April 17, 2001, 4:43 PM — Creeping fascism
I JUST READ Editor in Chief Michael Vizard's column in the March 26 issue of InfoWorld. In it, Mr. Vizard wrote: "We like to think that we live in a capitalistic economy, but more truthfully we live in a highly regulated capitalistic economy. This is a pretty good thing because a society where Adam Smith's views of economics prevailed to their utmost degree would likely be a society filled with chaos and turmoil."
Never mind for a minute how you can have a "capitalistic" economy that is "highly regulated." At least we now know where Comrade Vizard is coming from. Perhaps InfoWorld could sport a hammer and sickle on the cover from now on.
We have what used to be a capitalist economy. It has suffered from creeping fascism for a long time. We already have chaos and turmoil. I will take the vision of Adam Smith any day of the week.
As Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1801: "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
Seth Allen, Alexandria, Va.
How much did Microsoft pay you?
IN REGARD TO the completely one-sided, insulting, and gratuitous editorial Joris Evers foisted on us under the guise of "Business News" with the title "(Microsoft launches second worldwide piracy hunt), I can only ask, How much did Mr. Bill pay you to lend your name to such drivel?
Mr. Evers works for a publication that bills itself as the definer of technology for business, but he appears to be shilling for the most anti-business organization ever created.
Mr. Evers' article breathlessly claimed, without any corroboration, that software vendors of whom Microsoft disapproves are child pornographers!
He also claimed that these Webmasters are somehow linked to organized crime, while conveniently leaving out the incontrovertible fact that Microsoft has been found guilty of organized criminal activity.
The truth is that software piracy is not primarily carried out on the Net; it is carried out through the restrictive conditions Microsoft places on OEMs. No non-Microsoft software can be installed on any machine which ships with that OS, thus pirating competitors' sales.
Microsoft is not losing any money to piracy -- this is part of their open-source-is-un-American agenda, and you have played right into their hands!
The truth is that Microsoft sales are declining due to slowing PC sales, the poor quality of its software, and the rapid improvement in Linux distributions. And its last best hope is to perform "Web takedowns" so as to silence any dissenting voices.
Ultimately, if Redmond, Wash., has its way, there will be no Internet, only MSN -- and that of course will be off-line.
Please do not use the good name of InfoWorld and its credibility within our community to spread such malevolent gossip.
Joe McCarthy, Newport Beach, Calif.
Good article, one bad fact
MR. LEWIS' ARTICLE "Little, brittle, and fiddle -- the quick answer to George W.'s impact on IT" (IS Survival Guide, March 26) is a good one with many accurate points, in my opinion.
However,, Mr. Lewis did miss a big one. He said that every dollar not taken from citizens is a dollar not available for the government to pay the debt. I suggest he review the General Accounting Office's records before standing by that fact. I can see his reasoning and it would seem to make sense, but only if he looks on the surface of the issue.
Mr. Lewis equates a drop in the tax rate to a drop in dollars going to Washington.
The fact (please check this with GAO's records) is that when tax rates drop, economic activity picks up. Increased economic activity means more actual tax dollars being sent to Washington.
Using an outrageous example to make the point, if the tax rate goes to 100 percent (income tax), but no one is working, then Washington gets nothing.
On the other hand, if the tax rate goes to 1 percent and someone actually earns $100 in salary, then Washington gets $1. Simple and true.
