Re: My Dinner With Marc Andreessen

On Tue, 9 Jul 2024, vallor wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 12:09:35 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
<a53335e6-987e-c786-9ad4-2ac963f2f340@example.net>:
>

On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, vallor wrote:
>

On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:22:16 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
<1da9000c-47f2-06ff-3bab-9ebad5d2e6ba@example.net>:
>

On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, vallor wrote:
>

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:31:05 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
<7896d979-7348-9c9c-d5a1-db664baa32fc@example.net>:
>

As for the natural state of the system in a free market, it is not
oligopoly. It is a diverse set of millions and millions of
companies.
One company governing all of earth would collapse the same way as
big governments (and I'm thinking world government) collapses due to
inefficient organization.
>
The free market is self organizing and decentralised, and that is
the natural state of it, without government creating and helping the
behemoths we have today.

>
We should also do away with referees on soccer pitches, because the

games

will self organize.

>
You have never played football without a judge? I've played plento of
self-organized football games. Some games self-organize with a judge

some

without.
>

Seriously, I have just 2 comments:
>
1) The bigotry from "Anonymous" was uncalled for, and 2) "free
markets" are not to be desired.  _FAIR_ markets, are.

>
See the article I sent, that shows why 1 and 2 are wrong.

>
So you condone the bigotry.  Ad hominem fallacy #1.
>
>

You can't have a fair market without fair referees...and there's the

rub.

_Some_ regulation is necessary.

>
Incorrect. I've made 100s of thousands if not more without judges and
referees. Let me guess... you are not running your own company, right?

>
So you refer to my personal circumstances as if it had any bearing on
my arguments. Ad hominem fallacy #2.
>
Now, it's true that my business partner and I started a company in 1994
that is still going strong after 30 years, one with over 750 employees
last time I checked.  And it's true that I speak from experience,
because we are an ISP fighting two "elephants" in the market that
continue their regulatory capture -- where we have fought for a fairer
market.
>
But again, referring to my personal circumstances only means you have a
loose grasp of logic, and are prone to logical fallacies.
>
I'll let you try again to make an argument without your disgusting
bigotry or logical fallacies -- if you dare.
>
And I'm not even going to approach a discussion of natural monopolies
with respect to last-mile Internet or operating system standards -- at
least, not with you, until you recognize your logical lapses.

>
Sorry, you are incorrect.

>
That is not an argument.
>

Not much we can do here.

>
This much is true.  You run into an actual 1%-er -- one who
thinks you're full of crap -- and you run for the hills.

So? I know 1%-er who agree with me.

You were wrong on rasw, and you're wrong here, too.

No.

But for someone who likes to say "we have nothing to talk about"
so much, you sure do like to shoot your mouth off, Bigot.
>
p.s. The article in the OP was excellent, and relatable by
anyone with a conscience.

The fee article was excellent.