3 ms·

Controversial way to look at this, but surprisingly close to the truth: markets exist for the people. Companies have only one purpose: to serve the people. Thei

Controversial way to look at this, but surprisingly close to the truth: markets exist for the people. Companies have only one purpose: to serve the people. Their profits are merely incidental. Any type of regulation (or lack thereof) can be traced back to this rule. Freedoms exist only to let companies thrive insofar as that then lets them sell goods that benefit the people. Once that stops, the freedoms stop. I'm being slightly dry cut, but this is a good rule of thumb when looking at society. It's easy to forget about the bigger picture and think that companies have any type of inherent right to exist. They don't. They're here for us. Of course, theory vs practice, yada yada. but again: rule of thumb for regulations.

clarry 9y ago
Integration of services and software could best serve the people. Promotion may do so too, especially when it comes to software that relies on network effects. If anything, punishing a big company for its potentially big effect on markets values 1) markets above people and 2) competitors' ability to participate on the market above the people. Banning integration or self-promotion could very well result in a worse product overall that serves people worse.
- ko27 9y ago
  The 3 statements you made here are completely illogical and foreign to me. Can you provide sources for why you believe this kind of monopoly is beneficial to the people? For example this is my view and the view of most EU citizens: "punishing a big company for its potentially big effect on markets values 1) people above markets and 2) competitors' ability to participate on the market which is to the benefit of costumers (people)"
kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
> Companies have only one purpose: to serve the people. That seems completely backwards. Governments have only one purpose—to serve the people. Companies have only one purpose—to serve its shareholders. Of course, purely pursuing this purpose can lead to perverse outcomes so we have regulation to keep it in check. > Companies [don't] have any type of inherent right to exist Huh? In so far as individuals have a right to engage in trade and commerce, and in so far as they have a right to engage in this in coordination with other individuals, companies do have a right to exist.
- Dirlewanger 9y ago
  >companies do have a right to exist. I hate to split hairs, but no, they don't. Companies are just an arbitrary legal entity.

clarry 9y ago

Integration of services and software could best serve the people. Promotion may do so too, especially when it comes to software that relies on network effects. If anything, punishing a big company for its potentially big effect on markets values 1) markets above people and 2) competitors' ability to participate on the market above the people. Banning integration or self-promotion could very well result in a worse product overall that serves people worse.

ko27 9y ago
The 3 statements you made here are completely illogical and foreign to me. Can you provide sources for why you believe this kind of monopoly is beneficial to the people? For example this is my view and the view of most EU citizens: "punishing a big company for its potentially big effect on markets values 1) people above markets and 2) competitors' ability to participate on the market which is to the benefit of costumers (people)"

kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago

> Companies have only one purpose: to serve the people. That seems completely backwards. Governments have only one purpose—to serve the people. Companies have only one purpose—to serve its shareholders. Of course, purely pursuing this purpose can lead to perverse outcomes so we have regulation to keep it in check. > Companies [don't] have any type of inherent right to exist Huh? In so far as individuals have a right to engage in trade and commerce, and in so far as they have a right to engage in this in coordination with other individuals, companies do have a right to exist.

Dirlewanger 9y ago
>companies do have a right to exist. I hate to split hairs, but no, they don't. Companies are just an arbitrary legal entity.