ANTITRUST: ANTI-INTELLIGENCE In his decision, which ripped asunder a company that was probably more responsible for the prosperity we now enjoy than any other single factor, for the crime of being more successful than its competitors, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson said: "Microsoft is unwilling to accept the notion that it broke the law." Funny he should use that word: "notion," because the idea that Microsoft broke the law is just that: a notion. The so-called "law" they are supposed to have broken is unconstitutional and always has been. Therefore, according to the Supreme Court, it simply does not exist. I should not have to instruct a federal judge who is a lawyer in the law. But since he seems to be blissfully unaware of his errors, someone must:
"In its first truly significant case, the Supreme Court asserted its power to overturn laws of Congress with the ruling written by our great Chief Justice John Marshall, which said simply: 'All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.' " (Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (l803)
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Such an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..."A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby." (Source: " Sixteenth AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE Second Edition, Section 256, page 177)
So anybody who uses logic instead of "flights of fancy" and wishful thinking would agree with Microsoft; it has broken no existing law. But the thugs and extortionists of the federal government have, as they've been doing to one successful company after another since the Sherman Anti-Trust Law was foisted upon an unsuspecting nation, descended upon Microsoft with their phony "rule of law" that will let them not only extort billions of dollars, but also will give them effective operating control of however many entities Microsoft may end up being. They even plan to have Microsoft-paid "spies" (a la "Atlas Shrugged" and the kid Hank Rearden called" "Non-Absolute.") to keep them informed on what Microsoft is doing and if they are "toeing the line." Bill Gates will be paying their salaries so they can undermine everything he is doing by second-guessing him from a base of lack of knowledge.
This is what Ayn Rand said about "anti-trust" "The antitrust laws --- an unenforceable, uncompliable, unjudicable mess of contradictions --- have for decades kept American businessmen under a silent, growing reign of terror. Yet these laws were created and, to this day, are upheld by the 'conservatives,' as a grim monument to their lack of political philosophy, of economic knowledge and of any concern with principles. Under the Antitrust laws, a man becomes a criminal from the moment he goes into business, no matter what he does. For instance, if he charges prices which some bureaucrats judge as too high, he can be prosecuted for monopoly or for a successful 'intent to monopolize'; if he charges prices lower than those of his competitors, he can be prosecuted for 'unfair competition' or 'restraint of trade'; and if he charges the same prices as his competitors, he can be prosecuted for 'collusion' or 'conspiracy." There is only one difference in the legal treatment accorded a criminal or to a businessman: the criminal's rights are protected much more securely and objectively than the businessman's." (Quote from "Choose Your Issues" in "The Objectivist Newsletter.")
So the businessman has no place to go. Whatever he does, the government can come in and get him whenever they want to, and that's the way the power seekers want it: so they can "crack down on criminals" who aren't criminals. "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one 'makes' them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted-and you create a nation of law-breakers-and then you cash in on the guilt." (Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged")
So what is the purpose of the Antitrust laws? Again, Ayn Rand comes to the rescue with this: "[There is only one] meaning and purpose these laws could have, whether their authors intended it or not: the penalizing of ability for being ability, the penalizing of success for being success, and the sacrificing of productive genius to the demands of envious mediocrity." (From "America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business," in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal."
And that's what the Microsoft case is: simply less able competitors who have gotten the willing cooperation of the power seekers in our government who leapt at the chance to extort billions from them, but who will also make Microsoft less efficient and therefore easier for those with less ability to honestly compete in the marketplace to "keep up." In "Atlas Shrugged," they wanted to make a law that would make all business "stay still" for a while so those with less ability could "catch up." So those who had not "had all the same breaks" that the better companies had received could improve their positions (Of course, this forgets the fact that those "breaks" were made by the superior ability of the people running those companies.).
That is effectively what Penfield's decision will accomplish: to "slow Microsoft down" so their competitors can "catch up." Then when they do, they will themselves become the target of Antitrust action because when you become more successful than your competitors, you automatically become a target for the envious mediocrities who can't "keep up" without government intervention.
A well-known virulently anti-Microsoft columnist, Thomas Friedman, ("The New York Times") made a really stupid comment in a recent column, especially in light of the fact that when it becomes unprofitable to excel people will not wish to excel. He said, amazingly: "Don't worry about Microsoft. There will always be another Microsoft." This shows an innate ignorance of how things work. If to become another Microsoft will open them to such actions as has just been completed against Microsoft there is no incentive to excel. If the profit to be made by excelling is to be taken from you by those with less talent than you because they are less talented, when "need becomes a "demand" upon the property, money, and talents of those who excel, soon there will be no more who will wish to excel. The "looters" will have reached the "point of diminishing returns."
As in "Atlas Shrugged," these people will either begin to refuse to produce new wealth to be stolen from them, or they will simply decide not to excel because there is no profit in it. When that happens we will enter another "dark ages" where everything stagnates and we all live in poverty because there are no Bill Gates' who will create the means for all of us to excel and make money.
The fact remains that Bill Gates and Microsoft have created more millionaires (and even some billionaires) than has any other single business. He has hired thousands of people at high salaries, causing them to spend more money in the community, which in turn gives the community more money to spend. Microsoft is not "an island," making money for Bill Gates alone with no effect on others. In order for him to make money, he must create the opportunity for others to make money as well. What he does is not "on the backs of the poor" and he takes no money from "the poor." They have none for him to take.
But when a man like Bill Gates (or Hank Rearden in "Atlas Shrugged" sets out to make money he benefits everybody. That's something the "anti-Microsoft" crowd didn't consider.
To read more informative articles check out the "Information Central" section on my web site.. Just go to https://www.angelfire.com/co2/RayThomas and click on "Information Central."
The first thing you must do to help in this fight is to keep yourself informed as to things the power seekers don't want you to know.
To do that, join my "Forced Altruism List" by going to: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/forcedaltruism and following the instructions to get a daily update on what's happening and a place where you can express your own gripes and frustrations by posting them to the entire List.
You may also read the current issue of the monthly online web based newsletter, "Beyond Common Sense," by going to: http:www.angelfire.com/co2/beyondcommonsense.
If you like what you see, you may subscribe to the Announcement List that notifies you when a new issue comes out by going to: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/beyondcommonsense and following the instructions.
Email -|- HOME