Re: Hatch wants Gates back

[Christopher Pall <x97pall@wmich.edu>]

Conservatives against the centralization of power?!?! (The Washington Post being conservative) Who would have thought?!?!?!

Who believes what is not the question... Why a state can manage a multi-national company when it has no jurasdiction over many matter which the
company engages in is.

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> In fact, I note the hardly-libertarian Washington Post editorializes today
> against the World Court.
> 
> -Declan
> 
> On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> > One does not have to be a libertarian to oppose global government.
> >
> > National governments can deal with Microsoft quite nicely. Does MS have
> > physical, financial, or IP assets they can seize? Certainly.
> >
> > Duh.
> >
> > -Declan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Christopher Pall wrote:
> >
> > > Here's a legitimate question:
> > >
> > > Here's a global multi-billion (or nearso) dollar company.
> > >
> > > What's the jurisidiction of a state? Does it deal regularly with
> > > international trade? Does it deal regularly with interstate commerce?
> > > Microsoft does all of these things on a daily basis. MS has the scope of
> > > a global organization. A global organization is what should preside over
> > > this matter.  (please reserve your jokes for UN control of the case for
> > > your libertarian buddies, I'm speaking of the US government and EU here)
> > >
> > > I've said this before - proper government isn't about law - it's about
> > > balance of power - and dividing the government to fight an organization
> > > whose "crimes" are international in scope - is upsetting the balance of
> > > power.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm glad we agree it's reasonable to be skeptical of the government.
> > > >
> > > > Now that first principles have been dispensed with: I've seen DR-DOS and
> > > > its interaction with Windows. Seems to me this is the subject of
> > > > litigation, and the case goes to trial next year. I haven't read the
> > > > briefs and can't form a wise opinion, though I'm perfectly prepared to
> > > > believe that MS sabotaged it. Doesn't seem to me to be fraud, however;
> > > > moreover, even if it is, libertarians would argue the federal government
> > > > has no jurisidiction over it; that should be left to the states.
> > > >
> > > > -Declan
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, James Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Me too.  OTOH, I've yet to see any evidence that your skepticism
> > > > > extends to the activities of Microsoft.  Surely such things as the
> > > > > bogus error messages when attempting to run Windows under DR-DOS
> > > > > fall under the "fraud" portion of the famous pair of "force and
> > > > > fraud" that a libertarian government is supposed to guard against.
> > > > >
> > > > >       James Jones
> > > > >
> > > > > Opinions herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of
> > > > > any organization.
> > > > >
> > > > > Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If healthy skepticism about aspects of what the Federal government does is
> > > > > > a crime, well, guess I'm guilty of it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Declan
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> >