Linux-Advocacy Digest #854, Volume #28 Sun, 3 Sep 00 07:13:15 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Phil B)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phil B)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 02:51:18 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Bob Germer wrote:
> >
> > On 09/02/2000 at 05:59 PM,
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > > What...as if this would contradict 25 years of the data which proves
> > > that you are a liar.
> >
> > You are wrong. I speak from personal experience about ONE district. You
> > cannot apply national averages to ANY specific district. Unlike some
>
> Bob... almost every district is like your district.
>
-- As regards the number of qualified teachers, hopefully that is correct...
However, it seems rather questionable to me as to whether every school
district (or even: 'almost' every district...), has the same number of
private school alternatives to public schooling, as in the case that Bob
has cited.
If anybody knows the numbers, I'd be very interested in seeing some more
specific data on this, but I have to ask in general:
-- What percentage of school districts nationwide in the U.S. have _any_
private school 'option' within 30 miles (say...) of the public school
facility that children might otherwise have to attend, much less three
such options as in Bob's example?
The voucher proposal (and other, similar privatization plans for resolving
the deficits of the public education system...), assumes that such
alternatives exist pretty much everywhere and would be universally
accessible to families wishing to use them. -- Yet, has this ever been
documented for relatively more remote areas (vs. places like New Jersey
and Detroit....), like in Iowa or Nebraska or Montana or Idaho, where it
is pretty much guaranteed in advance that two well-run Quaker private
schools per district (as in Bob's NJ example...), will forever remain a
statistical anomaly?... :-|
>
> > states, we have a surplus of qualified teachers seeking positions in New
> > Jersey as a whole. Some inner cities such as Camden, Trenton, Newark, and
> > a couple of others cannot attract teachers, but on the whole, suburban and
> > smaller city boards have dozens of applicants for every opening.
> >
> > --
> >
==============================================================================================
> > Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
> > MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
> > Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
> >
=============================================================================================
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
<snip>
Cheers,
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 04:48:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>>How about fixing the parents and students instead?
>
> Such social engineering is unecessary. You can simply allow
> those working poor that actually value education to have
> access to it and allow the glorified juvenile detention
> facilities to be just that and allow the rest of the city
> to be undistracted from the process of learning.
No, I'm sorry 'jedi', you cannot allow that.
> Vouchers allow those that do care but weren't born rich
> to achieve this for their own children with a minimal
> dependence on governmental beaurocracy.
Here's what I think. I hate vouchers.
Public education is a necessity. The institutionalization of learning,
however, in the information age, should not be tied to the simple
primary education of all citizens. There should be no private gain in
educating our children, or our adults. Academic institutions are not
for-profit, when run correctly, and should be only intellectually
competitive. Commerce is an entirely separate thing. Vouchers merely
try to place a public face on privatized education. There is no need
for private education *in place of* public education; if the public
isn't good enough for everybody, it isn't good enough and needs every
resource possible until it is. There is ample opportunity and
importance in 'secondary' education to augment public schools. But
children should not be social experiments. We only need a control, we
don't need a test case. Every person should receive, to the best of our
ability, an equal level of primary education, the cost of which accrues
to the society as a whole, and the operation of which is the local
community with public oversite.
> Besides, this doesn't address the issue of why a school
> district's budget should be reduced in proportion to the
> number of students they actually service.
Huh? Are you nuts? The number of students certainly seems the only
sensible way of dividing the cost of education among everyone in a
region/state/country.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 04:56:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
[...]
>> Screw you.
>>
>
>A perfect example of the product of our broken social system.
CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP
CLAP
Outstanding, Rick. I enjoyed that quite a bit, and I'm sure others did,
as well.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 05:19:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> US Welfare programs specifically discourage upward mobility.
How?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 05:55:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> I can't see how this can be, if you believe they have free will.
>> Perhaps the problem is in your judgement of their actions, rather than
>> in their judgement of their actions or other's ethical judgement. You
>> seem to be saying "I've seen someone act selfishly and believe they are
>> not acting selfishly." So who are you to unilaterally judge whether it
>> was selfish, or merely appeared selfish to you?
>
>People make judgements all the time, Mr. Devlin. This is a simple
>fact of life.
