Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[David Schwartz]

"Mike Meyer" <mwm at mired.org> wrote in message 
news:868xwcevke.fsf at bhuda.mired.org...

>> Microsoft's behavior consisted of arguments, that is, did not
>> involve force, the threat of force, fraud, or the threat of
>> fraud. This is perhaps the most vital distinction that there is.

> Wrong. Either your definition of force is to narrow, or you're wrong
> that it's the distinction is even vaguely vital. If I convince
> everyone who might make food available to you not to do so - for
> example, by paying them more than their interaction with you is worth
> to them, I can starve you to death. I'd say I've used force against
> you - an economic force.

    Right, you would say that, because you don't see the difference between 
guns and arguments.

> This is the kind of force that MS wields
> illegally. I'm willing to admit this isn't a usual definition of
> force, and won't argue if you want to say that it isn't force. But in
> that case, the fact that I didn't use "force" against you is
> irrelevant to you - you're just as dead.

    No, it is completely relevant. You are trying to say the means don't 
matter if the same end is achieved. But if you're going to say that, you 
might as well say there's no difference between shooting someone and letting 
them die of natural causes.

    But you are completely and utterly wrong. Civilized interactions between 
men consist of prohibiting certain *means*, not prohibiting certain ends.

    DS