"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> The first two points are factually wrong, and the third is an opinion >>> based on the concept, as far as I can see, that Microsoft should be >>> allowed to do anything they like, even if those actions harm others. >> Of course this alleged "harm" is simply a lack of a benefit. >> Why is Burger King allowed to close at 10PM? That harms me when I'm >> hungry after 10. > They can close when they like because the policy is not discriminatory, > nor is part of an attempt to manage the market. If they were to do > things that harmed the market - such as telling meat suppliers that > supplied them that they couldn't supply anyone else, that would be a > possible candidate for anti-competitive behaviour suits. It would have > to be shown that the arrangement WAS materially anti-competitive, > though, and that's difficult to conceive of because MacDonalds does > not constitute a major portion of the market demand for corned beef, > so they don't have the leverage. In other words, who or what it harms is not the issue. Which was precisely my point. Private individuals and corporations are allowed to harm other people, so long as they don't violate the rights of those people when they do so, for example by using force or fraud. If a McDonald's opens across the street from my little burger joint family business, that hurts me. However, it isn't force, it isn't fraud, it doesn't violate rights, it's just part of life. Not even the amount of harm is at issue. Burger King firing someone for cause might result in their family going hungry. The issue is whether the action is within the scope of the actor's authority. DS -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
