Quote from: jpinkman on July 21, 2012, 02:35 amQuote from: anarcho47 on July 19, 2012, 07:39 amand again, I'll ask you for just one.I'm too busy BEING to sit and type for hours. Hence the fact I'm on here at 1:30 in the morning replying to the inane ramblings of someone attempting to define what I live by. Give me a tangible example (if you could ever possibly find one) and I'll give you several hundred that prove the exact opposite of the point you are uselessly trying to make. Monopoly is not possible without monopoly violence, i.e. government. Show me one instance where it was, that lasted more than the two seconds it takes for a competing entrepreneur to smell those fat margins and start setting up shop.Why don't you give my username a search and read through some of the posts on economics I have done here over the past 13 months. I don't have the time to do it now as it's busy season for my business and it's fucking BUSY (this is (one of) my legit businesses I'm talking about, here). I'm still not seeing any point to the last few paragraphs you wrote - good posture or not - as you basically just made a long-winded attempt at patronizing my understanding of economics. All I asked for was one, single instance of monopoly where government wasn't involved. Still waiting, here.You lost the plot dude. Remember how you were having a real tough time understanding why the monopolistic practices deployed by MS are considered unfair? I tried patiently to explain using a simple analogy that I thought you might be able to relate to. You responded with a bizarre non sequitur on government force and remain baffled as to why I would try. So clearly I failed. I overestimated you. BTW, I'm already familiar with the argument you're begging to make. I just don't see the point in continuing when you haven't exactly inspired confidence that you won't lose the plot again.To be fair, you might just be too busy right now to debate this subject. It can take time to process an argument and follow a train of thought instead of starting a new one. We all have IRL responsibilities, and there are some months I'm far more invested in the demands of business so if you've got other commitments I understand. For me it's not a waste of time if you can coherently debate a subject. But if you're incapable, for whatever reasons, then you're right ... it is a waste of my time.So what you are essentially saying is that your subjective interpretation of "fair" bears more weight than a universally applicable moral code that applies equally to all human beings on earth... nice. Microsoft's actions with IE might not have been "fair" (to whom?? on what basis?), but they were certainly moral.