The Bigsibling Blog

In Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged” all of the industrialists, the movers and shakers of the world, went on strike. They just up and quit doing business, and withdrew from the world into a secreted mountain valley. They did not sell their businesses, rather, they simply chained the doors and walked away. They went away until such a time as the world, without rational, logical, thinking people to work in it, simply fell into chaos.

They were driven to this desperate act by the governments. All of which (with the exception of the good ol’ US of A) were referred to as People’s Republics, i.e. “The People’s Republic of Argentina”, “The People’s Republic of Mexico”, “The People’s Republic of France” etc etc etc. The problem occurred because there was so much interference with business by the governments that it was nigh impossible for the industrialists to get anything accomplished. The governments were too worried about competition, about alms for the poor, about making sure that everyone got a piece of everything. And then they were surprised when it all fell apart. They couldn’t understand why a person would not be motivated to produce more and better items when the actions and policies of the government amounted to what was essentially a “success tax” or punishment for achievements.

The EU is heading down that road, and it seems in a hurry. A smallish web-browser company named Opera is suing Microsoft in the EU, under EU anti-trust provisions, because Microsoft has its Internet Explorer browser integrated with its Operating System. Opera doesn’t think this is fair, and believes that the EU should force Microsoft to sell versions of its OS without an integrated browser. This comes on the recent heels of the EU determining that Microsoft, by integrating and bundling its Windows Media Player, with its Windows OS, was giving itself an unfair advantage, and required that Microsoft make available a version of the Windows OS without the media player to residents of the EU.

Microsoft complied and, shockingly, very, very few people are purchasing the version of Windows that does not include the media player. The anti-trust folks in the EU have gone even farther in their recommendations of late. As far as to say that no company should enjoy more than 50% of the market share. As far as to recommend that any computer – desktop or laptop – sold in the EU be completely free of any and all operating systems. Yes, that’s correct, no company would be allowed to sell a computer with an OS pre-installed. I am assuming this includes Apple. Which, if they want to talk unfair choices, the only OS you can get from any manufacturer on an Apple brand computer is the Apple OS. At least with the normal PCs, HP and Dell are now offering a flavor of Linux pre-installed. And when I bought the kinder a new PC several years ago from MicroCenter, it came with Lindows pre-installed. Of course, that was wiped pretty fast as none of their games will run under Linux.

Oddly enough, the EU commission putting forth this recommendation claims that by giving the consumers no operating system on their new computers, they are giving the consumers more choice. The amount of newspeak the EU commission uses, in order to exact some control over how much one company can hold onto, is an anathema to the capitalist way of thinking. “No Options are More Option” ranks right up there with “War is Peace”, “Freedom is Slavery” and “Ignorance is Strength”.

Back in the late 90’s, when Microsoft was being dragged over the coals here in the US, I touched on Rand’s concept of a strike, but didn’t even know it at the time. I hadn’t yet read the book. My thought was; ‘If I were Bill Gates, I’d just say to hell with it all. Buy and island and lock the doors. Then let everyone try to get along with out Microsoft as there whipping boy.’ This is, exactly, what the industrialists did in “Atlas Shrugged”. She wrote from experience having migrated from fled Communist Russia in 1926. She was there as it happened. Watched the country mediocre itself into chaos and abject poverty. The EU, it seems, is hell-bent on doing the same thing to Europe.

I’m back to that same idea I arrived at in the ’90s. If I were Bill Gates, or Michael Dell, or the chairman of HP, I would have the inkling to thumb my nose at the Europeans, and simply not do business with them. I would have to wonder if it was worth being so severely crippled to do business with those type of people.

source

Technorati Tags: EU,Microsoft,EU Competition Committe,Big Brother,Newspeak,Orwellian,Ayn Rand,Atlas Shrugged

del.icio.us Tags: EU,Microsoft,EU Competition Committe,Big Brother,Newspeak,Orwellian,Ayn Rand,Atlas Shrugged

Stumble it!

MoveOn.Org is whining and crying because they believe MySpace – the ultra-popular social networking site – is selectively censoring it’s content. My answer to this, of couse, so what? Who cares? Is MySpace some government entity that is violating the 1st Amendment? No. MySpace is a private company, and therefore have every right to run their company as they see fit.

MoveOn and some users believe MySpace should bend to their will. They believe, that since the users is what made MySpace popular, that MySpace should let the users do whatever they want. Buuuuull-caca.

