Slashdot Mirror
Eric Raymond vs. Larry Lessig On Open Source
Lindsay Sobel writes: "Eric Raymond and former Microsoft case advisor Larry Lessig have been cutting each other down in The American Prospect Online's roundtable on open-source software. Lessig calls Raymond's philosophy nothing more than Ayn Rand warmed-over, while Raymond calls the regulation Lessig endorses 'one-size-fits-all pseudo-cooperation enforced at the point of government guns.' "
The discussion is pretty interesting with great points on both sides.
Not to be too anarchist here, but the govenment forces all sorts of crap on us that we would have liked, but they force things far too much, and people end up hating both the product and the government.
It's the same philosophy behind people hating products that are advertised too much. Linux has got along fine so far with only word-of-mouth advertising (for both customers and programmers) so why should things change?
"Assume the worst about people, and you'll generally be correct"
She had a great philosophy that doesn't deserve to be reduced to a stereotype.
Yes, it has its weaknesses, but let he who is blameless cast the first stone.
On second thought, then you'd get the corporate hounds bothering you to become a "registered" user so that they could claim you as a tax credit. Oh well.
As far as the regulation goes, screw that. I'd like government regulation to stay as far from open source as possible.
Network Security: It always comes down to a big guy with a gun.
Honestly..There are some good points here, and some stuff that needs to be said, but what is with the name calling? How old are these two? 5?
I mean..come on..I understand both the points they're trying to make..but <sarcasm>can we be a little more childish?</sarcasm>
~Steve
--
"<r-xr-xr-x> Just try to edit me" -- www.ircnews.com
Yeah! If there's going to be any pseudo-cooperation around here, ESR is going to enforce it with his own guns! Who needs the government for firepower anyway, when we have the Enforcer of Open Source around!
And the brethren went away edified.
Just my $.02:
ESR is a great thinker and philosopher in the Open Source movement, but in this case I think he may be mistaken. What he seeks is too great a task to accomplish. It is simply too radical for the current system to implement. Lessig takes a much more classic liberal approach which has a better chance of being taken seriously. If what ESR proposes has no precedent within the current system (and I think it does not), then it can be dismissed as nothing more than wishful thinking. Lessig on the other hand wishes to see MS dealt with by the system, and while this not be optimal, it is the ONLY practical solution.
There comes a time in every man's life when he must say, "No mother! I do not want any more Jell-O!"
I wish we could just go back to the old days, when the only way was the Way of the Microsoft, and the only right opinion was the one of Bill Gates. Damn you, Eric ! Damn you, Linus !
its all a ploy by Bill Gates and that Reed guy to force the government force open-source software on the american public in order to further propigate the assimilation of true free software and replace it with M$ software manufacutred by the "Baby Bills" which will once again control the american subconcious through anti-competative forces, that will go unnoticed by the courts because of the M$ mindcontrol.
Or Maybe not
..but is anyone else REALLY glad that the Open Source movement has a spokesperson like ESR over RMS? I hardly think these roundtables would be as interesting or informative if we had RMS up there. His arguments, while founded and valid, don't have much of a place in our current economic model.. ESR, with a less-socialist, more-libertarian perspective, is better recieved by the public.
It's a shame to see bad spokespeople representing good projects.. From RMS and GNU to Theo and OpenBSD. Part of what made MS so popular was marketing, a nice message. Not an abrasive one.
Ok, I work for Microsoft. It's a good gig and I don't generally feel that I'm a servant of evil. After clicking the link and loading the ESR paper, my win2k box promptly rebooted. It took a few minutes of deep breathing before I was able to convince myself that this was a coincidence. Or was it?
--Shoeboy
Looks to me like what I suspected all along: put head-to-head with someone who can really think in social-political arguments, ESR comes off like a upset and poorly thought through ideologue. That he happens to support a good cause and is an important programmer only explains his longevity. 'Cathedral' is ok as a tract, but junk as analysis.
ESR is an incredible thinker and gifted author, but what I see is a direct contradiction in his beliefs when it comes to regulation. He abhors regulation (governmental or otherwise) in one breath, but in the next, he seems to promote government intervention - in one form or another - as a solution to the MS problem. Can he - or someone more familiar with the inner workings of the ESR mind - clarify this apparent contradiction for me?
Maybe there isn't one, and maybe I haven't digged through enough of ESR's writings to find the answer...if there is, do let me know. Thanks.
Sounds like the next "paint ball holy war" for the next linux expo... =)
It sure seems that ESR is trying to avoid the real issue of intellectual property. I think it astounding that he considers it on par with other peoperty rights. This is like saying slavery was just another property right. In fact, ESR is an expert on the foundation of property in modern society. One might conclude that he is just trying to kiss booty to large corporations who can't stomach the thought that copyrights and patents are not really a property right. What he does scares me. There were many huge commercial enterprises that embraced slavery as a property right too, it didn't matter how big they were, they destined them selves to swallow a bitter pill.
...since you quoted the Bible to defend her philosophy. :)
- -------
+----------------------------------------------
+------------------------------------------------
+ The urge to destroy is a creative urge
I guess the real issue is, that he's never really programmed anything. Sure he writes a bunch of psudo-philosophic tripe, that I guess got some people into open source, but in this 'meritocracy' what does he merit? Not much, that's for sure. Yet, ESR's managed to pimp the free source movement (much of it due to RMS and the FSF, yet ESR scorns and criticizes them) for over 30 million dollars. What has he contributed back? A bunch of blow hard nonsense, threatening Bruce Perns with defamation of character and other childish antics. Why should we put up with this?
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
That had to be some of the wordiest crap I've read in a long time. It seems to come down to three pundits versus a coder. Three people who talk a lot about open source arguing about it with one person who defines open source.
I don't wanna just me-too ESR's statements, but a lot of the really strong stuff he says, ie, that we the programmers are against regulation because, in absence of government interferance, we ARE the regulation, gets ignored by the pundits in favor of philosophical mud-slinging.
This aint about philosophy, it's about code. Sure, the US government could go in a regulate the internet as we use it into oblivion, but I don't think that such action would be allowed to stand.
--
blue
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
I'll side with Larry on this one. He's just so clear and easy to understand. For instance:
"His history is a bit too Torvalds focused imho [in my humble opinion]"
So that's that that means. I keep seeing "IMHO" it all over the place and no one would ever tell me what it meant! I wish I were a law student at Harvard and could have this guy as a professor, he must be amazing!
When I was reading the artical I cam across this "I have been an Internet user since ARPANET [Advanced Research Projects Agency Network] days, in 1976. Today I am one of the senior technical cadre that makes the Internet work, " What is he talking about? Does he consider his board position on VA linux to be a part of the core technical cadre of the 'net? Or is this just more hot air. Really I don't see what being on the board of VA, or trying to trademark the word "Open Source" has to do with 'running the internet'...
Ok, more karma loss...
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Read Lessig's piece .
It is better than the sound bite.
You obviously haven't lived in many glass houses. After a while you don't even notice all those reflections from binoculars.
;)
(Arguably even better is the alternative sex life of the voyeur living next door
-- Life is short. Forgive quickly. Kiss slowly. ~ Robert Doisneau
Maybe not, but people with webcams sure don't seem to have much trouble...
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
First of all, I have yet to see the American government "trying to force international free software projects down everyone's throats." Can you please clarify this statement?
Second of all, as a Libertarian, I feel a need to step and and clarify what the federal government is doing in regards to MS. The federal government represents the people, and the people's interests (in an ideal world, but we will not get into that). The federal government is acting on behalf of the American public to stop what it perceives as a corporation that is hurting that same American public.
The federal government has a ridiculously short list of tasks it is given (most are spelled out in the Constitution). While one of them is to stay back from the economy whenever possible (Laissez-Faire), it also has an obligation to see that the rules of capitalism are not broken. These two "rules" are sometimes at odds.
According to the federal government's findings, Microsoft has practiced behaviours that are monopolistic in nature. The federal government has a right, and an obligation, to step in and prevent such actions in order to further the capitalistic system we have, despite its general Laissez-Faire approach.
Third, Linux has gotten to the point where "word of mouth" is no longer going to be the only form of "evangilism" and advertising. This is not due to anyone's set wishes, but simply rather due to the acceptance and size that Linux currently has. "Word of mouth" would not have Redhat boxes on store shelves. "Word of mouth" would not have the now infamous Linux-related IPOs. Your post screams of radical conservatism, and cries for returning to "the good old days". This simply is not possible.
As with anything, time goes on and things change. Sometimes we may not like these things, but they happen regardless. The best thing the Linux community can do is adapt to the changing conditions, just as the operating system itself has done over the years. This does not require GNU/Linux people to "sell out", but rather adapt. They have come this far, getting bigger is not going to change those base ideals now. It might just change the approach taken.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
You know, I wish RedHat, VA, and the other LinBizzes would concentrate their open source focus on providing lawyers for the community. What we really need is to get some law hackers finding hacks in the Federal Code (I think the outside world calls them loopholes) and start turning the tables. (you know, perhaps we need to make a call for some of the CS majors to go into law instead of industry...)
Now on the same lines: would it be a stretch to register more open source projects as not-for-profit? It seems a bit of a tax hack. Basically, have the project as a profitless entity, receiving donations from businesses who are looking for extra features (all added to the general source so the public can benefit, of course,) and paying programmers for their work from those donations, keeping only a 'little bit' of the money for administrative purposes.
This could subsidize our patents (better that we get them for the world to use before someone tries to copyright the while loop)
And, for successful projects, the maintainers can still make a healthy salary. (Didn't Elizabeth Dole make 600k/year for heading up the American Red Cross? -- and don't even start on the United Way or the RIAA, for that matter.)
Isn't the hack all about taking what you're given and using it in such a creative way you impress your friends? Let's impress our 'friends' in Congress by taking their tricks and showing what we can do with them.
How about "The Apache Scholarship" for a top student in CS that has performed valuable community service for the Apache community? More directly, churches pay pastors and others for services rendered, certainly our non-profits could do the same thing.
(Note: there are some noticable problems with this, the least of which would be international concerns. However, government involvment certainly wouldn't be any better.)
--Eric
I'm hate to say it, but I think that ESR has gone a bit too far with this one, particularly with his views on antitrust law. There *are* cases where sheer inertia in markets cause monopolies to continue. How many companies are there out there buying Win2000 not because it's the best thing out there, but because it's the easiest way forward from their current NT platform?
The government has stepped in and broken up monopolies at least twice before, with AT&T and Standard Oil, both times with tremendous benefit to consumers. (There are probably others, I just don't know of them!)
ESR's anarchist views threaten to alienate the Free/Open Software movement from the populous at large, who believes that the government can in fact help in some situations.
ESR, please either hold your tounge, or don't try to speak for all of us who believe in Free Software with those anarchist ideas, as it seems that you are trying to.
