Quote from: EnterpriseE1701E on June 15, 2011, 06:42:34 PM

Quote from: BitterTea on June 15, 2011, 06:27:18 PM

Quote from: EnterpriseE1701E on June 15, 2011, 04:35:27 PM

The entire argument is structured around corporations/monopolies ONLY existing if government subsidies them. So to win this argument, I only need one example to prove that a monopoly/corporation came into existence without a subsidy.

There is no evidence that corporations would exist without government granted privilege because there are no examples of corporations existing without government granted privilege.

Quote

Microsoft.

Intellectual property law is a subsidy for Microsoft's business model of selling copies of a non-scarce resource.

This is of course on top of the government's recognition of Microsoft as some special entity that can do things individuals or groups of unrecognized individuals cannot.

Ugh, this is just poor argumentation for several reasons:
1) Intellectual property laws(along with corporations as being people(which isn't responsive either, cause it was a monopoly and corporation long before that court ruling)) aren't a subsidy for microsoft, as many different companies, corporations, and entities receive it.
2) Intellectual property laws aren't subsidies because it isn't a form of favoritism(see 1(this also decapitates your offense on the subject-- if it applied to all software companies equally, then why did microsoft pull ahead?)), but also because it isn't a form of financial assistance.
3) As for the

Quote

There is no evidence that corporations would exist without government granted privilege because there are no examples of corporations existing without government granted privilege.

The government granted privilege makes no sense for the reasons above-- privilege implies favoritism, and unless the law was applied unequally, to microsoft's harm, then the issue is closed-- they weren't subsidized, and turned into a monopoly.
4) Last ditch defense-- just because there are no examples yet doesn't mean that there won't be any in the future. Scientific method ftw.

You seem to be missing the fact ALL corporations are government subsidized. You reiterate it here, as if it somehow disproves itself. Saying Microsoft is not subsidized because their competitors are supported in the same way. That's right, all corporations are supported by government subsidies, and the fact that all the others are as well doesn't mean that Microsoft is not.

As to why the pulled ahead, because they have a corporate model that does well in the environment that they exist in, plain and simple. Not because they received more subsidies than anyone else, but that doesn't change the fact that they, like all other corporations, are able to exist only because Government makes it possible.