Why a Devout Capitalist Loves Free Software

Words and language evolve over time. Just like the term "conservative" means something totally different than it did 50 years ago, the term "capitalist" doesn't mean what it used to. In America these days, a "capitalist" is someone who wants the economy to be dominated by a few giant monopolies or oligopolies, who then control their puppets in government, and force the government to bail out these corporations when they screw up, so that they can give their executives giant bonuses.

Today, a true "capitalist" would be totally against FOSS, because it hurts Microsoft's corporate profits and threatens their monopoly.

Put "crony" in front of it, and you'll have the proper qualifier for today's lobbyist corporations.

And when someone refers to Macro$haft as "capitalist", correct the error strenuously. They are not a capitalist corporation; they are convicted monopolists. They were found guilty.

The gist of my argument is that Microsoft isn't a capitalistic organization. They are in essence believers in the Communist doctrine that people should not own their own possessions. And people who parade around pretending to be Capitalists while further destroying the rights of individuals aren't truly Capitalists. Even if they do wish to change the meaning of the word to fit themselves.

True capitalism believes in the free market, which Microsoft perverts and destroys with monopolistic corruption.

And don't let the meaning of the word Capitalism change. The word belongs to the English language which belongs to everyone. Not to MS or anyone else.

The English language is constantly changing and evolving. Many words don't mean the same thing they did 100 years ago. If you want a dead language, learn Latin. Here in English, "capitalism" has a different meaning now, and it's not something a few people have done, it's what most self-professed believers in capitalism agree to. These days, those people like monopolies and oligopolies, and don't really like competition. They believe, fundamentalisticly, in "the free market" and "the invisible hand", and think that "market forces" will always bring about the best situation without any government interference, even though this has been disproven over and over as mature markets always tend towards oligopolies or monopolies that prevent smaller competitors from arising.

Quoting:mature markets always tend towards oligopolies or monopolies that prevent smaller competitors from arising

So, unregulated free markets are like the game Osmos, then. Sooner or later someone gets rich enough to start swallowing neighbours and then it's basically all over.

Is this TOS already?... ;)

Microsoft is a capitalist organization. The problem with MS is that they are against science. Microsoft is not about the government owning the means of production, which is a big part of what Communism is about. Microsoft doesn't have a military and can't throw you in the gulags either.

The problems in the US is not the free market. It is the non-free parts of society, specifically government. The federal government is something like 40% of GDP. The rich are already taxed. It is bad government that have created our problems. Blaming the free market is like blaming air for your house burning down.

Can you guys read Free To Choose? If you care about economics, you will learn a ton from his book. It will change your understanding of a free society.

Quoting:It is bad government that have created our problems

I agree bad government is a problem, how about good government?

In the US, government is voted in by the people, so the credit or blame should be directed towards the people not the government.

Free market is best when certain rules and laws are maintained, without any of such would be even worse than bad government.

Government has a crucial role in society, otherwise founding fathers wouldn't have mandated it in the constitution.

The founding fathers anticipated many things, one major they missed is the stupidity of the people. One guy did when he said, "It is a republic if you can keep it", obviously we can't.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1101b.asp