Ben
barriers to entry. it is a simple rule that the would be monopolist - pardon my normativity - SHOULD not break. the economists in the ranknfile of the microsoft corporation no doubt sent countless memos to heir gates's desk warning of impending doom. my own problem with the situation is that he, of course, ignored these seemingly hollow threats. as a newcomer to the opensource community i can see the true beauty of it, still. what you have is the 1st fundamental theorem of welfare economics working to perfection... leave markets alone, and the agents involved will reach efficiency and equilibrium on their own. microsoft used its weight to force a monopolistic level of production upon the public - definately NOT an efficient level. damn you bill! damn you for taking what you know to be economically unsound and force feeding it to a technilogically unaware public. praise to those of you who support open source. keep it that way. it will win out in the end.
He raises good points, especially ESR's contradictory stance on Microsoft. But he says that philosophical arguments are impractical, and therefore irrelevant. While I agree that "no regulation" is not an option in the current state of affairs, it is still an important point to be discussed. Philosophical points may never be fully implemented, but they are hugely influential nonetheless. A focus on underlying philosophy is not childish.
Frequently I hear that the internet is the product of regulation. It is true that the internet is not the product of a free market. But- it did not become "huge" until it was somewhat privatized. AOL, Compuserve, et al. demonstrate that private, large scale computer networks are practical. If it weren't for the internet, I'n sure we'd all be on some such network. The demands of consumers such as Slashdot readers would make sure it wasn't like AOL. Given the points on both sides, I would propose that the existence and success of the internet be used neither to defend nor attack regulation. It's absurd that both sides are basing their general arguments on one special case. -j
Now, having read both exchanges for round one and gotten thoroughly disgusted, I'll make my opinions known - first - both of these people are acting like the "adult" version of "I'm better than you are". Comeon - you had time to calm down, research your facts, and speak intelligently. Why didn't you?!
Last.. if you want my opinion on how so-called open source needs to be protected, it's simple: make sure the community has the legal options to keep doing what it's doing. We don't need more control, nor do we need less - there is a balance somewhere between laize fair(sp?) and government-lockdown-mode that we need to plant ourselves firmly on. Mistrust assertions that the correct answer is at the extreme. That last statement applies particularily well to engineering .. and since we are engineers - if only for software - we ought to take heed of some of the warnings of engineering. Yes, SOME government control IS necessary. If not, click-wrap licensing could easily put a serious damper on open source - imagine if Microsoft said "by using this software you agree to not use program X on any machine you use and/or interact with via any medium, including the internet, your local LAN..." What's to stop them? A paragraph in
Hopefuly I'm not the only one who has more than a minor revulsion to his writing. Granted, ESR isn't the most sane man alive but Lessig can't seem to read....
To summarize: M$ isn't evil because they violated (equally stupid) anit-trust laws but because they lie to their comsumers and sell inferior products. If they can't sell their inferior products they attempt to force them down the throats of comsumers via any channel they can.
Regulation is bad any way you slice it. Laws, excepting those barring physical and finacial abuse, are usually unneeded and restrictive. The internet did not grow up in a culture of regulation as Lessig suggests. Sharing common lines with the phone system does not mean ay of the communication was regulated (or at leats not regulated in any enforcible way). Regulation on the internet would be restrictive. It would retard the growth of the already ill new ecomony and the new way of life.
The only reaosn regulation has ever been needed is because people are stupid. If people actually paid attention to who and what they were voting for our government would be much better. If they paid attention to what they bought rather than which product will make them sexier we'd have better products. Government has only been the framework for trade/commerce because people were too lazy to do it themselves.
I've always been amused and slightly baffled by the tendency of some geek types to endorse wacky libertarian viewpoints (a la ESR). Living as I do the ridiculously overprivileged lifestyle of a mostly-white North American middle-class male, it's long been pretty damn clear to me that the only reason I can play with all this high-tech stuff and these high-falutin' ideas is that someone else laid down the groundwork of the society to support me. I do Unix and network consulting; I don't grow food, provide childcare, clean up the environment (well, not directly), or do much else besides shuffle bits, and yet I have one of the most highly-valued skillsets around. There's no way I could exist at all without that enforced social structure, let alone with such highly specialised (and frankly useless in the real physical world) knowledge and skills.
/. a while back, you can be governed by elected officials, by corporations, or by roving street gangs (Chaos Overlords anyone?), but you're still gonna be governed.
/. crowd is aching to moderate me down now. ;)
In psychology there's a concept called Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs; basically you have to have the basics in life accounted for before you can get into the more refined and esoteric stuff. We're able to do open-source software not just because of government-mandated intellectual-property regulation (though that's a very real effect that Lessig argues for well), but also because someone else made physical life easy for us, and in a lot of cases (not all, but a lot) that someone was everyone, in the form of government trying to establish an equal basis. Technocorporate America isn't going to create the kind of society where you can work on cool code for free and still have food, clothing and shelter; they don't have the agenda, and they frankly don't have the social clue it would take.
It may seem non-germane to the IP-law argument to talk about broader social structures, but they're all part of the same viewpoint (basically, that far libertarianism is for blind kooks).
As someone else pointed out on
Oh well, that's my rant. I'm sure most of the
(note that I'm not slagging ESR personally, just his viewpoint - Even though I don't think as much of his OSS papers as some people, I've actually long had respect for him, pretty much ever since he took over editing the Jargon file / NHD)
-- Life is short. Forgive quickly. Kiss slowly. ~ Robert Doisneau
The title of this article is misleading, because most everyone involved in this discussion seems to be a proponent of Open Source. From what I can tell, Raymond is basically going on with his usual Libertarian claptrap and this time is actually getting owned by someone who seems to actually know what's going on in the world (Lessig and Newman).
It's not that Raymond or Libertarians (e.g., virulently anti-socialist objectivist gun-owners) in general don't have some interesting points, but as usual he's taking their arguments way too far and coming up with the usual Libertarian nonsense...all government and government regulation is bad, the Internet will give birth to a free society, blah blah blah.
I honestly wish Raymond would stick to championing Open Source rather than trying to inject his Libertarian ideals where they are really irrelevant and don't belong. At least he's pretty good at the former. Kudos to Lessig for a well-thought out argument.
-W.W.
"Well it should be obvious to even the most dim-witted individual who holds an advanced degree in hyperbolic topology...
There's nothing wrong with pragmatism. But, I do not like my views represented by someone like ESR. Someone who once had the audacity to claim that All Linux users didn't want there software used by "Red" china.
I've read ESRs statements, and from what I've gathered about him, my opinion is that he's a money grubbing whore.
Not that there's anything wrong with being a money grubbing whore. but there's something amiss about making all you're cash by giving lectures about Open Source to Big Corps while writing next to no code yourself. ESR has profited off all of us. I was hoping that since he got his $30 million dollars from the IPO of VA that he'd shut up. Of course now that the stock is crashing, and he's only got something like $3 mill or so, I guess it'll be a long time yet...
Sweet, I'm going to loose so much karma on this thread... sigh
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Sorry kids.
Open source is not american. The internet is not American. It might have been at one point, but it's not any more.
Neither ESR's ranting, nor Lessig's reasoned response address this global scope.
This makes ESR's 'The government and Microsoft are EVIL' comment extremely funny. Like the US government could harm the 'Open Source Movement' by regulating it. Sorry, but anything international is basically reduced to a 'least common denominator' approach to legislation. The world hasn't even harmonized all the various Copyright Laws out there yet, and it's had about 50 years to do so. So, do you think regulating open source could possibly work? Laws inside America to protect american companies might actually help, or they might help very little, but they certainly won't kill it entirely, nor will they cause Open Source to succeed where it otherwise would not. We're talking about a 10% boost versus a 10% decrease, as a maximum. Therefore the overwrought doomsday-verbiage of ESR is at once amusing, and pathetic. Lessig is certainly the more believable of the two, but even he fails to point out the international angle.
Of course, I've noticed that to many Americans, the Rest of the World is just a place to go on Vacation. "Look Marge, there's a native. Let's see if we can take his picture before he notices, and gets mad at us, for stealing his soul."
Just Some Guy From Canada
I hear he's the subject of Al Franken's next book, "ESR is a Big Fat Idiot, and Other Observations".
--GnrcMan--
This is childish at best. Especially ESR. He really is as embarassing to OSS/Linux as RMS.
Just to respond to some posts:
ESR is NOT a definitive part of what we do. WE ARE.
ESR is not a great thinker. He is a clever manipulator. Lessig is not any better.
We are better than this. RMS's viral license, ESR's mouth and BP's ego do a dis-service to the work WE put in. You do not really see LT shooting his mouth off, do ya.
These three (and Lessig) are a joke. There may have been a time when RMS/ESR/BP made some contributions. Their time is past. The revolution is over. Linux won. Linux has legitimacy. It has coders. It has capital. It has standing. It has market share.
We need to retire the revolutionaries. In the US, we transitioned from a revolutionary tribunal to a Federal Republic. In France, they did not make the transition, and the revolutionaries committed atrocities and sold it out to Bonaparte.
Where do we want to be 5 years from now?
Retire them. They did their bit. But they are mucking up the jobs we need to do now. We need leaders, not ESR's bad logic and big mouth and warmed over Rand. We need people who can build something of this momentum.
If Linux loses momentum, you can place the blame not with the coders or the code, but the fanatics who represent us poorly.
Tom Dutton
Reality does not happen until you analyze the dots. -Don DeLillo (Underworld)
Dude, in the open source Community, ESR is Nothing But a polemicist. What has he coded? Fetchmail? A mail client. woo, fuck I'v written a mail client. Its not that hard, and I'm a freshman CS major. ESR may be amateur coder, but to call him a Great Programmer is a complete disjunct with reality
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
A couple of years ago, as a fresh new MCSE, I got involved in the Ralph Nader discussion board as a Defender of Msft (i.e., in hostile territory)- one morning while checking backups and having composed several paragraphs of a scathing reply in notepad, a SCSI tape drive error bluescreen'd the server - poof. Pure irony.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Distributing source code is not the primary force driving Open Source Software. Rather it facilitates the growth of development communities around an application. ESR remarks that he does not believe developers will approach Windows source to improve it as an operating system, rather "mine" it for information useful in creating interoperatable apps.
If this is the primary goal of any remedy in the MS vs DOJ case, opening the code to Windows is not the only solution. If MS is split then it makes good business sense for each unit to encourage interoperability. Something companies have been doing one way or another for years without opening their source. As for who should apply the remedy, the only party with the ability to guarantee enforcement is the US government.
Predestination was doomed from the start.
I have two points here.
1) I tend to agree with ESR generally. I used to do regulatory policy analysis for a living and the gulf between what Lessig says will happen in terms of sensible regulation and what actually will happen is enormous. People often think of regulation as being a set of rules handed down by Congress (advised by people like Lessig, of course), and therefore somewhat visible and subject to analysis by us geeks. But that's not the case at all. Congress delegates its enforcement powers to agencies, which sets up a convenient group to blame when the regulations end up being subverted or twisted by ignorant/power-hungry bureaucrats. There isn't a single case of regulation in the U.S. where this does not go on to some extent. After all, who blames Congress for the excesses of the ADA? No one. We blame the various agencies (ATBCB primarily) who enforce it, and of course they're unelected. This is exactly what will happen if Lessig gets his way, and of course no one will blame him personally when it goes bad. We'll blame the U.S. Software Development Agency.
