At 01:11 AM 8/8/99 , Javier SOLA wrote:
P.D. A company that does not want to make a
profit of something is called a
"non-profit corporation". A for-profit
corporation has capital and
investors who expect to get a return on their
investment. I very much doubt
that they would put the interest of the
community over their R.O.I. (return
on investment).
You and like-minded cohorts obviously have strong views
and biases
regarding corporations, marketplaces, economic
systems, and preferred
concepts and models.
[RMJM]
I question
that I've been asking for some time is; What is it called when someone attacks
and unfairly vilifies an entire class (commercial interests and for-profit
entities, in this case)? It is not an ad hominem, what is
it?
There are a
few who use this as an argument to discredit individual entites, by
discrediting their entire class. In English, this is known as class bigotry.
Certain forms of this are actually illegal, in the USA. Yet, other forms
aren't even recognised.
"We daren't
give them a voice because they belong to the for-profit, commercial
segment/class and we all know how bad that class is, just look at NSI." It is
amazing to me that many of these individuals, spouting this propoganda,
live/work/breath in institutions that "celebrate diversity" (academe). [gee,
didn't I just do the same thing?]
There are another set
of parties that have very different
views on those matters. This is
nothing new - the world
of telecommunication and information systems has
witnessed
these same diametrically opposed views since 1850. As
a
result, a multiple regime world existed.
The answer to this
quandary has been to construct arrangements
for the both to coexist.
You will not keep a NSI 2.0, 3.0, N.0
from emerging - at least not ones
based in the United
States. A productive step forward here is to stop
trying to
force your views down on the world and construct
arrangements
that allow for this diversity.
--tony