Microsoft Hatred FAQ 5151

Your sole evidence for this claim is that I once equated "theft" with force. Yes, you are correct that it's possible to steal something without using force. Even in this case, from context, it was quite clear that forceful theft was intended.

There is a fundamental category difference between the fundamental inter-personal wrongs of force and fraud and every other invented wrong. People are making a concerted attempt in this thread to obliterate that distinction, and I include you in those making that attempt.

The *only* motive I have ever seen to obliterate that distinction is to justify responding to arguments with bullets. And that is precisely what you advocate. Quoting you:

Your convincing and paying is an argument. It's in no way analogous to, for example, hiring someone to kill me (wherein force is actually used). Certainly if I did starve you by force, you would be justified in responding with force, that is, with bullets if needed, to defend your life.

What possible motive is there for making an argument like this other than to justify the use of guns in response to arguments? That's why you need to equate metaphorical "market force" with *real* force. But there is no more important distinction in the world.

Again, I utterly reject your argument. The use of actual force is justified only in response to force, fraud, or things that *really* are force.

The point is not whether you call it force or not. The point is whether you believe it justifies the use of force in retaliation. There is no difference between someone who says "while arguments aren't force, it's okay to respond to them with force" and someone who says "arguments are force so it's okay to respond to them with force".

The premise I utterly and totally reject is that good arguments, shrewd negotiations, and anything else that is not actual force, not fraud, not inducing others to use force, or anything like that are somehow the same as real force. You have an obligation not to use actual force against other people, you have an obligation in a negotiation not to misrepresent your product to induce a payment, and failing in these obligations are serious wrongs. But they are in no way comparable to trying to get what something is worth. They are in no way comparable to persuasive negotiations.

This point transcends the issue of Microsoft. I would make this same argument regardless of whose non-force were claimed to justify a forceful retaliation. (And have done so consistently.)

DS