Who does this metaphor serve? To me it seems to try to legitimize the actions as a force of nature.

It's a twist on the Scorpion and the Frog story.

In other words, Larry Ellison is going to do what Larry is going to do, and there's no use wondering why.

Usually, that's to make money and sue people, at any expense. It's in his nature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

Abusers say "that's just how I am" which is my point. Just because it's his nature doesn't mean it is at all natural.

That’s an interesting story to bring up in this context, because I have always wondered how a fundamentally customer-hostile business like Oracle could be so successful. It really puts the lie to libertarian cliches about the invisible hand of capitalism that ends up being philanthropic in spite of itself.

I think free society in general absolutely requires its people to be generally moral and civil. Freedom inevitably evaporates as morality and civility decline.

And that's why it's important to go after morally corrupt, uncivil monsters.

The problem today is that the press and the DAs/courts are complicit--they're less interested than ever in pursuing public morality and civility as ends in themselves. They're mostly only interested in partisan politics.

[deleted]

those libertarians almost certainly don't believe in asinine things like 'copyright'

It serves you.

The lawnmower exists, you might disagree, but it’s not your lawnmower, you can’t uncreate it. But you can and should take care never to put your hand near it.

Weird, we don't absolve murderers of guilt by saying they are an lawnmower.

I read it as a pretty obvious jab at him being inhuman.

That's exactly my point. Labelling him as inhuman gives him a pass, like how we don't criticize hurricanes as malevolent.

Well (to make an analogy), nature produces psychopaths - some people's brains just aren't capable of empathy. Whether you characterize that observation as "legitimizing" or just "being realistic" is merely a philosophical concern.

Since when are human actions categorized as being a consequence of nature? Does that let me steal or murder without consequence?

The lawn mower is operating within the laws that constraints it (laws of physics in this case) and not a greater sense of morality.

Lessons:

- The only way to constrain what the lawnmower does, is make sure what do desire is enforced by law (physics)

- A reminder, the lawnmower will chop your hand off and think nothing of it

- The lawnmower is not "evil" but if the laws that constrain it allow for evil behavior, it may do "evil" things.

Law does not constrain at all. Law only operates after the fact.

It’s nonsensical to define the actions of nature as legitimate or illegitimate.

What I meant was that there is no moralizing of natural force, which this metaphor tries to equivocate. Oh, it's just like the wind, don't get in Larry's way!