4.7 A masterpiece on Bill Gates

The column on Bill Gates, by Jerry M. Landay, which the Daily printed on Nov. 12 was truly a masterpiece. It was a shockingly clear illustration of the technique of philosophical smuggling—the act of slipping conclusions under the nose of the reader within the context of seemingly innocuous trivialities.

Bill Gates, he writes, is going to create a single machine which can replace many other, older machines. Using words such as "deception" and "sweep away" and "self-serving" he seems to be implying that such an action would be a terrible thing, but he makes no substantive claim—to do so would constitute a solidly advocated position, and such is not his purpose. What is his purpose? To keep you from being able to disagree with him (if he made any solid statements, one could weigh them and agree or disagree). So long as you haven’t decided that he is spewing nothing but rubbish, he can smuggle the real message of the piece in without your knowing it.

Next we are told that there are two reasons for which there is a problem with the idea (Problem for whom? We aren’t told); first, the government would not allow it because of entrenched anti-trust laws and the Telecommunications Act. Just whom is Landay attacking or supporting here? The government or Gates? The column seems to be a general rant against both Gates and the government, but it is not. Landay does not want the reader to respond to his statements about the government involvement in "free" trade with indignation—in fact, his strangely non-moralistic tone conveys just the opposite. Landay wants his readers to regard the government and its actions as the metaphysically given—as the not-to-be-questioned—outside of the province of choice (like the actions of an inanimate object) and thus outside of the province of morality. This is the game of all those who advocate statist government. Why does Landay do this? In order to imply that Gates’ actions are "impractical," without the reader asking why this should be so and who made it so.

Second, Landay claims that there are "human factors" which Gates is overlooking. Sixty percent of homes don’t have PCs, and 80 percent lack modems. Landay fails to mention that this was once true of the television as well—and of the telephone—and of the wheel.

Next he makes the blind assertion (again, without coming out and saying so explicitly) that people simply don’t want such a thing. He writes: "Current television technology requires only that … viewers master the on-off switch …" etc. It is for this reason that people should have no better? What does this imply about Landay’s view of the nature and intelligence of mankind? I will leave it to the reader to answer that.

Next, Landay makes a short list of some of those who oppose Gates. Why do they oppose him? Gates has "forced" the industry to use his web browser, he says. (Merely admitting that he does not know the difference between a dollar bill and a gun.) He describes these "would-be Gates-tamers" and makes no comment as to what right they might have to interfere with Gates’ business, i.e., with his private property.

Finally, we come to the payoff. All the obfuscations, equivocations and evasions have been placed before this in order that you, the reader should not notice when Landay asks, rhetorically, if Gates can buy humility with his billions. Landay betrays himself when his argument shows its own bankruptcy. He has nothing to say except that he would like Gates to be "humble." What possible reason would Gates have to take his advice? No substantial moral argument has been put forth—just a pathetic attempt to be pithy.

More effective, however, is Landay’s real purpose. First, he has made the reader associate the government’s actions with those of an all-powerful God—not to be questioned. Now, he induces the reader to associate Bill Gates’ corporation, Microsoft, with a government—immoral only because it is "big business" (again forgetting the difference between that which is earned and that which is expropriated); and to associate Bill Gates himself with an evil dictator because he is the head of that corporation; evil because he has created a hugely successful corporation, which has created (not stolen, but brought into existence) billions of dollars, which have improved the lives of millions. Landay wishes us to believe that Gates deserves whatever he gets because he has created values; because he does not regard the government as the final authority on morality; because he is immensely successful and has earned his wealth. Why? Because if the statists are ever to achieve the power over humans they so desire, it is the ability of humans to achieve their own happiness and their own values independently—without the state—that they will have to destroy.

Landay wants you to hate Gates, not despite the fact that he is one of the few remaining of the truly American form of hero, but because of that fact. It is when we are willing to lose our capacity to admire productivity in ourselves and in others—to punish productive genius simply because it is productive genius—that we become ready for the strangling leash of statism.

1997.11
Based on a letter to the editor published in the
Colorado Daily newspaper