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.
Where did you get the idea that these guys are libertatians?
From their about page:
Heartland has been endorsed by some of the country's leading scholars, public policy experts, and elected officials. Dr. Milton Friedman calls Heartland "a highly effective libertarian institute."
Basically they don't want to label themselves as Libertarian because that would foolishly scare away potential non-Libertarians from reading their work. Instead they rely on their publications to speak for their views instead of a label with baggage. If you're an economist, however, you recognize them for what they are: predominantly libertarian with hints of conservatism. Popular knowledge agrees.
My work here is dung.
It serves my own purposes. As a developer I am not interested in licensing and IP. That kind of crap is for big corporations. My interests lie in being a paid expert where I go from one company to another and get paid to integrate or fix their free software based products. For small indepedent businesspeople, free software is a major asset. We can share the non-competitive aspects of the software. Operating systems, webservers, etc are all commodities. The important bits are where they are configured and customized for a businesses' needs, rather than licensing the software itself.
Free software isn't socialism, it's the new capitalism. It's the small guy capitalism.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I wrote this here years ago, but it bears repeating: Libertarianism is the carrying out of fascism by other means. The one thing it precisely does not guarantee is liberty.
Ah, but those ten seconds of pure unadulterated anarcho-capitalism, before someone with power and money realizes that no rules means they get to make the rules, would be fucking sweet. =)
The enemies of Democracy are
Not all self-described libertarians agree or use the same arguments on every subject.
The Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell style libertarians oppose net neutrality because they oppose the government regulating the internet in any fashion. They view it as a slippery slope which will lead to many draconian regulations and eventual loss of many freedoms now enjoyed.
The Cato Institute, which is considered a libertarian think tank is often made fun of by the LRC and Paul supporters, usually for good reasons.
Libertarianism, like most isms have a large umbrella to hide under.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
Actually, a lot of them focus on the freedoms of their imaginary future selves and on the vast fortunes they are surely going to amass. See Joe the Plumber. So they end up defending big corporations and rich people, even if those pollute and exploit. The free market rhetoric is just a facade to sound somewhat reasonable.
Libertarianism itself has valuable insights and should be taken seriously. It is spoiled by those who read Ayn Rand as teenagers and took up a professional career in corporate sponsored think tank libertarianism.
I would agree with the anti-net neutrality people if the network had been built without resorting to eminent domain and artificial monolopies.
You can't ask for special government favors to get your infrastructure built and then all of a sudden "come to libertarian Jesus" and demand to be free of government regulation.
Here are a few things most libertarians favor, legalized drugs, ending of the licensing of barbers, doctors, lawyers, ... , no public schools, a Federal Government who's only job is have a military to protect it's citizens, maintain roads, and settle disputes between states. It is not so much greed as it is minimizing government and having personal responsibility for one's own welfare. Libertarians do not care about giving away software for free they just have a problem with the ideologies of many of the people in the open source community, who tend to favor a cradle to grave from of government.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Libertarians, in general, feel they are superior to everyone else.
I dislike libertarianism as much as the next non-libertarian, but I do have to say that's not quite fair. EVERYONE feels superior to everyone else if they're being honest. Except me, I don't think I'm superior to everyone else, I alone am not deluded like everyone else, because I'm smarter. My unparalleled sexiness probably doesn't hurt my lack of self delusions either.
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.
The market has proven itself wholly incapable of regulating itself. What now?
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
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.
My feeling is that after the disaster that was the Bush Administration the brand name of " Libertarianism" came into vogue... so there are a lot of folks running around calling themselves Libertarians when they actually are not.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
It's telling that the first line of the Wiki is "Libertarianism is a term adopted by a broad spectrum of political philosophies". The first line of the second paragraph is "All forms of libertarianism support strong personal rights to life and liberty, but do not agree on the subject of property".
So how can we have a discussion which is fundamentally about questioning the libertarian stance on property when there isn't one?
To me libertarianism derives from liberty and hence the fundamental rule is everybody should be free to do as they please, provided that does not encroach on the equal rights of others, at which point a fair and just balance must be struck. (If you "get it" you'll realise everything past the first comma is redundant.) For what it's worth I certainly do not agree with the elimination of the state because a) the state (or at least judiciary) is necessary to arbitrate and enforce "a fair and just balance" b) there are major practical considerations such as markets not being perfect.
To relate to the OP, I have a suspicion my take fundamentally agrees to that of the author but the article loses itself in the detail while fundamentally the debate is about principle. Talk of a "bottom-up, participatory structure" and so on is not relevant. The question is, does free software impinge on the rights of others? My answer is of course not. It may be difficult for paid-software to compete, but nobody has a right to do well in the market place, they only have the right to try.
Libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society.
And to ensure the "-1 Flamebait"...
Government is the Great Satan. All Evil comes from Government, and all Good from the Market, according to the Ayatollah Rand.
"You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution."-- Fred Hampton