2) It is very striking, when reading the essays, how Lessig's "book knowledge" of the Internet's workings matches up with ESR's working knowledge. This continues to support my view that Lessig is basically a charlatan -- a good example is ESR's point that there are four GPL-like open-source licenses, of which the GPL is just one. Lessig is oblivious to subtleties like that. He's made a name for himself in this area, and now that the pond has gotten a lot bigger, he's used to being the biggest fish.
-BBB
Yes, that's right.
Let me pause for a moment and reflect on a tiny portion of the virulent racism that I've run into over the past twenty-three years in Canada:
- Kids in Alberta thinking it's an insult to call someone a "Paki".
- Teachers in Saskatchewan telling kids to play "nigger pile" at recess.
- A salesman in Toronto referring to a Sikh customer as a "towel-head".
- A twentysomething Canadian tourist in Vietnam thinking it's acceptable to openly wrangle for underage prostitutes.
- A young woman in Don Mills Ontario saying that racism wasn't a problem in Canada because "we don't have so many black people".
. . . and I could go on. But I won't, except to say this: narrow-mindedness can be found everywhere on Earth, in equal measure.The fact that you seem to think it's restricted to Americans is, itself, ample evidence of this fact.
Welcome to the global community of small-minded people.
...and maybe the only worthwhile thing to take from this debate:
e wman-n-1.html )
'One reason an acknowledgement of both past and present regulation is needed is so we can move public debate away from the false "should there be public policy" question to the real question of "which public policy" should be promoted?' (Newman at http://www.prospect.org/controversy/open_source/n
Intellectual experiments in anarchy work about as well as they always have: they don't. The 'Net is now a matter of public interest and public policy, and people need to stop pretending no one in government or law enforcement knows it exists. Telecommunications have been regulated in every country since the turn of the century, an it is hard to see how universal access, limited tolls and extensive innovation and research would ever have happened without it.
There will be laws that specifically regulate internet access and standards and computer design and construction, just as there are for telephones, TV's, radios, cars and the postal system. This is inevitable and in the past turned out to mostly be a good thing. We can have stupid internet policies, but we can't pretend there will be no policies.
If you want to understand the philosophical underpinnings of a free society (of which, this is not), then you should check her out - uhm her philosophy.
I'm not aware of any weaknesses in the philosophy - I like the time and/or intelligence to find them and improve on her work. The best summary of Objectivism is in Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand".
An objectivist as would a libertarian - one that understands the term - would support Microsoft's right to behave so long as they don't iniate the use of force (which they haven't from what I've heard). Same with open source - full support and good luck.
My opinion is that many people use the word libertarian without understanding it. Just as they use the word monopoly - but that's different story. BTW - you have a monopoly on your own labor (think about it) - try not to abuse it - LOL - good thing the goverment regulates it (sarcasm).
Let's make it so that from now on, *ANY* and *ALL* software licensing must include non-obfuscatd source. It doesn't have to be GPL, or 'free software'. You don't have to give people the right to give it away, you can even keep them under tight nondisclosure, but the fact is, they should have the source. Why? Simple.
That way, everyone gets what they want. Companies can develop their own internal toos that meet their needs, bugs can be fixed faster, and people will base their product on the skills of their programmers, and the quality of the end product. What if someone steals your code? shouldn't be hard to prove.. as every software sale must have source.
I'm always confused reading this sort of discussion. I am an Open Source devotee, agree mostly with everything GNU says, refuse to use non-Free software, etc. On the other hand, I don't agree with ESR's other politics at all. I'm all for government control. Libertarianism, Anarchy, not my cup of tea at all. Government regulation protects the people from big companies. I like to live in democracy, not bigcompanicy.
So why do they always seem to belong together in discussions like this? Isn't ESR promoting his own politics on other issues too much while promoting Open Source? Or am I the odd one out and is it true that all of you out there agree with those politics?!
I'm European though. That could be it.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
ESR says: Long before the DOJ lawsuit, the open-source movement developed its shared values and exuberant energy in significant part as a conscious reaction against the attempted cornering of computing technology by monopolies and governments and other power groups. We are the Internet's antibody response against all would-be Microsofts (and against the NSA [National Security Agency] as well). We trust the invisible hand of the market partly because we are the invisible hand. And most (though not all) of us believe we can punish Microsoft's misbehavior and hubris more effectively and more ethically than could be done through government action.
I will now quote RMS to state my position on this: "I am not a member of your Open Source Movement."
If Open Source meant everything ESR said it did, it would be about one tenth of its current size; its average age would be 16, and it would be l33t.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
But the AT&T monopoly was created by the U.S. Government, via -- that's right -- regulation. Those interested in this history can see it online:
Here is a good history.
So, after a point maybe you are right -- maybe the only solution was to use the government to force some outcome on old AT&T. But to say this justifies "regulation" is analogous to cranking up your radio because you have your TV on so loud you cannot hear it. I trust the analogy is not lost on you.
As for the identification of contract law, property rights, etc, with "regulation" -- well, WHATever. I would call these things "law", say, perhaps "commercial law", and then call "regulation" something else -- such as: a rule or order issued by an executive authority or regulatory agency of a government and having the force of law (definition from www.m-w.com).You takes your terms, and you makes your argument. As long as you are clear that essentially any governmental action is "regulation", then I suspect you will find a lot of people that think some "regulation" might be OK.
But if you restrict regulation to meaning something more like what is in Merriam Websters, then you are going to find some of us in the libertarian camp parting ways with you. The rule of law, property rights and other human rights -- these are one thing. Government fiat is another. Most people, I hope, can tell the difference. By conflating the two, you weaken your argument.
I'll work backward... "a nice message, not an abrasive one." ESR pretty much defines abrasive, from that completely obnoxious "hey, I'm rich" essay to the "all Linux users hate China" piece to the email threads where he has threatened people with his guns.
"libertarian perspective... better recieved by the public." By and large, the American public is strongly in favor of government intervention of all sorts, from gun control to Social Security to environmental protection. While I'll grant that there is also a strong libertarian streak, they are very balanced- RMS just hasn't hit on the right balance yet, and ESR teeters dangerously close to going too far.
"interesting or informative." I may be alone, but I find interest is generated by actual clashes of systems and issues. ESR is so close-minded about the government that he can't see straight, and quickly lowers these kinds of things to name-calling. RMS may disagree with people very strongly, but he at least reasons out his positions instead of calling them names.
Just my two cents... calling this a +1 is ludicrous.
IAAL,BIANLY
Oh and I forgot to mention this in my last post, but do you call black people niggers? If not than please don't call people who copy stuff pirates. It's simply a calice and misrepresentitive use of the word. Call it what it is, illegal copying. Copying is not inherently evil, but piracy is. Piracy is where you board a ship, beat the hell out of people, and kill them. OK. It has nothing to do with copying, illegal or otherwise. And you accuse me of stooping to low levels???
Along with all the argument about taking Randism in vain, could we PLEASE show a little more respect for what anarchism has historically meant? (I'm talking to you, ESR.) Sure, if you want to redefine anarchism as free market capitalism I can't really stop you. But the anarchists who really put their work and their lives on the line for that name over the past century or so were ANTI-capitalist.
(Why? Because egalitarian free-association runs into problems in an economic system which gives people power based on their wealth. Just by way explanation. My main point is just to show a little respect. I don't recall any free-marketers being jailed or deported from the US for their beliefs.)
But, I still think that.. well, I just wanted to use IANALNDIPOOTV in a sentance...
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Yeah... sort of like MS is an innovator. Re-read ESR's stuff- you'll see that all he did was study and record a phenomenon that by his own admission was already ongoing. The only thing that you could vaguely classify as an "innovation" was the switching of "Free Software" for "Open Source." Even if you agree that this was beneficial (I don't) it was hardly innovation- it was just marketing. Heck, I'm not even sure that was his idea- I'll just give him the benefit of the doubt.
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
Government doesn't always get the rules and regulations right. Government is influenced by special interest lobbying, by bogus economic theories, and often, they just get it wrong. But a laissez-faire approach is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In order to live in a prosperous, free market society, we need to get government to work properly.
Raymond could be correct in arguing that in the Microsoft case in particular, government action is not needed anymore, that other forces have already worked to reduce Microsoft's importance and influence. But it's false to base that argument on "the invisible hand"--for a market like the one Microsoft operates in, a monopoly is a very plausible outcome. If open source can, by itself, compete with Microsoft, it's because Microsoft has missed opportunity after opportunity, and it's because the goverment investigation has already restrained their behavior greatly (without it, PC companies would likely continue to be contractually prohibited from preloading anything other than Windows). But, in addition about ensuring a free market in PC software in the future, the law suit is as much about punishing past misbehavior (and discouraging others from engaging in it) as it is about addressing current failures of the market.
I should say, incidentally, that I don't view Microsoft as all evil. But they have done some things that no large company should be allowed to do in a free market, and it appears to me that they have, at least for the time being, a natural monopoly, something that requires some government supervision to ensure that the consumer isn't harmed, just like electricity and telephone.
Americans seem to love to hate law and government. A healthy distrust of government is probably always a good idea, but ultimately, there is no democracy or free market without the rule of law and a government to enforce it. A free market and "the invisible hand" work only under a specific set of social and economic parameters and government needs to create and maintain those parameters.
It's valuable to debate individual policies on their specific merits and effects, but general arguments that with less government regulation, the "invisible hand" will take care of things are not based in economic reality.
1. The hackers. You can't say enough about the efforts of the BSDers, RMS, Linus, etc., to make it happen and to make it work well. Even ESR gets some credit here, too.
2. The internet. The US government started it, let the geeks design it, funded it for a while, and opened it up to the world. The ARPANET is one the best things that the US government did in the past century. This is not to say that the US is not trying to screw things up in other ways.
3. Wintel (and Moore's law). For all their faults, Intel and Microsoft have popularized the cheap, powerful machines that make it possible to run Unix.
4. The government prosecution of Microsoft. This has forced Microsoft to behave just as open source appeared on MS's radar screen. Without government pressure, MS would have tried to crush open source using all possible means. Maybe it would have been more fun that way with open source being the perennial underdog and us screaming bloody murder all the time.
So by this count, the actions of the big, bad US government is crucial on two points, and big, bad business led to the machines that make it possible to run the OSes and software we know and love. Maybe it wasn't their intent, but it is hard to see this as the work of the devil(s).
How to maintain open source? Keep writing code and make your voice heard. Keep writing code that is open both in license and in making the power of the computer and computer networks available to everyone.
