Not all libertarians are enamored with corporations.  See Mike Hoy’s essay:  “Why Corporations Are Not People, and the Unsavory Consequences of Pretending That They Are” http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/whycorporations.html

I’m not knoweldgable about computers but my brother in law set me straight on microsoft.  By his estimation we are ten years behind where we could be technologically because of microsofts monopoly

@Paul:

Thanks for the link.  Some libertarians (and please note: I’m not saying this is true of Mike Hoy) will both attack the ridiculous idea that corporations should be treated as individuals and defend companies such as Microsoft.

Getting rid of the legal fiction that a corporation is the same as a person would go a long way toward straightening out many of the problems in the American economy.

As little as 5 years ago, I’d be amazed to read this posting without thinking it some kind of wild conspiracy mongering. Funny, but with the lack of skepticism combined with a breathless devotion to tehnology we now have, conspiracy aint required.

Thanks for this , just another justification for dumping all the Microsoft-loaded PC’s jammed to the rafters with uninvited spyware. It’s an amazing company that has done some tremendous things but the bureaucratic rot endemic to corporatism has set in. They would do well to revisit the old garage.

As an addendum to my previous post, I am a libertarian and have argued this point many times. 
1) People have rights, things do not.  Corporations are things, not people.
2) Corporations, as creatures of the State, are extensions of the state and are de facto agents of the State.  Corporations, on behalf of the state, collect personal data, collect taxes, etc.  Without the active assistance of corporations local, state and federal tax and Socialist Security income would soon slow to a trickle.  Since corporations are in fact agents of the State, people should be afforded constitutional protections against the actions of corporations, just as they should be (at least in theory) against violations of their rights by any other State Agent or agency.

Actually I came across a reference to research very similar to this some years ago.

The US Air Force at Wright-Pat was doing work on how warplanes of the future might dispense with old-fashioned controls—by plugging sensors onto the pilot’s skin, so’s he could learn to direct his galvanic responses via a biofeedback conditioning program.

I.e., flying the plane by mental control.

Without Microsoft, ‘the geeks’ would not have been motivated to develop UNIX derivative alternative OS’s like Linux, FreeBSD and OpenBSD for personal desktops. Fedora 8 (64-bit) is a superior alternative to Vista (IMHO) and for various reasons, even Mac OSX. And it’s free!
This is the best argument possible for demonstrating the advantages of non-intervention and free market capitalism. Yes, Microsoft possibly set back the proprietary software business 10 years as another poster said, but the marketplace then responded. If the government had imposed sanctions with teeth on Microsoft, we would possibly have a more advanced ‘proprietary’ software business today, but it wouldn’t be free and innovation would be far more stifled than it now is. Yes, it took awhile, but the end solution is massively superior. Without the Microsoft monopoly, there would have been no incentive to develop the open source software model.

“Without the Microsoft monopoly, there would have been no incentive to develop the open source software model.”

Ummm . . . Wow.  That has to be the most innovative defense of Microsoft I’ve ever seen.  Of course, the fact that Linux began as a computer-science project to make a UNIX clone, and the various BSDs all descend from the first BSD, which goes back to the 70’s, put a little wrinkle into your history.  Even the FreeBSD and OpenBSD projects were well under way before Microsoft had a significant lock on the market.  Not to mention the roots of OS X in NeXT, which was founded before MS achieved dominance.

And now he’s a trust buster!  After Dishonest Abe, can T. Roosevelt and Wilson be far behind?

“And now he’s a trust buster! ”

Once again, Sid, quit setting up straw men.  Cite the line where I called for government to bust up Microsoft.  When you realize you can’t, please just sit quietly and let other people discuss the actual substance of the post.

Libertarians (and not a few Republicans) tend to be infected with Randianism - the belief that there just must be something superior about a guy who has all that money (no matter how he got it!).

“Ummm . . . Wow.  That has to be the most innovative defense of Microsoft I’ve ever seen.  Of course, the fact that Linux began as a computer-science project to make a UNIX clone, and the various BSDs all descend from the first BSD”
Personally, I have never used MS products as my primary computing platform, so I am no fanboy, or even a MS user. My point was simply that effective government intervention (like Clinton tried) against MS would have put as in a worse situation than we are today. Of course I understand where Linux was derived from, but it possibly would have stayed a ‘project’ without IBM and others pumping in so much dough because of their competitive positions vs. Microsoft. In 5 years, the kids will probably be joining me in saying MicroWho?

Geez Scott, you could use the same argument against Einstein, whomever invented the handgun, etc. Technological advancement can used for good or ill, just like anything that humans create.

Luddites unite!

I’d also point out that defending MS from government persecution hardly means supporting everything they do. But it does mean realizing that whatever ill MS is responsible for is not cured by even worse. The basic moral calculus is two wrongs don’t make a right.

@Bill Stearns:

“I’d also point out that defending MS from government persecution hardly means supporting everything they do. But it does mean realizing that whatever ill MS is responsible for is not cured by even worse. The basic moral calculus is two wrongs don’t make a right.”

No argument with you there.  The problem I have with the libertarian defense of Microsoft is precisely what I stated: Microsoft is not a company that’s by any stretch of the imagination the poster boy for their theory of how the market operates.

I’m afraid that, in the end, Mr. Van Oosbree is right: The libertarian fascination with Microsoft comes down to a Randian admiration for “success,” no matter how it is attained.  So much for principle.

I’ll never understand why liberals like Apple so much.  As if it’s the computer of the anti-establishment.

@MS:

“I’ll never understand why liberals like Apple so much.  As if it’s the computer of the anti-establishment.”

I agree.  Clearly, the Mac is the computer for intelligent conservatives.

Well, I have MacOSX, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 98 and some Unix cds [boot up on Win OS] I dont think its possible to define who uses what OS by political ideologies..

@Jet:

“I dont think its possible to define who uses what OS by political ideologies..”

It was a joke . . .

I’m going to step around the pro/anti Microsoft issue here and just note the following.

If this feed back product reports frustration in the user, then it might well contribute to the dumbing down of everything from the Net to search engines to all sorts of applications.  Frustration is after all, an unavoidable initial component of LEARNING.

It was a joke . . .
Posted by Scott P. Richert on Jan 19, 2008.

It is now.

...written on my 2GHz Intel MacBook.

I knew there was something I liked about you, Nergol.