Slashdot Mirror
When Libertarians Attack Free Software
binarybits writes 'I've got a new article analyzing the unfortunate tendency of libertarian and free-market organizations to attack free software. The latest example is a policy analyst at the Heartland Institute who attacks network neutrality regulations by arguing that advocates have 'unwittingly bought into' the 'radical agenda' of the free software movement. I argue that in reality, the free market and free software are entirely compatible, and libertarians are shooting themselves in the foot by antagonizing the free software movement.'
I posit that one of the most prized products of Capitalism and the free market is to reduce the cost for the end consumer and raise the quality of the products and services. Now, the scientific formula for deciding the positive effectiveness of this is: (customer's percieved value)/(actual retail cost)
So you can see that as the actual retail cost approaches zero, the positive effects of capitalism approach infinity! Unfortunately when the actual cost is zero, it's undefined and your interpretation may vary.
Basically I suggest open source software people instruct these complaining parties to donate a penny or fraction of a penny to once again make them look like the epitome of our capitalistic system at work. Anyone else (who isn't stupid) may continue to use it for free and -- at least in the case of open source software -- enjoy unparalleled benefits like being able to modify and redistribute the source let alone view it. Problem solved.
My work here is dung.
and so you will never find a libertarian who is pro union, even though, according to their ideals, they should be.
I consider myself a libertarian, though I don't always espouse the exact party line of the big 'L' Libertarians.
I fully support unions as a group of freely associating group of people.
Also, I don't consider myself better than others, even those who would tell me that I think I am.
I do believe that the freest market possible provides the greatest benefit to the most individuals, though many people who also believe this are unclear that unfettered capitalism will lead to capital concentration and a non-free market. Therefore regulation is required to approximate one. A true free market is simply a thought experiment and target, it can never be achieved anymore than a marxist economy could.
Everybody wants to wrap themselves in the flag of the free market, and claim that their view is the definition of free market. Let me take a quick moment to define a few terms:
Free Market: Objective is to maximize the efficiency of allocation of resources by maximizing the ability of people to make rational, informed, free decisions on how to transact liquid wealth.
Laissez Faire: Believes that the objective of the free market can best be achieved by minimizing government involvement in corporate decision making (typically except those decisions regarding contracts, copyright, trademark, patents, and trade dress).
Libertarian: Believes that the objective of the free market can best be achieved by minimizing government involvement in all decision making (typically except those decisions regarding contracts, copyright, trademark, patents, and trade dress).
Capitalism: Believes that the objective of the free market can best be achieved by maximizing return on capital.
The proponents of each of the latter three beliefs above profess that their belief system is synonymous with the free market. However, since they are all explicitly maximizing or minimizing different things than what the free market maximizes, it is not by definition that they are synonymous. Hence their hypothesis of synonymity is subject to analysis and disproof -- even if you fully accept the primacy of the free market.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
You can believe in 'l'iberatianism without being a 'L'ibertarian. It's unfortunate that party chose that name. The Democrats aren't the 'P'rogressives so you can remain progressive even when the Democrats start shoveling more troops into Afghanistan and raining money on Wall Street. Similarly the Republicans aren't the 'C'onservatives so you can remain conservative even when Republicans are blowing up the size of Federal Government and borrowing every cent they can.
The 'L'ibertarian party lost me several years ago. I still believe social and economic freedom of libertarianism are good goals to pursue. Unfortunately, like most conservatives, I don't have a party. Even worse, the party that has abandoned my beliefs stole the name.
I can't mention believing in 'l'ibertarianism without being directed to lp.org which I pretty much disagree with at least half their platform.
So I pretty much just nod my head and smile when politics comes up these days. Surprisingly people seem to really like that.
The GPL requires copyright to be enforced. You can't place terms (such as releasing the source code) on distribution if distribution is already completely legal.
The GPL exists to fix a problem with Copyright law: If you release a work in the public domain, somebody can make a modified version, copyright THAT, and enforce it against YOU. They can also create a compilation of a number of public domain works and copyright the compilation.
This means, for instance, that some commercial entity could fix a bug in or add a feature to your public-domain software product and you couldn't make the equivalent fix or add the equivalent feature. Or they could construct a distribution (ala Red Had or Debian) and copyright it, and no equivalent could be made - first Linux distribution gets a monopoly on Linux distributions.
GPL and most other FOSS licenses head this off by maintaining the copyright and using the licensing terms on the underlying work to deny adding such restrictions to derived works and compilations.
But without copyright the restrictions couldn't be added. Sure, something like the GPL would be unenforceable. But if someone were to release a bug fix or upgrade, anyone could reverse-engineer it and include the fix/upgrade in another version of the public-domain work. If someone made a compilation, anyone else could make a similar or identical compilation. Or they could just copy the fixed/upgraded version or compilation. So the GPL's purpose - allowing software set free to STAY free - would be realized and the GPL would be unnecessary.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I'd like to point out that Libertarians do not all have the same beliefs. We tend not to blindly adhere to every plank of some party platform.