The flaw in your argument (at least for the time being) is that telephones, TVs, etc., have physical limitations that make them amenable to regulation by a geographically bound government. If I run an "illegal" TV station, the FCC can just shut it down. ;)
The net being distributed and all, if I run an "illegal" net site, I just host it somewhere else. Once "rogue" nations like Korea, Cuba, or Russia (or even better, switzerland) get good fast net access it'll be even harder for national-level governments to affect the net. So, you need vast international cooperation to regulate the net, or you will shortly. And guess what- the relationships between nation-states are an "intellectual experiment in anarchy." That won't be changing anytime soon.
~luge(more pontification headed your way soon
IAAL,BIANLY
Welcome to the global community of small-minded people.
:(
Thats going in the quotes file, its to bad I can't attribue it though
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
> Ok, I work for Microsoft. It's a good gig and I don't generally feel that I'm a servant of evil.
And yet your message comes from portalofevil.com!
Quick, someone tell Judge Jackson what he's up against!
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Well, I don't know that much about BP, but there's a pretty big difference between RMS and ESR. RMS set the groundwork for what is now known as the Open Source movement. He wrote the original GCC, and administered the GNU system. And unlike ESR and his collection of worthless toys, RMS's code is fundamental to a lot of computers.
When your talking about ideas, things are different. But when you are talking about code, RMS's contributions have been invaluable.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
... maybe you'll be next.
The US is, technically, a republic. Democracy is mob rule. Remember mob rule, geeks? Libertarianism and anarchy are not the same thing.
Everyone bashes Objectivisim, yes she was a bit extreme in her view, but are you people idiots. Open Source=Communism!!!!!
Screw realty just hook me up another monitor!
What if what people want is assloads of money? It should be there right.
And what if they want to write there program in pure assembly (or intercal)? zSnes springs to mind
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I don't know about open source, but government should absolutely be using open standards technology whenever possible. Does it make sense for public documents to be in a proprietary file format when open formats exist? They belong to the people, right? It would be a shame if the company that supported those proprietary formats went under.
A similar argument could be made for the government using only open-source software. After all, using proprietary software for public and national uses could lead to trouble.
So, I think there is an argument for the government using only open standards and open source, where possible and practical. Not as policy designed to bolster the open-source movement, but just because it makes sense.
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
So the Digital Millenium Copyright Act ("DMCA") isn't a "regulation," because it was enacted by Congress and not issued by an administrative agency? Likewise the other patent and copyright laws? Glad you cleared that up -- now we can stop worrying about them. Rule of thumb, people: Whatever Congress does is hunky-dory.
Hey ESR, after you read Atlas Shrugged in your sophomore year of high school, you're supposed to read other books.
being characterized as:
:\
"...a colossal, ugly hairball -- a tissue of bad design and worse improvisations. Hacking on it and trying to get any re-use out of it would be probably about as much fun as a picnic in a toxic-waste dump. " ESR
Geesh, w2k had to do SOMETHING about that, quick!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
The basis of Ayn Rand's philosophy is the assumption that the most valuable commodities within a culture are the individuals that compose it. I am comfortable with this assumption, and I need no proof.
Each individual within the culture commits a crime against themselves if they fail to realize and honor the value of others or of self.
To call such an attitude sophomoric is to commit an act of self-immolation. I have no interest in such people.
Cultures that do not value the individual transfer both achievement and blame to the unworthy. I have no interest in such cultures.
The extent of the failure of her philosophy is its failure to realize the value of other individuals. Her catastrophic breakup with Nathaniel Branden will attest to this.
Doesn't this whole debate cry out for the French Solution?
Clinton could simply state that every agency under the executive branch of government must investigate the appropriateness of open-source solutions.
Or he could ban the purchase of any software that does not provide source-code (it has improved my computing experience, why not the Feds).
Nearly every monitor on the market is Energy Star compliant. Why? Because the Feds said they wouldn't buy anything that wasn't. There were no laws detailing how manufacturers would produce monitors to be in compliance. They simply said, "We won't buy your crap if it ain't." The Feds have such a large buying power that, voila, everyone complies. "If you do not document you software completely, including all protocols and document formats, we will not buy your crap." Of course, the easiest way to do this is to release source. Microsoft (or anyone else) won't be forced to do anything differently, but watch how their behavior will change.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
[...] is it true that all of you out there agree with those [libertarian, anti-government] politics?
I am an American and I, for one, disagree with the "down with government at all costs" faction. While I don't trust the current American government, which has mostly become a puppet of big business, I certainly wouldn't prefer to get rid of them. I mean, that would get rid of the only legitimate voice I have in the governance of my own life. It would take away the only thing standing between me and the total rule of corporations. Profit-making corporations are, by law, disallowed from having my best interests at heart, so I'd rather have the government standing between us. Yes, even when the government's default activity is to behave as a corporate puppet. Frankly, I prefer not to stare at the naked face of corporate aggression. I like the government mask much better.
That said, of course I would like it much better if we Americans took back our government. I'd love it if we stopped believing the corporate mantra that government is bad. Government may be bad for some corporations in the short term, but it certainly isn't bad for all economic entities (corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, non-profits, and individuals) over the long term. Quite the opposite, really.
Government serves its masters. The masters of a democratic government is, by definition, the people. When the people stop behaving like the masters, though, someone or something else will step in to fill that role. The multinational corporations are doing exactly that, right now. Americans must reclaim their rightful roles as the masters of their government, and put the government to work on their own behalves.
Which is just a long-winded way of saying that no, I don't hate government. I just hate government that doesn't serve its citizens.
Sorry, Mr. Lessig, but it very much does matter where AT&T came from. If we look at only the last 50 years, say, we see what most people do: AT&T as a monopoly (why?), with no solution apparent other than force -- more regulation, that is. After all, don't monopolies justify regulation?
And does it or does it not matter where the cable monopolies came from?
As for the identification of contract law, property rights, etc, with "regulation" -- well, WHATever. I would call these things "law", say, perhaps "commercial law", and then call "regulation" something else.
I agree, this aspect of Lessig's argument is confused by fuzzy language. However it does not follow that regulation in the dictionary sense is inherently evil. Accepting the Merriam Webster definition, the morality of regulation depends a great deal upon the basis upon which the "executive authority or regulatory agency" derives its power to issue a particular regulation.
Obviously, things can go wrong in many places -- the law may be bad, inconsistent or unclear; the regulatory implementation of the law may be incorrect, impractical, or ineffectual. Enforcement of the regulation may be too lax or too aggressive. All of which is to say it is a good thing to be skeptical of regulation.
However this does not support the very strong blanket assertion that regulation in the dictionary sense is inherently evil or misbegotten. You need much stronger evidence to support that conclusion.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You are not the only Free Software advocate who doesn't agree with Eric Raymond or libertarian politics. I fit that description too, and I'm not a European. However, that doesn't mean he shouldn't express his point of view. The only problem is that when he claims to represent the rest of us he does a poor job.
What does Eric Raymond actually do? He's written some really lame text on free software, not coming up with any new ideas of his own. He hasn't written any incredible software. He mentions several times in what I've read of his writings that calling oneself a hacker dosn't make them one. Well, Eric calls himself a hacker at any time given him. I don't see anyone respectable calling him a hacker. All I see is clueless people sucking his boots because he's "important". Self-important, rather. Eric isn't happy that he wasn't invited to speak at USENIX. Wake up, Eric, you say the same thing every time! Do I not have a reason to be fed up with the never ending ego that is Eric Raymond?
Who is more valuable to society? The person who works on a farm, or the person who makes farming more productive.
If I worked on a farm, I could grow enough food to feed (say) 2 people. Say I create a new strain of corn so that each farmer can now grow food to feed 3 people. If there are a hundred farmers, I've increased the food produced by 50%, instead of the 2% from my own labor.
I am also in computer science. I am valuable to society not because I do manual labor, but by creating software and ideas that make other people more productive in their jobs.
I think you've confused her fiction (hyper-idealized situations and people) and the philosophy of objectivism.
Check it out. I don't agree with half the things she says, or the way she shifts definitions around to meet her needs. I do agree that reason is the sole tool that man posses to evaluate the world in which he lives.
Really not helping the marketing campaign any.
© 2000 James Lanfear. All rights reserved.
Anyone who would buy into that BS would obviously be to weak minded to ever get any kind of real power. It is annoying though.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Until someone can explain to me why it's a good idea for these mega-corporations to be allowed to leverage their size and ownership of key resources to dictate how and what we can connect to, and to squeeze smaller competitors out, I agree with Lessig: this kind of regulation is important.
I haven't seen many posts addressing this specific issue. I wonder how many actually realize what's being discussed?
Fine:
Regulation is restrictive. Regulations in the most general sense mean you cannot do a certain thing under certian circumstances, no? Traditionally regulations seek to ban certain actions from taking place and to bypass them takes additonal steps than it did before regulation. Regulation retards growth. Growth is a relationship between size and time. If additonal steps are created between start and end you must, logically, be slowing growth. In the case of new markets (eg HDTV) regulation seeks to speed growth in new areas. I wonder, if those markets were so fruitful and wonderful why didn't greedy companies seek to exploit it before the government. I'd wager it has something to do with the regulations previously placed on that fruitful emerging market.
Procedures really don't enter into the arguement. Procedures don't carry the weight of law (which is the body of regulatory crap I'm talking about). Procedures are guidelines and not thou-shalt or thou-shalt-not dictates.
So yes, regulation is bad. Not that nothing good has never come of it but that good could have been had more cheaply and faster if regulations weren't in the way.
RMS is an embarrassment only because he is up front and clear about what he believes in.
Put simply, he believes that denying people access to information they need is wrong. Ever.
Now most people don't agree with this, or at least they don't act as if they agree with this 100%, 100% of the time. Now, he may think, and probably does think, that this produces better software, but IIRC it is basically irrelevant to him.
I don't agree completely with RMS, or at least I haven't thought things through enough to know whether I do. But I do respect him because he fights fair. He never, ever uses his project credential to pull rank in a fight, although if anybody could, he could. He never claims to be a spokesman for anybody else's views but his own. He doesn't obfuscate his ideas in pleasing academic metaphors or subtle code words -- it's there and you can agree with him or part ways, your choice.
America is a country that likes to pretend we're a bunch of straight shooters, when in fact we love to follow phonies. You can't get any media respect unless you're a bald faced self promoter and liar (I mean, unless you are media savvy). When we meet the real thing, our reaction is scorn.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Whoa... calm down, maybe read the post you're replying to.
I don't think the original poster ever said that there was no racism in Canada. You're obviously quite bitter and angry about several incidents you've witnessed, but there's nothing in the original post that has much to do with racism unless your mind really twists the comments in mysterious ways.
Racism is a problem in every country, Canada, the States, England, France, Japan, China, India, South Africa, I could go on, but I don't have the time or the will to spell out the name of every country on the planet. Humans are humans. Racism is idiotic whether it's white people discriminating against black people or Pakistanis discriminating against white people or Black people discriminating against Asians or anyone else discriminating against anyone else. It isn't just the black and white (pardon the pun) issue of "white people are racists" that most people would like to believe. There are idiots in every race and culture, and by extension, there are racists of all colours. Deal with it by not being a part of the problem. Preferrably in a less inflammatory way.
