control to achieve these goals defies all logic and evidence to the contrary. It's nice to have ideals. It's much less than desirable to impose one's views in such a fashion that it interferes with the freedom of others (individuals or companies) to legally conduct their affairs. Based on such analysis I would perhaps adjust the playing field (from here forward), and I might choose to penalize them - in keeping with the playing field analogy - if they violated the rules (as MSFT clearly did in strong arming Compaq.). Perhaps you can testify for DOJ. Matter is before the courts. MSFT seems to have such a strong belief that their actions are covered by their consent decree that they've shown surprising behaviour considering their circumstances.