As someone who downvoted you, and then saw the request for explanation, here's mine:
I downvoted you because rhetoric, however commonly held, isn't worth the discussion space, in my opinion.
Further, I disagree with the implication that all capitalist endeavors would just be highway robbers, if not for those pesky laws. Even those who suggest that Wal-Mart is definitively evil for paying minimum wage doesn't tend to hold the belief that all economic exchange is similarly evil, nor are all companies nefariously motivated.
Yes, successful business owners like to maximize value, but for every person trying to sneak in a hidden surcharge, or lobby Congress for favors, there's another person who runs the minimum amount of ads on his website because he doesn't want it to feel dirty, or who is contributing to open source, because he likes giving back.
I think this notion is specifically relevant to BFL.
The point is that in the absence of a Kohlberg "Conventional" and beyond sense of morality what we are left with is what companies (actors, individuals) can do, and what they can't do.
I don't think that companies are inherently bad, it's just that companies will do what they can to maximize profit.
It's as simple as that. As long as we let companies like BFL operate without punishment, they will test the limits of what they can do.
> I don't think that companies are inherently bad, it's just that companies will do what they can to maximize profit.
SOME companies will. What percentage, I honestly don't know, but I honestly suspect that it's a much smaller percentage than people tend to believe.
Aside from that, I'm not arguing with you _per se_, but you asked for an explanation, so I gave one. FWIW, I tend to downvote most pithy rhetoric that doesn't contribute to the conversation, even from pg himself.
I hate to think that _anyone_ thinks this is 'pithy' (or overly concise to be clear) rhetoric though. It's a simple observation, but I feel it's one that people seem to miss quite often when dissecting events of moral ambiguity concerning companies.
The point is this; we _have_ to get stronger at holding companies accountable for things we feel are suspect. That's all. Otherwise the playing field is more open to nonsense like BFL pulled.
With bitcoin I think the 'moral' bar is a bit lower because this is new territory.
note: I do not believe this (that business moral judgements are just what they can get away with), but it seems to be a commonly held belief.
note #2: to people the downvoted this, if it wasn't a thought provoking or at least intelligent comment please elaborate why.