Eric Raymond has some interesting theories about the motivation behind open source, but his emphasis is misplaced. I believe that the best arguments for open source projects have nothing to do with establishing communities, or earning prestige among peers. Instead, it comes from a basic understanding of the value of software, and the desire to maximize the value of one's own work.
What's the value of a piece of software, as a physical commodity, in the sense that a piece of software is something that sits on your hard drive, takes up space, and hopefully does something that you find useful.
Here's one possible heirarchy for software value, in order from most worthless to most valuable:
1) A binary that no longer works is worthless. It has negative value in that it is a waste of disk space. Maybe the operating system API changed, or the hardware vendor changed the architecture slightly and broke the binary, or perhaps an intractable bug has come to light. Doesn't matter. The value of this software is zero. You can't use it, or you wouldn't want to. This is the fate of most commercial software in the long run, especially commercial software that runs on propriatary operating systems.
2) An unsupported binary is slightly more valuable, but not in the long run. Someday it will most likely enter category one, especially if it runs on a proprietary operating system. There's a lot of software, especially freeware, created and released with the best intentions, that exists in a publically available form only as MSDOS or obsolete Windows binaries. Relying on this sort of software is like being a passenger on an airplane with a dead pilot soaring through the sky on autopilot. So far, so good, you're getting from point A to point B, but you'd better have a parachute.
3) Supported binaries are more valuable. Commercial, shrink-wrapped software makes up most of this category. Of course, when you depend on binary level support, you know that any time you may be forced to upgrade, or your software supplier may discontinue the product, and your existing binary will enter category two, which you don't want.
Hardware with closed source drivers is also in category three.
One danger of category three software is that sometimes it slips into category two without notice. When we upgraded one of our Sun workstations to Solaris 7, for Y2K purposes, for instance, we had to eliminate a $1500.00 third-party ATM interface, not because of any problem with the interface, but because the vendor had, without our knowledge, discontinued driver support. The interface makes a nice, if expensive, paperweight.
The conventional wisdom in the software publishing world is that commercial software belongs in category three. Category three provides the most leverage by the software provider over the users of the software, and hence, the most opportunity for revenue. As part of one operating system upgrade, we had to re-purchase thousands of dollars worth of binary application software, because of changes to the operating system that broke the applications. This vendor made a lot of money off of us, and the new versions of the software had no new features -- they had just been recompiled to work with the new kernel.
4) Software with restrictive source code availability is more valuable. In this case, you have the source code, but few, if any other people have the source code, and in any event, you are unable to effectively collaborate with them, This includes both source code obtained under an NDA, and, more importantly, software you've written yourself but never published.
You have, at least in theory, the ability to keep this type of software working yourself, but you run the risk of having to actually put the theory into practice, and in a worst case scenario, you may find yourself having to dedicate tremendous resources to keeping the software working, and who wants that?
Government regulation protects the people from big companies.
Huh? The governement == big companies, at least in practice. Governement regulation protects big companies from small companies and individuals they have managed to screw over.
You are right though that Open Source and Libertarianism are different things. How ever, both have this individualistic flavor.... That we (the regular guys) can take care of ourselves very well, thank you, Mr. Big Company/Governement. And not only do we take care of ourselves, we excell, more so than we would do if you tried to "help" us. Thus, I think a lot of Libertarians would find a lot to like in Open Source philosophy, if you will.
So, I am sure that not all open source believers are libertarians, but that many libertarians also argee with open source... I wish I could draw you a Venn diagram...
Or am I the odd one out and is it true that all of you out there agree with those politics?!
I don't think so. See above.
I'm European though. That could be it.
No offense, but probably. Americans seem to be much more individualistic than most other peoples. Is this good, bad, better, worse? I think better. But of course I do, I am an American.
So whatever. A socialist, or whatever can also like open source. Open source isn't just for libertarians. But libertarians sure seem to like open source...
I've never been impressed with ESR's work. Instead of working from first principles he'll say something like "I don't believe that because I'm a libertarian." Reading words from that point of view don't make very convincing arguments. Stallman is far more approachable because he tells you where he's coming from and why. Stallman doesn't rant off about guns (creepy) nor say any homophobic remarks publicly. It is for these reasons I can't say I'm too thrilled to have ESR speaking "for geeks." "Free software" might have been a poorly chosen (or at least confusing) term, but for ESR to say that it "held the movement back" is nothing more than shameless self-promotion. After he made $38 million overnight he then went on /. essentially saying "Oh boy, remember when we thought getting money would be a problem!" Yet he claims to be an anarchist? An anarchist giddy about the stock market?
I sincerely hope ERS's celebrity is just a fad, he seems to have lost what the whole "movement" was about before it was a movement: hacking. It's not about people trying to defeat major corporations, it's about programmers having fun hobby projects and sharing with each other.
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: axiom
Pronunciation: 'ak-sE-&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin axioma, from Greek axiOma, literally, something worthy, from axioun to think worthy, from axios
worth, worthy; akin to Greek agein to weigh, drive -- more at AGENT
Date: 15th century
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 1
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
On the philosophy side, please note that simply because an axiom (using definitions [1,2] - three is nonsensical in philosophy) is used to construct a theory or 'logical' structure, it is not necessarily prone to truth.
I could take as an axiom, "Objectivism makes sense," but that doesn't make it so - it just makes it an axiom. An unfortunate and mistaken one. If you understand Aristotle, then you should have some kind of inkling of why Objectivism, even as a practical philosophy (as opposed to a logically sound one) won't work.
It is capitalism that protects individuals from the irrational or destructive behavior of others.
Really? And automatic weapons manufacturers should be allowed to sell to anyone they please. Your statement is actually the most irritating, unfounded, ill-informed, rationally indefensible statement I have seen on Slashdot for a long, long time. (I read at 0, by the way.)
Please take a few moments of your time to check into a critical thinking class somewhere.
Aside from that, just tell me you're a troll.
[|]
Growth is a relationship between size and time. If additional steps are created between start and end you must, logically, be slowing growth.
Well, logically, I suppose that's true. Of course it requires that everyone's definition of 'growth' is the same as yours. Do you believe that M$ wants the same things that you do? For them, growth is defined only by how large their market share is.
The reasons we have regulations is to stop things from growing in the wrong direction. The invisible hand is blind. And if we have a clear goal, growth in the wrong direction would be slower reaching that goal then growth in the correct direction, so it could be slower, in that sense.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Phil Knight, of Nike.
There have been protests there for several weeks concerning the production of the University of Oregon's apparel. Charges that it is being produced in sweatshops and whatnot. Predictably, some of this spilled over onto Nike, which is the primary provider of sports gear for the UO, and the local Evil Corporation.
The turning point was when the University agreed to join a watchdog group that monitors/opposes the use of low-wage Third World labor. Knight, as you might expect, reacted rather poorly to this news and announced that he would no longer donate money to University. Ever.
The problem is that Knight is the donor at the UO. Among other things he was putting up $30 million for a new $80 million stadium, which is already under construction (as in, 'can't be redesigned'). Basically, Phil Knight financed the UO, and without him things are looking grim. There have been reps from the administration on TV who are all but saying that the UO will be insolvent in a year or two. That would be a very bad thing. (Especially since I was planning to go there.)
Regardless of whether Nike is evil, or whether the University did the right thing, I suspect that in the minds of a lot of people here the lasting impact will simply be 'anarchists threatened the future of the UO'. Central Oregon is probably one of the most anarchist-friendly parts of NW, possibly the country, but things have been a bit tense with all of the riots in last few years, and this could be the event that turns the sympathetic-but-reserved portion of the public away. The UO is the major religion here, and it can sometimes suck a great deal to be a heretic.
© 2000 James Lanfear. All rights reserved.
RMS never said he spoke for us. He speeks for himself, and he is free to do that. We may not agree with everything he says, but he only presents himself as another user, frustraited by closed source.
:)
ESR, on the other hand, seems to think he's some kind of god. He's going to crash hard, and I'm going to laugh.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
If "they" can declare your website illegal, they can make it illegal for you to put it up and illegal for people to look at it.
Being in Switzerland didn't save the lyrics server, did it?
Government regulation protects the people from big companies.
Under a Free society, big companies deserve the same protection from you as do you from Big Companies. Free software, and libertarianism takes this into account; you do not.
Before anyone else accuses me of exaggerating the situation (which is probably true), I would like to say that two things in my defense, and in the interest of self-moderation.
- I get my regional news from the local TV stations. Eugene stations, for the most part. If that doesn't explain some of the exaggeration, you obviously don't watch the KMTR. When the news broke I though the world was coming to an end.
- I don't like the UO, and I really don't like UO fans. Thus any news which seems to imply difficulties for the UO makes me giddy and prone to celebration. At the same time, they do have some excellent programs, and as I said I was planning to attend. These two forces are interacting in such a way as to blur my perception of the situation a bit.
There. My small contribution to overcoming the stereotype that hackers are hard-headed, flamethrower wielding maniacs who can't accept their own faults and won't admit mistakes.© 2000 James Lanfear. All rights reserved.
You wonder what money is. Maybe you should learn. Milton Friedmans "Money Mischief" is a good book, if a bit on the dull side.
Money is not paper. Money is contracts. The paper is just the what the contract is written on. Do not confuse the two, or you will never have any understanding.
First, let me say that if ESR's philosophy is "Ayn Rand warmed over", it needs to be warmed a whole lot more. Unlike the majority of posters, I don't fault him for the nature or slant of his views - I fault him for his inconsistencies. For example, minimal government is not "anarchy". Microsoft's dominance of the marketplace, and their competitive strategies, are not morally wrong like government regulation of industry. And last, but not least, intellectual property as such is the *basis* for *all* forms of private property, and must be protected absolutely.
I don't know much about ESR, except from the things he's written and tales of his gun hobby. I've never met him. I don't foresee that I ever will. Thus, any reference to his personality is, for my purposes, not only a fallacious means of attempting to discredit his ideas, it's just plain irrelevant.
However, notice the "arguments" used against his ideas, such as they are: "Oh, he's just a Randroid, and he should grow up", "Oh, the government does all these things for us and always has, so the government must be responsible for our country's prosperity","oh, he's just a wacko", etc. etc. All in all, there has not been a single substantial, worthwhile objection to his criticisms of government regulation or his support of laissez-faire (to the extent he does support it). Everything I've seen so far has been personality attacks, truth by assertion, and other assorted non-rebuttals. (truth by assertion = if you believe something strongly enough, and assert it often and vehemently enough, then it must be true)
There are many critiques to make of ESR's position, but in my case I would do so only to help a fellow-traveller steer himself on a more clear and stable course. In any battle of ideas, the most consistent side will win the day - which is why any advocate of individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism, such as ESR appears to be to some extent, must take great pains to weed out any contradictory ideas he may hold.
