| Blaze said: sort of but the "community" is way to big and made of way to many views for the government to represent them all. yeah US messed up big with GM... i mean i now own part of GM so i guess i should get a free car... or with AIG i should get free insurance since i already pay them... So if one company has a majority then it is no longer a free market? Is that the definition of free market? The best part about companys being greedy and abusive is that even when a company has a strangle hold there are other companys greedy as hell trying to take it away. How do you know people will not buy a new OS that is better then all the rest? That to me sounds like "well we can not beat them so we might as well break them down till we can beat them." I guess i believe more in the power of the people then in the power of the government.. if people really (other then us tech nerds) had a problem with what microsoft did and is doing then they would have done something about it. You can't punish people for finding success and reward people for failing... (/beginsarcasm unless your the US government /endsarcasm) |
And again, yours sound like an ideological position, rather than a pragmatic approach.
There's nothing sacred in the "free market", a purity that should be protected from any intervention. The free market from the point of view of the general interest that a government is supposed to care about is a tool to provide practical, positive effects. When it doesn't seem to work in that way, it must be kicked into working.
The rest of your post again is about believing. In particular that consumers will always drive the market towards the optimal direction for them. That fails to recognize the reality of things like exploitation of monopolistic positions, the power of marketing, illicit business practices. All of which decouple the quality of an offer the market made to the customer from the chance the customer will accept that offer.
