From: Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 02:32:45 +0800
To: "Cypherpunks (E-mail)" <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>
Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
Message-ID: <33CCFE438B9DD01192E800A024C84A1928471D@mossbay.chaffeyhomes.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jim Choate wrote:
> > Lightly? You jest.
> 
> No I don't. I can start a business for as little as $15 to 
> register a DBA and I don't need licenses or other sorts of 
> regulatory permissions.

And you would be stupid to expose yourself to full liability.

Regulation includes much more than licensing and registration. Try
hiring a couple employees, paying freelance individuals, setup office
space, get yourself a company car and do your fed income taxes. Lightly
regulated my ass. If they enforced every word of every code strongly and
literally it would be nearly impossible to conduct business.

> No we shouldn't. The fact that monopolies can exist in this 
> lightly regulated economy is ample evidence

Bullshit, monopolies exist because of the regulation.
 
> If you seriously think this is a heavily regulated market you 
> should do more research into such places as Nazi Germany, 
> Russia, China, etc.

Bullshit again, there is a *big* difference between a regulated market
(mixed capitalist/socialist economy) and a command economy. So because
we don't live in Soviet Russia we should all bend over and take it?

> Monopolies are monopolies, claiming that they will be less 
> abusive in a regulated market than in a free-market just 

Coercive power takes form via regulation. Without it a bad monopoly is a
short-lived one.

> You are claiming that if we do away with the food 
> regulations that McDonalds will be *more* concerned 
> about their meat being cooked thoroughly then you

Liability, liability, liability. Regulation often promotes bad practice
as businesses comply with minimum regulation and nothing more instead of
thinking for themselves. What is worse is government often shields
companies from liability.

> If a market monopolizes there is *NO* competition.

How do you prevent potential competition? Monopoly means both the
absence of existing and potential competition and alternatives.

> If the market is one that takes a large investment in 
> intellectual or capital materials then there
> won't be any opportunity to even attempt to start a 
> competitive venture.

A fluid capital market can finance even the largest of ventures if the
potential return is there. Different markets have different time
schedules, but competition can and will come.

Intellectual Property enforcement is an act of government, it is a force
monopoly, only just and reasonable IP laws limit it. Notice that, bad
laws = bad monopoly, good laws = balanced environment, no laws = no
monopoly. The last of which is not necessarily preferable in this case,
and is a fundamental difference in laissez-faire Vs anarchy.

> Fairness is about the consumer, not the manufacturer.

You have an odd definition of fair. You cannot have fair for the benefit
of one at the expense of another.

> Contractual with who?

With whomever is a part of the framework.

> > reputation for punishment instead of life and liberty, 
> 
> Businesses are neither alive nor do they enjoy liberty. Don't 
> confuse people with systems and objects.

No, do not strip the person from the businesses. A group of people do
not lose any of the rights and liberty of a single individual, neither
do they gain any. Businesses are people.

Commerce is a fundamental right, in order to survive you must be able to
create and dispose of that creation. The lack of the *individual's*
right to freely and easily pursue any and all business pursuits to any
degree is an act of enslavement of the individual to corporate
aristocracy and bureaucratic whim.

	Matt