If he does that, then and only then will I accept him as a fellow "Randroid".
(PS. I use that term proudly, and tongue-in-cheek, as a symbol both of the fact that Objectivism is not just a "phase" for those who actually understand it, and the fact that I have never encountered a critique of Rand or Objectivism that wasn't essentially an attack on her personality. If someone is going to critique her ideas, then please do.. but if one is going to critique her ideas, shouldn't one first be able to - at the very least - present some understanding of them in the first place?)
One man's religion is another man's belly-laugh. - LL
Lessig is one of the nations's greatest scholars on Constitutional law, particularly with regards to computers. I had the pleasure of taking a class with him joint between MIT and Harvard Law, and his lectures were incredible. The connections that he makes are quite impressive, and he sees many aspects to a legal regime that we fail to look at.
While most of us have a guy instinct towards the Libertarian ideal of no government, he makes a very compelling arguement as to why it is absurd.
One arguement that I found compelling, is that regulation comes in a few forms, legal regulations, social regulations, physical/code regulations, and another that I forget. I don't recall if this was from one of his papers or one of the papers that was background to read some of his other works...
The arguement is that while the state can pass a law, social rules have as much influence as the law. Additionally, there are fundamental laws as well. For example, there is no need for a legal regime preventing you from breaking the speed of light... physics does so. In the computer world, different rules apply.
In other words, if Microsoft controlled the browser market and required that HTML be formatted in a certain way, that would have as much power as a legal regime. True you could switch browsers and systems, but you can also break the law.
There is a VERY compelling arguement that the libertarian view, while beautiful in a Jeffersonian agrarian society, the realities of a connected world make regulation an important if less significant role. For example, in Jefferson's era, the government played a much bigger role in the people's lives if it chose to (despots were a real threat to a free society), in our era and in regards to an electronic world, the people writing the standards, software, and hardware designs have much more influence than the government. They essentially write the physicals of our virtual universe.
Alex
see subject, and who are you to require Non-obfuscated code? Does that mean that it would be illegal to write a program without clean code?
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
My guess is that it was ESR. And I only mentioned it beacuse the code is near imposible to read...
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Nope, that's why I don't use their products.
The reasons we have regulations is to stop things from growing in the wrong direction.
Theoretically that's what the market is supposed to do. In the case of microsoft if the market had paid attention they wouldn't have gotten away with all they did. In practical matters more regulation is still a bad thing because it makes private companies more difficult to run and doesn't do anything for the conscious consumer.
Huh? Then why didn't the Los Angeles basin, which received by far the lion's share of this wealth, become Silicon Valley? To the best of my knowledge, Lockheed was the only government contractor doing any work in the Bay Area. Most historians agree that world class universities like Stanford and U.C. Berkelely, and their outstanding graduates, have much more to do with the success of the Silcon Valley than government contracts.
If there is no public funding for its development, it becomes unclear who will contribute to open-source development. Or rather, it is easy to suspect that those who contribute will be heavily self-interested actors pushing those "open standards" in directions that benefit their for-profit endeavors tied to its standards.
To date, this has NOT been true. What makes Nathan think this will change?
If there is no public funding for its development, it becomes unclear who will contribute to open-source development.
God knows Sendmail, BIND, Linux, GNU, etc. wouldn't exist now if they hadn't received public funding! Perhaps the same people that have always contributed to open source will continue to do so. If Nathan is incapable of understanding their motives, perhaps he shouldn't be trying to pass himself off as an expert on open source.
Open-source proponents like Eric Raymond uphold the banner of the "right to fork" standards
No, they support the right to fork code, which is strongly discouraged by social pressures, not law. Source != standards.
which is great for techie programmers looking for cool code, but can really suck for consumers looking for standards that are compatible across the board (something that Microsoft, whatever the failings of its standard, delivers for its customers)
Which is why 100% of applications written for NT4.0 run just fine under Win2K, right? Bwahahahah...
If public policy does not promote compatible standards that serve public needs -- not particular corporate interests -- we are likely to see the whole open-source movement rapidly fragment into an incompatible stew of standards and products that deliver little but confusion to the public.
Partially correct -- public policy SHOULD support open standards. But to date, the governments efforts to do this have been dismal failures. (Anybody remember the ISO/OSI communications protocols? Ada? GOSIP? Does anybody use the POSIX "compliant" APIs supposedly incorporated into NT? Anybody out there ever tried reading the ISO specifications and understanding them, let alone implementing them? So far the IETF methodology has been by far the most successful in creating interoperable standards that people actually use, and it's done this with a minimum of government interference (albeit with government funding).
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I could literally write a book full of opinion on the issue, but fundamentally speaking, there's always this:
The government can't make anything. It can only take from one person to give to another. Unless this redistribution causes the total wealth/production to be more, they have decreased the total capacity to produce goods and services which people want. It has nothing to do with corporate america not having the "social clue" for creating a society where you can work on free code.
It wasn't "everyone, in the form of government trying to establish an equal basis" that made it possible for you to be so cush with your sysadmin job. It was everyone, in the form of enlightened self-interest fighting for a piece of the pie in the capitalist system, which made it possible. It was that which allowed us to economically evolve to where your intellectual abilities used in system administration allowed you to receive a large reward for what seems like comparatively small work (bit shuffling, as opposed to spending 14 hrs a day for caulking bathrooms at minimum wage). That capitalism at work ultimately results in technology that increases production, as well as motivation to use capital for that purpose and risk-taking for rewards.
It isn't a matter of WHO governs (elected officials, corporations, etc), its a matter of HOW they govern. We live in a democratic republic because our "founding fathers" decided it was the best way to prevent government oppression. That was the idea: provide the benefits of government (national defense, primarily), with the least amount of oppression of the people (having just come from an oppressive system).
"The government" can be attributed very little. Even in the cases where "the government" redistributed wealth, it was the people they TOOK IT FROM who created it, and that is definitely not responsible for your freedoms and economic effectiveness.
intellectual property as such is the *basis* for *all* forms of private property, and must be protected absolutely.
That makes no sense
However, notice the "arguments" used against his ideas, such as they are: "Oh, he's just a Randroid, and he should grow up", "Oh, the government does all these things for us and always has, so the government must be responsible for our country's prosperity","oh, he's just a wacko", etc. etc. All in all, there has not been a single substantial, worthwhile objection to his criticisms of government regulation or his support of laissez-faire (to the extent he does support it). Everything I've seen so far has been personality attacks, truth by assertion, and other assorted non-rebuttals. (truth by assertion = if you believe something strongly enough, and assert it often and vehemently enough, then it must be true)
I think the general attacks have been basically the same as yours. That ESR's statements are nothing more then truth by assertion.
I use that term proudly, and tongue-in-cheek, as a symbol both of the fact that Objectivism is not just a "phase" for those who actually understand it, and the fact that I have never encountered a critique of Rand or Objectivism that wasn't essentially an attack on her personality.
For those of use who say that Objectivism is a 'phase', to be grown out of it really seems like a waist of time to explain why. It would be like trying to explain evolution to a Creationist. Ayn Rand, and her beliefs just seem fundamentally stupid, and that's all there is to it.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
You know, they both graduated from the same collage. But only one of them took any kind of CS classes. And it wasn't ESR.
ESR's point that there are four GPL-like open-source licenses, of which the GPL is just one. Lessig is oblivious to subtleties like that.
Actually, lessing stated he was aware of other licenses, but he thought the GPL was the most important.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
At all. Its not about open source, the /. Artical was misslabled. They are talking about MS, and lessing is saying that MS needs to be regulated.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Personally, I find Raymond's viewpoint to be much closer to reality, and I beleive the fall of comunism proves that the cynical view of human nature is closer to the truth. It may be tempting to think that the one government should be to mold the economic system to acheive the greatest common good, but giving them the power to do almost always backfires; exceptions are made to benefit big campaign contributors (like the banking and real estate industries in the 80's) NOT the people as a whole.
Much as we'd all like to see Micro$oft get spanked, we fear a government that is brazen enough to do so. It should be enough for the government to merely insist that Micro$oft play nice. Also, does it not strike anyone as hypocritcial that on the one hand, the government is attacking Micro$oft as an illegal monopoly, while on the other hand, it is contributing literally billions of dollars to license their software and to defend Micro$oft's intellectual property rights? Wouldn't the easiest sanctions to enforce be to simple declare a moratorium on government purchases from MS and of prosecuting anyone for pirating MS software? In my mind, there should be a constitutional ammendment that states that those that blatantly violate the laws of society should not be subject to protection by the same laws they are flaunting while they do so... in simple terms, if I shoot the person stealing my car, his family shouldn't be allowed to sue me for his injuries.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Yes, obviously when someone steals other peoples ideas and promotes them as their own, while driving the original person out of business by cross-subsidising the price of the product from their other concerns the real criminal is the government agency which tries to stop this from happening.
intellectual property as such is the *basis* for *all* forms of private property, and must be protected absolutely.
So what are you proposing, then? That if a big company like M$ steals your intellectual property that, instead of going to the big bad government you fight them yourself? Good luck.
I'd also point out that many previous generations of people got along fine with no concept of intellectual property; even trademarks are quite new and they predate all other forms of IP in the west AFAIK.
The truth is that the ability to fight those who would take what you want to keep is the basis of all private property, nothing else. It is only quite recently that the value of ideas has become so great that people are really keen on keeping them. OGG the 1st probably did not worry about intelectual property at all, never mind use the notion as the basis of all private property.
Unless you are, as the saying goes, "the meanest son-of-a-bitch in the whole valley" you run the risk of having your property taken off you by the next bigger SOB. The job of government regulations should (not always "is", but should) be to be the biggest SOB and to fight for you when you can't fight for yourself.
If you think otherwise then you are arguing for Might-Makes-Right (the Nazi way) which, incidently, is the opposite of both democracy and anarchy.
"I swear - by my life and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." - Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged
Fine, then get out of our society, stop using our roads, stop using our schools and hospitals, stop eating food you didn't grow yourself, purify your own water; in short - go and die in the woods.
I've never heard of Ann Rand before but she sounds like she's full of crap to me.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
For those of use who say that Objectivism is a 'phase', to be grown out of it really seems like a waist of time to explain why. It would be like trying to explain evolution to a Creationist. Ayn Rand, and her beliefs just seem fundamentally stupid, and that's all there is to it.
/. post. I suggest going to the Ayn Rand section of the Critiques Of Libertarianism web site.
Well, I think Sub^H^H^HObjectivism deserves a more thorough criticism than this, however, that's not going to happen in the space of a
I have tried extremely hard. In fact, I have a collection of attempted critiques, both in book form and saved electronically. It's something of a hobby.
After reading that work of Huemer's, I've still come up empty in my search. I don't know what he read as his "study" of Objectivism, but some of the things he states as being Rand's point of view are not just wrong, they're bizarre. He claims to agree with Objectivism on several points, but his method of doing philosophy makes me question to what extent he could possibly agree on anything but the nominal level.
