"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Of course, you've dropped the real point, which is your own inabillity
> to distinguish between, as you put it, "guns and arguments." You
> always act as if every mention of a crime committed by someone other
> than microsoft involved guns, even when most of them don't. You have
> as yet to offer any explanation for that other than that you're
> following MS's orders.
Your sole evidence for this claim is that I once equated "theft" with
force. Yes, you are correct that it's possible to steal something without
using force. Even in this case, from context, it was quite clear that
forceful theft was intended.
There is a fundamental category difference between the fundamental
inter-personal wrongs of force and fraud and every other invented wrong.
People are making a concerted attempt in this thread to obliterate that
distinction, and I include you in those making that attempt.
The *only* motive I have ever seen to obliterate that distinction is to
justify responding to arguments with bullets. And that is precisely what you
advocate. Quoting you:
> If I convince
> everyone who might make food available to you not to do so - for
> example, by paying them more than their interaction with you is worth
> to them, I can starve you to death. I'd say I've used force against
> you - an economic force.
Your convincing and paying is an argument. It's in no way analogous to,
for example, hiring someone to kill me (wherein force is actually used).
Certainly if I did starve you by force, you would be justified in responding
with force, that is, with bullets if needed, to defend your life.
What possible motive is there for making an argument like this other
than to justify the use of guns in response to arguments? That's why you
need to equate metaphorical "market force" with *real* force. But there is
no more important distinction in the world.
Again, I utterly reject your argument. The use of actual force is
justified only in response to force, fraud, or things that *really* are
force.
> I'm willing to admit this isn't a usual definition of
> force, and won't argue if you want to say that it isn't force.
The point is not whether you call it force or not. The point is whether
you believe it justifies the use of force in retaliation. There is no
difference between someone who says "while arguments aren't force, it's okay
to respond to them with force" and someone who says "arguments are force so
it's okay to respond to them with force".
The premise I utterly and totally reject is that good arguments, shrewd
negotiations, and anything else that is not actual force, not fraud, not
inducing others to use force, or anything like that are somehow the same as
real force. You have an obligation not to use actual force against other
people, you have an obligation in a negotiation not to misrepresent your
product to induce a payment, and failing in these obligations are serious
wrongs. But they are in no way comparable to trying to get what something is
worth. They are in no way comparable to persuasive negotiations.
This point transcends the issue of Microsoft. I would make this same
argument regardless of whose non-force were claimed to justify a forceful
retaliation. (And have done so consistently.)
DS
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