I'm sorry, I don't go in for that crap. Just because people want to
inflict their morality onto others doesn't mean I have to tolerate it,
no. You can double-check a persons actions, ethically, but you cannot
second-guess his motives, ethically.
[...]
>> Ah, I think I see where you're going (or coming from, at least.)
>> Perhaps you would be more clear on the issues if you recognized that 'in
>> my assessment' is more appropriate than 'in my experience', unless you
>> are trying to insist on your own moral authority in judging others. It
>> seems plausible to suspect that you are merely being very much more
>> selfish in your inaction than you think you are.
>
>Hrm? I think that I am very selfish, as, in general, are all
>human beings... with the rare exception, of course.
Who, me? Surely you jest.
>> Certainly you can't think that letting another human
>> suffer or die merely because of your inaction is moral or ethical.
>
>What I can say is that, if you believe that it is, you are a terribly
>immoral and unethical person.
No, I said "letting another... *because* of your inaction" (emphasis
added). I don't care what you think of my morality, but I'd appreciate
you not taking liberties on my ethics by misrepresenting my statement.
>Why, you ask? Because you allow countless
>people to die every day through your inaction.
Through? Neither because nor through, no. Point out an individual whom
I can save or relieve suffering for, and I'll weigh the ethics of it.
Otherwise, you're overreaching.
>If *you* find inaction
>in the face of human misery to be contemptible, then you are contemptible
>by your own standards.
"In the face of"? What is this; a purely metaphorical angst? Where is
this coming from?
>Or isn't it true that you've elected to purchase
>luxury goods in lieu of providing support to your fellow suffering
>citizens of the world?
My support wouldn't end their suffering, dude. You've got to be
realistic if you're going to talk ethics; otherwise you're just making
things up. I don't have to be a monk to consider ethics in a reasonable
framework.
>I look at things differently; human misery is an opportunity for
>*charity*. While charity is a wonderful indicator of our human
>empathy, and a laudable thing, I condemn neither myself nor anyone
>else for withholding charity.
Well, I'd hardly be so convoluted in my self-justification as to
consider human misery to be a good thing, as an opportunity for charity.
I don't have to defend my self-interest as being self-less,
for-the-betterment selflessness. I think we've been over this ground
before.
I don't give to charity. I've been known to make donations to
non-profit organizations, as well as pay my taxes. When I have a lot of
money, I'll give a lot of it away. Right now, I'm still working towards
that goal. I don't condemn myself for withholding charity because I'm
not 'withholding' it. Charity is a luxury. No, its not the top of my
list, but that's because paying someone to sell me something might do
just as much for human misery, overall, than any non-profit's specific
agenda is going to, in the end.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 06:05:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"josco01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> I do have a right to buy what ever I wish and I exericse that
>> right every day. I have a right to create demand and I have a right to a
>> market that is free to respond to that demand.
>
>You do not have the right to buy whatever you wish - you only have the right
>to buy what someone chooses to sell you. It's really pretty simple. All the
>money on earth doesn't give you the RIGHT to buy whatever you wish, that
>really can't be too hard to grasp can it?
Who said you can buy rights? You're really not all that good with this
"abstract" stuff, you know. Did you understand the "I have a right to
create demand" part?
Have you ever heard of "market theory"? Its really pretty simple. If
there's a market opportunity, someone's going to be making money on it.
If there's something you want as an alternative to something you're
already buying, and there's nothing available (not precisely, but
feasibly, not exactly, but competitively), then chances are somebody's
monopolizing. If you want a cheaper product, you can buy a cheaper
product in any free market (until you find *the* cheapest, of course,
but who's to say one you'd already checked hasn't gone down since then).
If you want higher quality, or more convenience (this last one is *BIG*
right now) then 'presto' it'll be available, in a free market. They
*find* things to sell you, and ways to sell it to you.
The courts back us up on this. A very high market share is monopoly
power; unless you can convince a judge you did absolutely nothing
anti-competitive to encourage it, you've committed a crime.
Once there's competition, the question of competitive pricing makes the
options a matter of how low the producer can manage to go, rather than
how high they can stoke the demand. The buyers market is the only free
market.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 06:23:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> One cannot acquire a monopoly without breaking anti-trust laws, as
>> attempting to monopolize is as illegal as monopolizing.
>
>I see you still don't recognize the second element required under
>Grinnell. Why am I not surprised.
