Well I guess Microsoft and Intel aren't quite monopolies. At least with Intel there are viable competitors selling compatible products: AMD, transmeta, VIA, etc. And AMD processor are some of the time at the top of the heap performance-wise, and most of the time offer the best value for money processors (best performance/$). Anyway my view is that what props up software virtual monopolies is the current IP laws. If they were revised to remove copyright, and patents I think it would help level the playing field. As to virtual monopolies being worse than government: I disagree businesses aim to maximise profit margin and this places a limit on the depths of unethical and bad for the individual behavior they can do. They won't do it becaues it's not profitable: unhappy customers are not good business. Current governments on the other hand are almost universally bad for the economy, liberty and freedoms. They have no competition and are so corrupt that it's difficult for them to act anywhere near as efficiently or sanely as a company. Adam On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 09:03:00PM -0700, Andy Lopata wrote:
Simply put, markets lead to consolidation. Consolidation leads to monopoly. Monopoly leads to control from above, with no accountability. Is this better than gov't? I certainly see the dangers of gov't: state terrorism, state ineptitude, state racism and xenophobia, but I see market control as at least as dangerous since corporations are not accountable to any sort of democratic control - and I don't think the people with the most capital necessarily make the best decisions.