This particular libertarian thinks that if you create a product, you have the right to charge whatever you want for it, including nothing. I personally don't see how a free market proponent can argue differently. Sometimes it takes a free or extremely cheap product to bust up a monopoly, when legal and market maneuvers continue to force a price that the product is no longer worth. I think any real Libertarian would argue against government intervention, but there's something extremely satisfying in watching regular people successfully compete against software giants in their spare time. I would argue strongly that this is how the free market is supposed to work. If you're trying to charge a high price for something that another person is giving away for free, chances are there's something wrong with your business model.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
[Argument that pushing FOSS mandates for government operations is an interference in the free market - consisting of government purchasing agents "expertly" and "freely" choosing proprietary software.]
I was under the impression that the pushing of FOSS in government was about several other things:
1) Keeping public documents and channels of required communications with government in freely readable formats, rather than locked up in proprietary formats that require those governed to purchase compatible software and/or agree to licensing terms in order to communicate.
2) Keeping the details of the operation of government open and auditable, rather than exposing it to malware inside of black-box software products.
3) Cost containment - imposed on the government by its citizens, who are the primary payers of the taxes that pay for the government's IT operation.
1) and 2) are clearly "open information" issues, where it's obvious which choice is "open". Only 3) even touches on either "free market" or "choice in software" ideals that you claim are being violated. And given that governments (in republics at least) are supposed to be agencies of their citizens, this decision is properly the right of those citizens if they chose to issue such policy directives to their hired agents rather than relying solely on the agents' judgement.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You won't see all libertarians support unions, precisely because we believe in free association. Any philosophy taken too far is destructive--and we often believe government intervention has gone too far--which tends to make unions a good alternative.
I'm fairly young--I can't really remember a time when unions appeared to do something beneficial in my life. Teachers unions have prevented me from getting tenured university faculty fired or even meaningfully reprimanded despite clear evidence of academic misconduct and blatant plagiarism.
Teachers unions have prevented my father from investigating outright financial fraud in school districts.
Steel mill unions have prevented friends of mine who graduated from getting meaningful employment without joining them.
Now--I did have *a* friend who worked summers at a steel mill, and because of union regs--when he opted for working double shifts on holiday weekends after a long week, and there was nobody more senior who wanted it--he could get something like 4x pay. He was able to cover two years tuition by working 60 hour weeks each summer. But he also had weird crap he had to do. He *had* to take certain breaks, *had* to take a lunch, couldn't sit down alone with a supervisor to ask questions. Couldn't get training from some individuals. It reminded me of an episode of Futurama where Hermes got a fishing license "Great Scott--it's not a birth certificate--it's a fishing license, and it's Mandatory!" (or something like that)
Unions did a lot of good when they broke the bastards running coal mines, auto plants, and probably some other places. But--they went too far and now interfere with free association to further the unbounded greed of their own members. Sorry...just like the unions broke big industry...it's time to break the unions until they can stop behaving like little children.
Bottom Line/Core Premise:
When a faculty member who had six students expelled in one semester for plagiarism for offense that were mostly really issues of improper citation (not doing it correctly, doing it in the wrong place, putting a footnote on the last paragraph instead of the first in one case...), commits the same offense but far more egregiously--not only ripping off other schools in their course content without attribution, but publishing material from other universities under their own name. They need to be fired. No hearings, no "tenure"--just fire them. Teachers unions need to be broken.
So yes--you won't see libertarians support unions just because we're pro choice. People should be able to think for themselves, act responsibly for themselves, and not be forced to toe some line with bullshit "solidarity" where nobody can be reprimanded because of some sort of mythical status symbol. Unions centralize power--they just do it away from the nominal government of "the state".
I probably even agree with you that regulation is needed to avoid large boom and bust cycles at the cost of overall efficiency.
Before the Fed there were no "large" boom and bust cycles, there were much smaller "corrections" of the market. The Fed then started attempting to fix "corrections" which would allow the market to over inflate and then burst causing a larger correction than would naturally occur. The large boom bust cycles are a byproduct of market manipulation by the Fed.
I'm not in the abolish the fed camp or in the gold standard camp, but having the Fed maintain a fixed interest rate and a fixed money supply (i.e. no printing extra money) regardless of emergencies in the market would do wonders for the economy.
You're completely out of sync with what most libertarians believe. Many libertarians would abolish corporations completely, as the government does not have the power to grant any "rights" to a non person entity. Given that a libertarian would likely take the argument that far, the idea that they *want* corporate feudalism is just absurd on its face. Please stop espousing ideas that are so far from the truth.
Fine. They want Feudalism.
Or as Kim Stanley Robinson put it, "That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves. "