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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thure Meyer who wrote (23405)	6/4/1999 9:15:00 AM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Hey Guys--- Let's make the assumption, true or not, that we're all just throwing ideas back and forth and that this is not personal. Any idea that we present may or may not be what we actually believe. And shooting down an idea is not the same as shooting down the person who posted it. None of us pose any threat to each other as far as I can tell. None of us are Netscape employees or Microsoft employees actively engaged in destroying each other's careers or whatnot. None of us know each other in the real world. What do you all think?

To: Thure Meyer who wrote (23405)	6/8/1999 12:40:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 24154

After all, what are general rules of conduct? Are they genetically based, evolutionary in nature, did God ordain them??? Are the immutable, possibly Platonic ideals? Based on my reading, I'd say, "evolutionary in nature." I'd say that those societies that have survived evolution best are those that have spontaneously developed a rules-based order based on voluntary cooperation, what Hayek calls the "extended order." It is created by humans, but not the result of any conscious human design. One such extended order is the economy. Another example, I would argue, is the Open Source Movement. Government makes some of the rules, but most are spontaneously-generated, as a result of years, even generations, of voluntary cooperation by the members of the "Great Society." Finally, I find your tone with "if you had a solid grounding in classical liberal jurisprudence..." somewhat ridiculous. Although I like Hayek for the clarity of his thought, that doesn't mean I blindly accept his ideas. Sorry if the tone came across condescending. But it is true: If you really have read Hayek, you would understand perfectly what I am saying and the distinctions I am making, and you would know that his life's work is nothing more (or less) than an updating of classical liberal philosophy for the 20th Century.