"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> David claimed that everyone had a right to do whatever they wanted >> with their property. This is simply false throughout most of the >> civilized world - zoning laws control what kinds of business you can >> run on your property, various laws designed to control the looks of >> the town dictate what you can do to the exterior or lawn, flood and >> earthquake laws state what kinds of structural changes you can make, >> and so on. I took the view of a political extremist to point out that >> he was wrong. David predictably used that to tar me as an extremist >> from the other end of the spectrum. > > Here's a question for you, Mike. Presumably, you have the right not to > be shot for no reason at all. Does that right act as a bulletproof vest > that actually physically prevents me from shooting you? If I argued that a > person had a right not to be shot for no reason at all by a random > stranger, would you point out that such shootings occur throughout the > civilized world as some kind of refutation? > > The way you respond to what I'm saying shows that you really don't have > any clue whatsoever of what the words I'm using *mean*. Do you even know > what a "right" is? (Such that, for example, it's possible for rogue > governments to violate the rights of their citizens even if those > governments don't recognize those rights.) >
I'd be interested in hearing what you think a right is? In Florida, for example, you have the right to gun someone down if you think they're a bit too menacing. In Canada, most people find that reprehensible. So does a Floridian visiting Canada have their rights infringed on by our rogue government because they're not allowed to gun down menacing looking Canadians at will? Should they be able to exercise that right regardless and not have to face the consequences of our laws? I think "right", however, was the wrong choice of words in this thread; there is rarely anything codifying a company's "right" to succeed at all costs and at the expense of all competition (except Crown Corporations and the like, which are created (in theory, anyway) in the interest of general population as opposed to it). Your question here appears to be one of ethics. Is MS ethically bankrupt for pursuing business practices that run counter to society's established norms, and should they be punished for doing so? And is their behaviour the more reprehensible because of the contempt they show for the decisions of society's judicial arm. Matt -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
