Beating capitalism? I think not. Capitalism allows these types of things. Self-interest is not to be equated to purely financial growth and especially not selfishness.
"Economics has been berated for allegedly drawing far-reaching conclusions from a wholly unrealistic "economic man" who is little more than a calculating machine, responding only to monetary stimuli. That is a great mistake. Self-interest is not myopic selfishness. It is whatever it is that interests the participants, whatever they value, whatever goals they pursue. The scientists seeking to advance the frontiers of his discipline, the missionary seeking to convert infidels to the true faith, the philanthropist seeking to bring comfort to the needy -- all are pursuing their interests, as they seem them, as they judge them by their own values."
-- Milton Friedman, "Free to Choose," Chapter 1
It is in some peoples self-interest to develop free software. It is in some companies self-interest to contribute to free software. It is in some companies self-interest financially or for other reasons, to use free software.
The use of free software that does not arise by voluntary exchange (using whatever the individuals value systems) is the time that capitalism is beat.
I think the thing that disturbs me most is the uncertainty coming from the experts in the legal system. If the interpreters of the law cannot agree, how am I expected, as a citizen, to read the law and judge what actions are and are not legal so that I can fulfill the intent of a just law? How can I be held accountable for a law that I do not know how to live because no one can agree on what it even means?
Are there not basic principles of which a law is support to fulfill. Two that I can remember off the top of my head include: The people being aware; Ex repo facto (which as I interpet it, the copyright extensions violate).
Slashdot Mirror
Beating capitalism? I think not. Capitalism allows these types of things. Self-interest is not to be equated to purely financial growth and especially not selfishness.
"Economics has been berated for allegedly drawing far-reaching conclusions from a wholly unrealistic "economic man" who is little more than a calculating machine, responding only to monetary stimuli. That is a great mistake. Self-interest is not myopic selfishness. It is whatever it is that interests the participants, whatever they value, whatever goals they pursue. The scientists seeking to advance the frontiers of his discipline, the missionary seeking to convert infidels to the true faith, the philanthropist seeking to bring comfort to the needy -- all are pursuing their interests, as they seem them, as they judge them by their own values."
-- Milton Friedman, "Free to Choose," Chapter 1
It is in some peoples self-interest to develop free software. It is in some companies self-interest to contribute to free software. It is in some companies self-interest financially or for other reasons, to use free software.
The use of free software that does not arise by voluntary exchange (using whatever the individuals value systems) is the time that capitalism is beat.
I think the thing that disturbs me most is the uncertainty coming from the experts in the legal system. If the interpreters of the law cannot agree, how am I expected, as a citizen, to read the law and judge what actions are and are not legal so that I can fulfill the intent of a just law? How can I be held accountable for a law that I do not know how to live because no one can agree on what it even means?
Are there not basic principles of which a law is support to fulfill. Two that I can remember off the top of my head include: The people being aware; Ex repo facto (which as I interpet it, the copyright extensions violate).