Hacker News Reader

Comment by yoyar | Hacker News Reader

Vilify Microsoft if you like; I won't object, there's plenty there to work with. But really, what's the core problem here? The core of it is that the government is able to use force to control people/corporations. You might be OK with that when it works for you but when it goes the other way you might want to pay attention as well. Does anyone really expect that politicians from Europe (or anywhere else for that matter) are going to make correct decisions about regulating the internet? Well, given their stellar record I suppose they'll do a fantastic job. Much better to let consumers decide.

View on HN

Government use of force allows corporations to exist. Carried to its logical conclusion your argument calls for the elimination of corporations as legal entities. Corporations can't use force to control people without force of law, and if the corporations themselves control the law then the corporations become governments and suddenly you have the same problem.

The "core problem" is powerful leaders seeking more control over the world. That problem can't be addressed with a philosophy of government, it can only be addressed by holding leaders like Steve Ballmer accountable for their actions.

I'm not sure I recognize what system of thought you're using. Why does the existence of corporations require a "government use of force"?

It seems your entire argument is based off the assumption that corporations must be able to control people, or else they wouldn't exist. Hasn't the ideal always been "the market controls the corporation"? If you make a product that fulfills a need of the market you are rewarded, if you make a product people don't want then you fail.

If a corporation has control over consumers then the market fails, this is part of the reason why we have anti-trust laws.

I agree with you that one of the forces we're fighting is leaders trying to take too much control, but the answer is not to "hold them accountable," it's to not give them power in the first place. That's the whole point behind the structure of almost every modern government. In America, for example, the federal government is broken into three parts with a system of "checks and balances" to stop any one part from getting too much power.

I'm not sure I recognize what system of thought you're using. Why does the existence of corporations require a "government use of force"?

Corporate charters are special privileges granted by the state.

Well sure, corporations can be recognized by the state. That doesn't mean they require the state. There's nothing about legal personality or limited liability that requires "use of force"

Every law is underwritten by the potential use of force by agents of the state. Sometimes you have to go through several laws to see that (you ignore liability -> you get sued -> you ignore lawsuit -> you lose -> you are ordered to pay -> you ignore payment -> (if you have money in bank, it is taken from you; go to beginning of loop, this time with respect to bank | if you don't have money in bank, but do have money and spend it, you'll be eventually likely be arrested for contempt of court, but an agent of state applying force)

Law without an underwriting by law enforcement is not more than convention.

Well sure, corporations can be recognized by the state. That doesn't mean they require the state.

Of course they require the state. They are an invention of government.

This argument is tautological and IMVHO disingenuous. Yes, governments do provide legal protections for corporations but it's not the essence of what a corporation is. It's capital and a group of people which is perceived as separate in some aspects from its members.

I would guess that even hunter gatherers were organizing limited liability ventures like hunting parties.

This. Large corporations are always going to attempt shitty legal maneuvers out of self interest. The real questions is whether the information revolution will succeed creating a more informed society, changing the way people vote and the way politicians legislate, bringing crap like this mostly to an end because of increased transparency.

That, and so long as political mores remain unchanged, year after year we'll see scandal after scandal.

+1 to that. In other comments people discuss if Microsoft was "convicted monopolist" or not - but much more important point is that all those convictions were absolutely useless and only represented chest-pounding and money-grabbing. What undermined Microsoft grip on OS and browser markets wasn't EU parliament or US DOJ. It was enterprising people offering viable alternatives. It is said that there's no bigger enemy of capitalism than capitalists. Big established businesses hate competition and would be much more comfortable enjoying lunches with government officials then competing with thousands of new kids on the block threatening to undermine them. So no wonder Microsoft seeks this route when it is available to them and wants to leverage politicians into competitive advantage. The power is out there, do you expect them just to ignore it? If the politicians take on themselves to be the judges of the markets, no wonder major markets players come to them and try to make them see things their way! This is happening and will keep happening inevitably. Of course, these tactics look stinky to the public, and it's proper to expose them - but don't expect them to go anywhere as long as there are politicians that have huge powers over the markets and players there. It's not like Microsoft is unique in doing something like this - every major player is doing it every day.

Yea, I know about the cookie law fiasco.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com