He doesn't understand the distinction between concepts (universals), and proper names (which are not concepts). He claims that evaluations (evaluative premises) must be derived from other evaluations (premises), and that evaluations can't be "seen" in reality, therefore they don't come from observation. Without going through the rest of the examples I could give, he basically reiterates Hume and Kant and then claims to have found errors in Rand's arguments. Then, to top it all off, his own "answer" is intuitionism, which in practice means 'whatever you feel at the moment'. It's a common shortfalling of all attempts to claim that ethics is "intuitive" or "revealed" or "intrinsic to our nature" - since none of those are true, all that is left in that approach is total subjectivism.
"Put the book down! Now, step away from the Wittgenstein, sir! Slowly... slowly!"
One man's religion is another man's belly-laugh. - LL
No, the cynical view is not that government control of our lives is bad. The cynical view would be that the fall of Communism, at least as an existing social system if not as the ideal of the misguided self-styled intellectuals, was unfortunate. Why? Because the cynic would say that those who support the idea of the interventionist state most deserve to suffer under the weight of it. The cynic would say that there wouldn't be a dry eye among the few remaining advocates of actual freedom when the supporters of the interventionist state go up against the wall after the Revolution comes.
Cynicism is a form of naivite' - they're not opposites. Both the cynic who has given up on morality and the naive fool who thinks that altruism is a proper moral code suffer under the same sort of failure - the failure to see that an ideal that isn't practical isn't an *ideal* case at all. The cynics think that people aren't good enough for morality, the naive think that morality can be imposed on people regardless of the practical consequences.
The opposite of both cynicism and naivite is knowledge, and the realization that a proper morality *must* be practical because morality is supposed to be a guide to our day-to-day lives.
It's easy to become tainted with cynicism, until your realize that people, no matter what leftie crap they're spouting, generally don't practice the leftie crap they preach. Hypocrites they may be, but they're not yet Mao or Stalin.
One man's religion is another man's belly-laugh. - LL
"The hugeness of the present day online population came primarily from the great opening up of the Web" Its privitization, you mean. Government founded, privately popularized. Maybe something so open couldn't have been founded by private companies. But it sure isn't goverment that made the internet what it is today. -j
But the market didn't do that in this case and others, which is the whole point.
In practical matters more regulation is still a bad thing because it makes private companies more difficult to run and doesn't do anything for the conscious consumer.
Regulation absolutely does do something for the conscious consumer! Regulation can level the playing field, allowing competition, especially from smaller companies, to succeed in the face of much larger competitors, so that those smaller companies can provide services to meet the needs of those conscious consumers. How many companies have avoided getting into a particular software category because they knew that if they were successful, chances were that Microsoft would just add the functionality to their OS for free?
In addition, you may consider yourself a conscious consumer when it comes to software, for example, but how are you when it comes to medical, financial or airline services, for example? When you go to a doctor, do you check out her credentials and success record? When you fly, do you check the accident rate of the airline and type of aircraft you fly on? When you put money in a bank, do you check the financial stability of that bank? Many people who are conscious consumers in many ways don't actually do these things, but they can be reasonably sure they aren't going to be killed on the operating table, plunge 40,000 feet into the Montana mud, or lose all the money in their savings account, because, in large part, of regulation and oversight by (gasp!) the government.
If you think that we could live in a civilized society without any regulation, you either have too much faith in human nature, or you haven't yet realized how regulation affects nearly every aspect of our modern lives. In a broader sense, laws themselves are a form of regulation. They're intended to stop people or companies from doing bad things to each other. The question is not whether or not we should have regulations at all, it's what kind of regulation is good and what is bad.
I believe this is Lessig's point: regulations that allow competitive access to large national communications networks have the potential to benefit everybody, and won't negatively affect smaller businesses or individuals in any way. The only parties who could claim to be negatively affected are the large network owners, but in fact in the end such regulations may be in their own interest too.
ESR is right to say that regulations wouldn't be necessary if everyone behaved in their enlightened self-interest. But large companies are notoriously bad at figuring out what their enlightened self-interest is.
That makes no sense
Quantum theory doesn't make sense to me, therefore, it must be wrong.
My problem with Objectivism and Socialism is that they both seem to require full participation to work. There is no way we can gaurantee total conformity to *any* philosophy.
Ultimately, goodness and common sense, which can't be defined as an algorithm, must prevail. If the right thing could be defined as an algorithm, it would be nothing more than a machine. I like to believe that the Right Thing is not a machine. How's that for trying to explain Creationism!
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
We could also say that the industrial revolution got where it is today because it was subsidized by large slave plantations that bought cottin gyn's - but only an idiot would believe that we need slaves to progress forward into the future. All the fragmentation and other problems government overcame were caused by a government regulation called COPYRIGHTS, that gave companies massive incentive to fragment and made it so that the only decent place to do computer science R&D was in a university/government environment. Open source's real value is not that the source is open, but that it undoes much of the damage cuased by copyrights. Notice that R&D is moving back to the private sector in software now because of it's success. It is really a serious victory for libertarian types like me.
A socialist-libertarian state. This takes the libertarian minimalist approach to goverment, but flips it by configuring a goverment that has a primary goal of protecting individual (not corporate) liberty and basic human rights while repairing the roads, rather then simply protecting private property and filling potholes.
Of course, human rights and property can overlap, but this is more along the lines of personal property, which can be different then private property. (Your right to live in a safe house vs. your right to own a skyscraper. While the tower owner's wealth would be tolerated, it would not be the government's job to protect the property from theives or vandals, unless he/she lived there, as it would be the government's job to protect people's homes from thieves and vandals.)
In a socialist-liberterian state, the MS monopoly would be tolerated because it only affects corporate profits not individual freedoms. (It's true that MS has been unfair to other businesses, but Windows is actually a sweet deal for most computer users that aren't employed as sysadmins. It's the people that work in the computer industry that really hate MS because they have to deal with their crap on a daily basis.) If people were making illegal copies of MS products, it would not be the job of the government to punish these people. It would be MS's responsibility to make their products as hard as possible to copy.
The media monopoly we see today is an example of a monopoly that wouldn't be tolerated in a socialist-libertarian state, because it affects individual freedoms and human rights by offering a horribly skewed view of the news while giving people little choice for an alternative.
In a socialist-libertarian state, people are free to do what they want as long as they don't take away personal freedoms. (Your rights end where my nose begins.) It would be up to the record and software companies to prevent pirating or reverse engineering, but it would not be the government's job to punish copyright violators. However, violations of such things as the GPL would not be tolerated because it infringes on human rights and liberties.
It usually doesn't "level" the playing field, it just makes it unfair to the winner. Barring anti-trust/anti-competitive action (because that's a whole nother can of worms) small companies should fend for their own damn selves. Companies succede by offering better products for better prices. They shouldn't succede because they were helped by a "leveling" of the playing field. Better products for better prices.
Those other cases of certification issues... Usually done by a professional board rather than by regulation. The certification is simply mandated. These are issues of safety. Issues of comsumer convience are far removed.
Think back - think way back to "turn on, drop out" - now there was a bunch of folks who tried the ESR approach to dealing with "regulation."
"Government? We don't need any. We'll grow our own stuff, get high a lot, live in a separate hippy economy, we won't be bothering anyone. Mainstream society is too corrupt to deal with. Yep, that's the ticket"
I have friends whose parents lived on communes and it sounds like it *was fun* - for awhile. Then two things happened. The drug trade became big business and private concerns began to take an interest in controlling it. Pretty soon "informal norms" didn't count for much against gun toting entrepenurial thugs. And the majority of americans decided they didn't like hippies and therefore didn't like their choice of recreational substances. Pretty soon the counter-culture was caught between being sent to the Rock and a lot of hard folks.
I'd suggest that Open Source enthusiasts ought to learn from the results of that last "revolution." If we want to be "left alone" we'd better get involved in the political process. Right now the RIAA is busy trying to broad brush the OS community as nothing but a bunch of snotty-nosed smart-aleck thieves. Ask yourself what you've done lately to counter that impression.
[And yes, I know this analogy is a bit of a reach. But the parallels are just strong enough to be kind of spooky, don't ya think?]
If you've read *Atlas Shrugged* and didn't catch anything about Kantianism, you either don't know anything about Kant or didn't read too carefully. On every major issue, Objectivism is diametrically oposed to Kantianism. Leonard Peikoff's book, "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" effectively validates Rand's philosophy on all fundamental issues. Kant's philosophical "musing" is far more important than you think. By endorsing something other than "pure" reason as a means to knowledge, one entirely invalides all of one's knowledge. Reason is the faculty that keeps one's thoughts connected to reality -- without it, one cannot justify any claims or even survive. On ethics, Kant proceeds by his "categorial imperative" -- essentially codified ignoring of context which results in cognative disaster -- allowing him to construct his "duty" ethics without grounding it in reality or reason (which he disavows anyway). Yes, most philosophers since Aristotle have been lousy. Kant stands out as the worst -- in terms of his ideas and their detrimental impact on the world.
Dude(tte), go home. People here think Wittgenstein is a freakin' video game. Referencing any non-fiction author not published by O'Reilly induces blank stares. Ironic use of "fellow traveler" will go utterly unseen and unappreciated. Alliteration, also. You will be dubbed a crackbaby and instructed to have gay sex with ASCII Jackie Chan as punishment for failure to deploy acronyms in place of logical statements. You will--and I do mean *will*--give up and become a Flaming Offtopic Reduntant Troll (sorry, a "FORT") because it's fun to whip out a stopwatch and time yourself getting moderated down by thoughtless chumps and Open Source Busybodies. Leave now, before the grits get any nearer your zipper. (And if you don't know what that means--there's still time! Chuck your mouse and run!)
Sincerely,
Fellow Smartypants
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
Examine the basic scientific method as related to subjectivity and you will find the logical error that Rand makes. What we perceive and what is are only valid so far as current human thought and perception. Some things are just more solidly corroborated than others. Rand presents her objectivist philosophy with subjective thoughts like humans being "heroic beings".
In fact, I am so annoyed at running into so many Ayn Rand phreaks, that I am thinking of setting up a web site to compare many other ism philosophies and movements that say they promote thinking and intellectual evolution, such as environmentalism, punk, goth, freemason, ad infinitum idealogies as compared to objectivism.
"By endorsing something other than "pure" reason as a means to knowledge, one entirely invalides all of one's knowledge"
HAHAH. Oh man. And how will you be sure as to your pure reason?
As far as corporatism and politics are concerned us europeans are safer than the americans... in America where politics is being done with money (getting elected means campaigning means funding means corporate sponsors) regulation is a BAD THING..... an elected politician will rule almost certainly in favor for the corporation funding his campaign. Why else is MS putting money in the campaign of a candidate? Not because the company consists out of people who will vote for him... more so because MS feels it gets better support from that particular candidate...