Probably because you don't understand the second element described in
Grinnell. You keep misreading it, I'm not sure how. Its something
about the concept 'monopoly power', I'm sure, but its mostly that you
don't understand how or why we "distinguish" between attempted
monopolization and growth and development in business.
Maybe this will help. Its from the Standard Oil case:
" the operation of the centrifugal and centripetal forces resulting from
the right to freely contract was the means by which monopoly would be
inevitably prevented if no extraneous or sovereign power imposed it and
no right to make unlawful contracts having a monopolistic tendency were
permitted."
See, a monopoly isn't possible without anti-competitive acts. You can't
get a monopoly through superior products, business acumen, or accident
of history; competitive acts. You can get market power, but you cannot
get monopoly power *purely* through competition. It just isn't
possible, in the eyes of the law, to gain monopoly power by growth and
development; it requires a willful effort, and the court knows this,
even if you do not. Having a monopoly, possessing monopoly power,
*means* you've acted anti-competitively. Now, competition and
anti-competition and commerce being what they are (centripetal?!?),
there's really no telling, from the outside, as it were, if some action
is anti-competitive, necessarily. So there's certainly some chance that
you might 'get away with it', and amass monopoly. To keep it, you'd be
committing a crime (centrifugal?!?)
So you're acquiring or maintaining monopoly power, if you have large
market share and demonstrate anti-competitive actions *or results*,
because the market abhors a monopoly. Either the actions or the
results, or the actions you took to get into the position where you
could attempt the results, all of these are illegal.
That's why Microsoft was nailed for three separate crimes:
Monopolizing OSes
Attempting to monopolize Web Browsers
And restraint of trade through tying in Web Browsers
Now, if simply having a monopoly is not against the law, why was
Microsoft convicted of it as an offense against section 2 of the Sherman
Act?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 06:26:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>>> "Joe" == Joe R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
> >> Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> All I want to know is, if its illegal to *monopolize*, and its illegal
> >> >> to *attempt to monopolize*, just how is it legal to have a monopoly?
> >> >
> >> >Because even though they have the same root and derivation, they have
> >> >different meanings in a legal sense.
> >>
> >> Strictly speaking, you have a minor point.
>
> > But then you go ahead and post several hundred lines showing that you
> > don't grasp the concept at all.
>
> Why don't you show why he doesn't grasp the concept, instead of just
> being lazy and saying so?
>
>Regards,
>
>Chris Wenham
<G>
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 06:40:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> >It's generally considered impolite to express preferences to
>> >what someone calls themselves.
>>
>> I don't have any preference one way or the other what you call yourself,
>> 'Courageous', merely whether you use a pseudonym when posting to
>> advocacy groups. I'm afraid I consider it impolite, and worse,
>> regardless of what pseudonym you choose to use.
>
>If the basis of your argument is that I'm anonymous, I'm afraid
>you're lack of awareness is showing. I'm hardly anonymous. My
>last name and the city I'm from are in my email address. I'm
>less anonymous than you.
All the more reason not to use a childish 'handle'. It inhibits serious
discussion, honestly. Subtly, but it does.
>> >You are continuing to be rude. Is this a habit of yours?
>>
>> I don't consider it rude to point out that misquoting someone in order
>> to provide a basis for your argument is dishonest. The question isn't
>> whether rudeness is a habit of mine; the question is whether dishonesty
>> is a habit of yours.
>
>No, the question is indeed whether or not rudeness is a habit of
>yours. You assert that my misquote was deliberate, in spite of the
>fact that I corrected the misquote by reviewing the thread when it
>was made an issue of, and inspite of the fact that I indicated that
>it was an error induced by time.
>
>KNOCK IT OFF!
I'm sorry, but the matter did seem just to me. It wasn't the misquote
I'm complaining about, really. It was the argument from ignorance you
used it for. ;-)
>> >We've already covered this ground. If he can't proffer some example,
>> >then he doesn't have an argument.
>>
>> If you cannot refute his statement, you don't have an argument;
>
>It is not my responsibility to refute what he says; that's not
>how debate works. One does not put the responsibility of proving
>a negative to the other party.
