Lessig is one of the nations's greatest scholars on Constitutional law, particularly with regards to computers.
Is there much in your constitution about computers?!
the Libertarian ideal of no government, he makes a very compelling arguement as to why it is absurd.
Well, that's anarchism, not libertarianism, and the reason that it doesn't work is some people will always bend the system to their advantage, and not give a damn about the rest of society, as Microsoft has. But that's true of any society, it just happens faster in anarchic systems.
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.
But what if M$ was working within a legal framework? What if they could arrest you for breaking the law? What are you getting at here?
a Jeffersonian agrarian society
Jefferson was writing in a slave society (I guess it wasn't that obvious that all men are born equal) which has very different rules from a normal agrarian society.
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)
Err... In what way was that a free society? In what way were black people protected from despots, like Jefferson, who bought and sold them at market. What possible relevence have such morally bankrupt people to issues such free software, other than as a reason to support it? Or perhaps you are trying to cast M$ as the slave owners and their code as the slaves? Actually, the analogy isn't bad.
They essentially write the physicals of our virtual universe.
This would be true if all programmers and writers of proposed standards agree. They do not. In the absence of such agreement rules tend to get written by the strong.
The issue facing all of us, not just on slashdot and not just within the computer industry, but everyone on the planet going into the 21st century is:
Do we at least try to get those designs, standards, hardware and software built in a way which gives power to the people or do we repeat the same old mistakes of the last 10000 years and allow the "big men", the people with the money and the ear of governments, the back-handers, the sly-talkers, the un-elected, the powerful but un-responsible, to make the rules, the standards and the shrink-wrap licences that take your power away from you and give it to them?
Your example of Jefferson is actually very helpful here: with the powerful making the rules we do get a wonderful society of free men and women, with the time to devote to high-minded thoughts of their great ideals and great energy to devote to their bright, new tomorrow. Just as Gates talks endlessly about what M$ is doing for today's children, and their future etc... A tourist could be fooled. But look at what that brave new world is built on, look at what lets these "great men" have all that spare time and energy: the shackles that bind their subjects to working not for their own good but for their masters'.
Who, in short, is working hardest to make the web work for everyone - M$ or W3C?
I'm with you but I know marketing people and the concept of spam is one they have a hard time with. Every time they suggest a mass emailing and I veto it (I'm IT director) it becomes clear in the ensuing conversation that spam==advertising to them. And who's against advertising?
Remember that marketing people have trouble understanding the net and the web (few know the distinction) and see it as a crude form of television, by-and-large.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there much in your constitution about computers?!
the Libertarian ideal of no government, he makes a very compelling arguement as to why it is absurd.
Well, that's anarchism, not libertarianism, and the reason that it doesn't work is some people will always bend the system to their advantage, and not give a damn about the rest of society, as Microsoft has. But that's true of any society, it just happens faster in anarchic systems.
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.
But what if M$ was working within a legal framework? What if they could arrest you for breaking the law? What are you getting at here?
a Jeffersonian agrarian society
Jefferson was writing in a slave society (I guess it wasn't that obvious that all men are born equal) which has very different rules from a normal agrarian society.
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)
Err... In what way was that a free society? In what way were black people protected from despots, like Jefferson, who bought and sold them at market. What possible relevence have such morally bankrupt people to issues such free software, other than as a reason to support it? Or perhaps you are trying to cast M$ as the slave owners and their code as the slaves? Actually, the analogy isn't bad.
They essentially write the physicals of our virtual universe.
This would be true if all programmers and writers of proposed standards agree. They do not. In the absence of such agreement rules tend to get written by the strong.
The issue facing all of us, not just on slashdot and not just within the computer industry, but everyone on the planet going into the 21st century is: Do we at least try to get those designs, standards, hardware and software built in a way which gives power to the people or do we repeat the same old mistakes of the last 10000 years and allow the "big men", the people with the money and the ear of governments, the back-handers, the sly-talkers, the un-elected, the powerful but un-responsible, to make the rules, the standards and the shrink-wrap licences that take your power away from you and give it to them?
Your example of Jefferson is actually very helpful here: with the powerful making the rules we do get a wonderful society of free men and women, with the time to devote to high-minded thoughts of their great ideals and great energy to devote to their bright, new tomorrow. Just as Gates talks endlessly about what M$ is doing for today's children, and their future etc... A tourist could be fooled. But look at what that brave new world is built on, look at what lets these "great men" have all that spare time and energy: the shackles that bind their subjects to working not for their own good but for their masters'.
Who, in short, is working hardest to make the web work for everyone - M$ or W3C?
TWW
Remember that marketing people have trouble understanding the net and the web (few know the distinction) and see it as a crude form of television, by-and-large.
TWW