As far as ESR is concerned... he can preach all he wants but few will really listen to what he has to say. If he keeps the same attitude for long the people will dismiss him just as they are dismissing RMS. Not that they both are to be dismissed.. they have both real and big credibility to add to the OSS movement but they are too stubborn to see that the world changes all around them. GNU/Linux/OSS/FSF has moved out of it's shell into the big wide world and has to deal with that same world in a manner that will at least be condoned by the ones ruling that world. It is entirely possible to win over that world but not by fighting it head on. Linus is correct when he does not put himself upon a soapbox to shout world domination and freedom for anyone...
When you consider the things ESR stands for (pro gun activist etc..) what kind of world is he propagating for us? Will we really see improvement if government control is dismissed? Would all that be really better? A corporation which is not regulated by government rules can do whatever it sees fit to control it's customers. And that could include really nasty things like shutting them out of communities and such.
The Internet is an example of this. More and more control over the net is gained by companys with their own idea's and agenda's. That's not essentially bad but not good either...
Where can we find true improvements? In an environment where we are enabled to make improvements (Linux), protect the products from being harmed (GPL), AND WHERE A GOVERNMENT BODY CAN MAKE SURE SUCH ENVIRONMENT IS CREATED AND PROTECTED.
Just my 2c
I'm afraid the Internet will continue to be American until you can traceroute from Romania to Sweden without going through San Francisco.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Assumption #1: Every living thing has two fundamental courses of action before it -- to continue to live or to die.
This is simply polemic. It ignores the universe of possibilities in between which is the sphere of most moral issues.
The problem with Rand is not that here conclusions are necessarily wrong, but that her logic is invalid. Of course, the same can be said of any philosopher who has tried to create a comprehensive system of beliefs; nobody really has been able to put a practical system for living your life into a mathematically rigorous system of axioms. There's always more than a little bit of handwaving and wishful thinking.
So in that Objectivists are not particularly culpable, but they are particularly guilty of waving the standard of axiomatic logical rigor in the faces of others while supporting their own logically tenuous positions with blatant appeals to emotion and egotism.
It is a reassertion of the right to life, the right to the product of your own mind and hands, and the right to seek your own happiness. It is an assertion that we have a right to be free from coercion, that no one has the right to initiate force against another.
OK, so how does this follow from assumptions 1, 2 and 3? In fact, it directly constradicts #3. Every objectivist I've ever talked with says its wrong for a starving man to steal a loaf of bread from a rich man. Now that may be true, but the Objectivists arguments put forth all amount to concluding that choosing to starve rather than steal is not altruistic, or in this case stealing the bread would lead to death and starvation would lead to life. Clearly this is an absurdity (in the logical sense), and so this proposition is inconsistent with the stated assumptions.
Objectivism is not as it purports to be a rigorous analytical framework with which to guide one's life, but a collection of polemics to justify a set of preexisting beliefs that may, or may not be true.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The first thing I heard about the objectivism was the word, "Objectivism" (no kidding). The first thought I had was, "Gee, I wonder what held them back from nameing it 'We are rightism'".
www.m-w.com gives one definition of 'objective' as:
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
So, on a basic level, an objectivist is someone who sees clearly. They aren't humble enough to be trying to see things clearly, no, they DO see things clearly. And you don't - then you're not one of them. What a great philosophy, why hasn't anyone else thought of this? BTW, this is just my impression of objectivism, not only after hearing it's name, but after reading a few of Rand's books, not my impression of the people who follow it.
I believe Objectivism is good, mostly, but it's inherent arrogance and it's inabilty to admit it's weak case against 'might makes right' make it easily corruptable.
IMHO, the only thing Objectivism does have going for it are most of it's followers are smart and usually have what I feel are subconcious or inherent anti-'might makes right' feelings, they usually just won't admit it. So personality attacks is the last place I would start on attack against objectivism. I say that that's the only thing it has going for it becuase the parts of objectivism I agree on are things that didn't seem new to me.
I'm in the process of reading all of Rand's books, because dispite the above, I believe it's one of the best out there, but I still don't believe it's as great as the name, or it's writings would suggest.
I'm dreading the day Scientology and Objectivism merge.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the similarities. I'm just wondering how long before the two philosophies merge, if they haven't already. Scientology lacks the surface credibility that Objectivism has, yet it would be very dangerous if anyone took it seriously.
The statement "[s]he had a great philosophy that doesn't deserve to be reduced to a stereotype" can't help but remind me of the favorite line of so many of Ayn Rand's followers:
"She's not much of a novelist, but she's a great philosopher."
The bizarre thing about about these common impressions is that they are exactly wrong. Rand was a brilliant novelist whose novels could capture people's imaginations. And that very success would translate into a suspension of all disbelief among those who wanted to hear what she was saying. The result was they declared her great as a philosopher.
In fact, her philosophy was primitive and ill-informed (however much it might have struck a chord with libertarians). She thought she was a kind of neo-Aristotlean, but she did not understand Aristotle.
She was unable to defend her philosophical ideas outside of the group of sychophants she gathered around her. And, strangely enough, that group of sychophants was more like the villains of her novels than the heroes.
The Dagny Taggarts of the world (and there really are people like that) do not need to hang out with "philosophers" who tell them they are important to the advancement of culture. The James Taggarts do. "You are rich because you are good," is a reassuring dictum to them because they have good reason to doubt they are good.
So, I suppose we should not be surprised to find the majority of her circle were sychophants of the James-Taggart ilk. (Note that there were exceptions who were able to break free of the very strict regulation she put on thought: Alan Greenspan certainly has been willing to act differently than she might have prescribed when the evidence indicates she was wrong; and her husband has said some very interesting things since he left the fold about how unhappy the whole group was in spite of their hedonistic outlook.)
She called her philosophy "objectivism," but it might be best paraphrased as, "The world is as I perceive it to be." And, strangely enough, her books, which were strengthened by objectivism's influence, are the best evidence against its principles.
Take Dagny Taggart, the heroine of "Atlas Shrugged" (which can still serve as an inspiration to geeks who want more political power, even though it may be flawed in some ways philosophically). At the beginning of the novel, she is depressed. The railroad she runs is beset by problems. All of the good employees have quit (usually leaving unstaffed trains full of passengers stranded in the middle of nowhere). The only employees left are worthless slackers who see no value in hard work. Et cetera, et cetera.
Later in the book, she is in a manic period. She has just built a new line to the rich resources of Colorado out of Reardon steel. Things are going great, and all is right with the world.
Suddenly, the evil union bosses tell her she cannot force their members run trains over the "unsafe and untested" Reardon steel (especially the bridges) even though the steel is better than any previously-known alloy. Because she is no longer depressed, Dagny defiantly tells them she will only use volunteers. And, if she gets no volunteers, then by God she'll drive the first train herself.
So, she puts out a call for a volunteer train crew. Volunteers are supposed to show up in the lobby of her office building. When she gets there, she is met by a cheering mob. Most of her employees have showed up to volunteer. In fact, every qualified employee who is not out running trains at that very moment is there. Indeed, all those out running trains have sent messages they want to participate as well.
Wait a minute! What happened to all those lazy slackers? Where are the union members who had no work ethic? What about the engineers whose union card guaranteed them the only job they could get?
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
So, on a basic level, an objectivist is someone who sees clearly. They aren't humble enough to be trying to see things clearly, no, they DO see things clearly. And you don't - then you're not one of them. What a great philosophy, why hasn't anyone else thought of this?
Yes. I've thought of starting a philosophy called "Truthism". Truthists believe in true things. Everyone who is not a Truthist is a falsist and believes in false things.
I'm in the process of reading all of Rand's books, because dispite the above, I believe it's one of the best out there, but I still don't believe it's as great as the name, or it's writings would suggest.
Don't bother. Just read "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology". After you're finished you should realize that is all there is. She wrote an introduction but never wrote the actual epistemology. That book is full of ad hominem attacks and quotes out of context, but doesn't present a real philosophy.
Then when you get a chance read a work on the history of philosophy, then you'll see that there is more out there. You'll also see that Rand's philosophy has nothing to do with Aristotle.
btw, if you want to read a work that is full of real critical thinking read Gottlob Frege's "Foundations of Arithmetic". This is a work that is, I believe, flawed but presents more critical thinking than you'll ever find in Rand or her followers.
Yes, I am illiterate. Could you recommend a good book where I can learn literacy?
I am also a retard, but you probably already realized that.
Seriously. Yeah, you have a point. What I really should have said was that this 'groundwork of society' thing is hopelessly vague, and the conclusions that were drawn from this muddy concept were way too far reaching.
The implication chain...
1. The value of money depends on the existance of a society.
2. Therefore farmers should be paid as much as programmers.
... is just too stupid to discuss.
Hmmm.. I was thinking of taking a class in philosophy. I had an introductory class once, but I didn't learn a whole lot. There is probably a lot more out there worth reading, you're right. As long as it's shorter than Atlas Shrugged, I'll try anything. That Arithmetic book sounds intriguing.
I started reading "The Virtue of Selfishness", but never finished it. I bought that book first, expecting it to be the epistemology of Objectivism. It seemed like it was, but it got annoying because it was full of quotes from Atlas Shrugged. Thinking back to this now, I should have taken that for a bad sign. What kind of ground work for a philosophy uses quotes from a fictional story written by the same author. That's how I ended up reading Atlas Shrugged. Also, an alarming number of my friends claim to be Objectivists, and they told I'd understand if I read Atlas Shrugged. I did take this as a bad sign. Maybe you could put it in better words, but I'm not sure why I'm so against the idea of using a fictional allegory as the main vehicle of a philosophy, specifically when it's intended for that purpose. I mean, I felt like I got an idea of Douglas Adam's personal philosophy (maybe) by reading his Hitchhiker's Books, but it didn't come across as preachy and I didn't continually feel like someone was setting up some big scheme to trick me.
So I planned to read all of her books until I understood it, because Atlas Shrugged didn't really do it for me. But maybe I did get it after all.
Welp, thanks. While I'm at it, I probably should brush up on my grammar. Geeze, how many times did I use it's instead of its in that last post.
I certainly am, and I thought that was the implication. It is a perfectly fine stance to be pro-Gun, but I think ESR gets fanatical about it. He comes off dogmatic, again what I was saying about his neglect for "first principles." He seems to argue through authority or emotion. But he's not an accademic type... just some Unix hacker, so why should we expect any more? He certainly cannot express himself as well as Dr. Knuth.
No, it comes from his web-page. Search for the string "cooler-than-thou art fags" in one of Eric's pages on HTML coding. If you end up saying "fag" on just a page about HTML that's gotta be some sign he really doesn't care about how he comes off sounding or about others feelings. Your point about him being a "libertarian" is well taken... from his behavior from the VA Linux deal I'd think he's primarily a capitalist.
Well, my comment was that he would rant about guns in a creepy way. Look at the introduction to his "ethics" page:
If that, or any one of his other pages, isn't creepy to you, then so be it.