In fact, I think that is how debate works. He was using a fact to
support his argument. You're supposed to refute his arguments by
reason, or his facts by other facts. That his was a weak fact should
merely makes it easier to refute by presenting contradictory or
contra-indicating facts. I'm not asking you to prove a negative, merely
to support your argument.
As it stands, you said that if he cannot demonstrate to you how a rich
person could pay no taxes, than there is no reason to believe that any
rich people pay no taxes, despite claims there are. You could have said
"I don't think there's any real cases." And then the burden would have
been on him to provide some substantiation to his fact. Instead, you
used an argument from ignorance, by saying that if he can't provide a
real case, there cannot be any such cases. I was just calling you on
that; I wasn't suggesting that you were wrong to question the validity
of his facts. As far as we know, the claim that there are rich people
who don't pay taxes is still hearsay.
>But supposing that we disregarded that for a moment. What argument
>is it that I do not have?
The argument that there are no ways to get out of paying taxes when
you're very wealthy. You haven't made it, but its implied by your
argument from ignorance.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 06:45:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 04:07:15 -0400,
> T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>>>I don't know as I'd call it leftwing indoctrination, but teaching kids
>>>that this is a democracy,, and not a Republic, is certainly indoctrination,
>>>same with the whole collectivist interpretation of what little part of
>>>american history actually gets taught.
>>
>>True, but perhaps the fact that it is a collectivist interpretation is
>>merely what you've been indoctrinated into thinking? How can you tell?
>>
>
>By reading the original words rather than the modern interpretation
>handed out in the schools. By thinking, questioning, and investigation.
The original words, unfortunately, are not efficient enough. There's
too much to learn, these days, before you can even half get started
thinking or questioning. All modern curriculums, of course, stress
development of intellectual abilities over memorization of facts. But
that's supposedly part of the 'left-wing/collectivist indoctrination'
stuff, I'm told. You can't win for losing.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 06:50:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
[...]
>Left to their own devices, markets correct themselves. Individual
>companies don't stay focused long enough to stay on top long term.
[30] Undoubtedly, the words "to monopolize" and "monopolize," as used
in the section, reach every act bringing about the
prohibited results. The ambiguity, if any, is involved in determining
what is intended by monopolize. But this ambiguity is readily
dispelled in the light of the previous history of the law of restraint
of trade to which we have referred and the indication which it
gives of the practical evolution by which monopoly and the acts which
produce the same result as monopoly, that is, an undue
restraint of the course of trade, all came to be spoken of as, and to be
indeed synonymous with, restraint of trade. In other
words, having by the 1st section forbidden all means of monopolizing
trade, that is, unduly restraining it by means of every
contract, combination, etc., the 2d section seeks, if possible, to make
the prohibitions of the act all the more complete and
perfect by embracing all attempts to reach the end prohibited by the 1st
section, that is, restraints of trade, by any attempt to
monopolize, or monopolization thereof, even although the acts by which
such results are attempted to be brought about or are
brought about be not embraced within the general enumeration of the 1st
section. And, of course, when the 2d section is thus
harmonized with and made, as it was intended to be, the complement of
the 1st, it becomes obvious that the criteria to be
resorted to in any given case for the purpose of ascertaining whether
violations of the section have been committed is the rule of
reason guided by the established law and by the plain duty to enforce
the prohibitions of the act, and thus the public policy
which its restrictions were obviously enacted to subserve. And it is
worthy of observation, as we have previously remarked
concerning the common law, that although the statute, by the
comprehensiveness of the enumerations embodied in both the 1st
and 2d sections, makes it certain that its purpose was to prevent undue
restraints of every kind or nature, nevertheless by the
omission of any direct prohibition against monopoly in the concrete, it
indicates a consciousness that the freedom of the
individual right to contract, when not unduly or improperly exercised,
was the most efficient means for the prevention of
monopoly, since the operation of the centrifugal and centripetal forces
resulting from the right to freely contract was the means
by which monopoly would be inevitably prevented if no extraneous or
sovereign power imposed it and no right to make
unlawful contracts having a monopolistic tendency were permitted. In
other words, that freedom to contract was the essence of
freedom from undue restraint on the right to contract.
http://www.ripon.edu/Faculty/bowenj/antitrust/stdoilnj.htm
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 06:53:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Andrew in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>It's not really a question of comptetitiveness. It's a tech support issue.
Tell it to the judge.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