MySpace explains much of its censorship by claiming violations of it’s “community’s terms.” But those terms are one-sided, saying, “MySpace.com may modify this Agreement from time to time and such modification shall be effective upon posting by MySpace.com.” If MySpace is going to cite the “community’s terms” when censoring content, shouldn’t the community have some power over amending those terms? And some power in the adjudication of profile takedowns [sic] and link disabling?

Of course MySpace’s terms are one-sided. Of course they were written in such a way that MySpace will always come out the winner. They paid to have those terms written! Should the community have some power in amending terms of use? No. The community does not have any financial investment in MySpace. The community is allowed to use MySpace server space and bandwidth for FREE. Get that? It is FREE, GRATIS, costs the user NOTHING.

By what right does the man begging on the street for alms demand gold currency instead of paper? When one is given something for free, by what right do they demand of the giver something different or better?

Not only does MySpace censor specific points of view (like those opposing Rupert Murdoch) but they are creating a “walled” public square – disabling links to sites they don’t like. This includes blocking links to video sharing sites like Revver that compensate video producers, so producers get corralled into MySpace Video.

MySpace wants people to use its own devices. It wants people to use MySpace video instead of YouTube or Revver – and quite possibly also – wants other sites, like YouTube or Revver, to pay MySpace a fee for allowing their content to be displayed over the MySpace bandwidth. The decisions MySpace makes in this area are entirely their own. The MySpace admins do not answer to the users or MoveOn.org. No, the MySpace admins answer to the MySpace board of directors – and ultimately to media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

And yes, if I were the owner of MySpace, and I was pouring money into the project, I sure as heck might seriously think about removing content that was critical of me and my endeavors. Let them go somewhere else, let them use someone else’s space and bandwidth to lambaste me.

When a company builds an online public square, shouldn’t Internet users have rights, and be able to demand that the company not censor legal speech within that public square?

The users have the right to say whatever they want. Just as MySpace has the right to take down whatever they deem to be inappropriate.

The internet is a big, big place. If MoveOn.org doesn’t like the way MySpace runs its shop, then MoveOn.org has, a responsibility…nay…a duty to start a similar social networking site run the way they believe it should be run.

If the users of MySpace do not like what MySpace does, they still do not have any right to force a change. They do have the right to quit using MySpace. They have the right to move themselves and their content to another social networking site. That is what free enterprise is all about. When enough users leave MySpace, they will either change, or fold. It is that simple. The market drives these things, and the market should drive these things.

MoveOn does whine about the cost of switching from MySpace to another company, but so what? What made these people use MySpace in the first place? Why should MySpace be responsible for the actions of its users? It shouldn’t. MySpace is accountable to its shareholders, and no one else.

source

Stumble it!

Usually being banned is a bad thing, but I was reading Vicezilla's blog when I saw here that his blog was banned in China. 'Hey,' I thought 'I want to be banned in China too.' It seems so...I don't know...prestigious to be banned in China - kind of like some horror film where one could brag in the newspaper adverts "Banned in Illinois" or some such. Kind of like a gold star in kidergarten. I headed on over to the greatfirewallofchina.org to see if possibly I too was banned. And there I was, all kinds of banned from China.  I feel so proud!

Technorati Tags: China, firewall, greatfirewallofchina, banned

Stumble it!

The New York Times reports that the income gap is getting bigger. That top 10 percent of wage earners pulled in a minimum of $100K last year, while the rest of us dropped 0.6 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively
enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per
person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person
in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

Please note that in the article, the top 300K Americans enjoyed the income and received 440 times as much as the average Joe (read: you and me).  They ENJOYED and RECEIVED the income.  But apparently, according to the NYT, they did not EARN it.  I would submit that those people EARNED their money.  It was not a gift.  It was not alms.  It was not taken from someone who had earned it and given to them.

My question is ’so what?’. What is the problem here? Those that produce should earn more. Those with a abilities should profit from them. Those with no abilities, or those who do not produce, should get less. It is as simple as that.

The Times article is attempting to create class envy. The Times believes that those who have abilities and produce should give their money to those who have not abilities or who do not produce. It is a typical socialist/communist agenda they are pushing.

I have asked it before, and I will continue to ask it. By what right do those who do not produce demand to be supported by those who do produce? By what right do those who will not help themselves demand that the producers work for their benefit? By what right does the bloke at McDonald’s deserve anything other than what he receives?

source

Technorati Tags: Communism, Socialism, Income Redistribution, Wealthy, Poor, Class Envy

Stumble it!