No, as a thinking person, I refuse to accept file-format lock-in as coercion.
It's a simple cost-benefit analysis. Is the benefit of sticking with MS (interoperability with the majority of users, familiarity etc.) greater than the cost (regular expensive upgrades, lack of security, lack of real interop)? If so, then stick with MS. If not, change.
Where is the initiation of force (i.e. coercion) here? Yes, Microsoft tries to make it as inconvenient as possible to change, and as attractive as possible to stay, but at no stage do they force your hand. The choice is yours.
Oh, it's you, greerd! I didn't check the senders name. Why do you even bother at this point? We've discussed issues like this in the past, and unless I'm very much mistaken, failed to convince each other.
And anyway, don't you feel just a little hypocritical, arguing about coercion when you're (IIRC) a Marxist?
In brief - theft is bad because property rights are proper to mankinds existence as a rational being. For a more detailed explanation, visit http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Rig hts.html#RightToProperty.
I'm not simply spouting 'the party line' - I understand it, & welcome a rational discussion. Please don't start with an assumed ad-hominem attack:-)
Also, what do you mean when you say 'slated for repressive use'? If someone is initiating force or fraud against others, then yes, confiscation of their means to do so may be reasonable. I say 'may', because you'd have to prove it in court.
I assume however you extend that to cover monopolies etc. So, I ask you - when was the last time Microsoft intiated force against you to get you to buy one of their products? Given that they didn't, you have no right to demand the confiscation of any of their property.
Now, in the case of IP violation where MS knowingly ripped off a Stac patent - that should have involved a hefty fine against MS, and criminal charges against the person(s) who okayed the product even though it was in violation of Stacs patent. Of course, this didn't happen, and *that's* wrong.
Don't let your (possibly justified) hatred of Microsoft blind you to the underlying ethical issues.
I like the Montoya reference - that movie is one of my favourites:-) But you're wrong - use of force against citizens, esp. w.r.t. economic controls, is one of the major aspects of fascism (& socialism for that matter - they're just competing variants of the same system).
> By your logic, mandating that Air New Zealand > will follow a maintenance schedule (or that it > can't be purchased outright by, say, Singapore) > puts the government in league with Mussolini.
Yes. Lower on the scale, but definitely the same league.
> Perhaps the government has a compelling interest > in preventing monopolies from forming, and in > mandating open standards (NOT "open source," > which is a different animal) to promote a fair > and healthy capitalist marketplace?
No. Any such mandates (prevention of monopolies, enforcing standards) represents an initiation of force - and the only legitimate reason for Government is to protect a countrys citizens *against* initiation of force or fraud.
Furthermore, if you can't legally force MS, yourself, to use open standards, then neither can the Govt., because you can't delegate rights you don't have. The same applies to many other areas - if you don't have the right to prevent your neighbour growing & smoking pot, then you can't morally delegate that 'right' to Government, no matter how many people vote for it.
You do raise a valid point re. standards - they *are* needed.
Where standards (software, maintenance, etc.) are required, they can be provided by third parties. Thus, you would have companies providing safety accreditation for airlines, & software standards with certification for software companies.
No, airlines wouldn't have to be safety accredited by law. However, failure to do so might be a criminal act if it endangers people or property - and only an idiot would fly on such an airline. That is, however, the perogative of the idiot should he choose.
So a compulsory tax isn't initiation of force? How do you figure that? The fact that it's compulsory means that if MS doesn't pay it, someone comes and takes it by force of arms.
[Background - I use OSS myself - Linux, Apache, PHP, Quanta etc. both for leisure & work. My main source of income is as a.NET developer, using C#.]
I'm not opposed to Governments mandating the *internal*, i.e. Governmental, use of OSS, provided it's cheaper & more secure.
However, any proposal to force companies to adopt standards etc., is simple fascism. It's as bad as saying MS can't package whatever software it owns, in whatever way it wants. Oh wait, you've done that too, haven't you?
In NZ, we have a term for this type of behaviour - tall poppy syndrome.
Theft is immoral. Regardless of the identity of the victim, or the thief.
Compulsory taxation is theft. Therfore, compulsory taxation is immoral.
Taking money stolen by complusory taxation, & giving it back to the victims, is reparation, not theft. Therefore, the *original* (fictional?) Robin Hoods actions, in returning money stolen through compulsory taxation, is perfectly moral.
Well, specifically: the modern concept of Robin Hood is evil.
Supposedly, Robin Hood took money taken from the citizens in compulsory taxes, & returned it to the taxpayers. This is a perfectly moral act.
However, in modern parlance, Robin Hood 'stole from the rich, and gave to the poor'. This is immoral, & is no different to stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.
Well, I was hacking in a mix of BASIC and Z80 assembly language at the age of 10. I wouldn't write off 10 year olds being able to understand C, & getting GCC to compile an ANSI-C program really isn't that difficult.
It's disgusting isn't it? I'm heartily fed up with people who claim they were 'forced' to buy Microsoft products - I haven't seen any MS employees wandering around computer stores with assault rifles, threatening me with harm or death if I don't.
It's a simple cost-benefit analysis - if the value of using Microsoft products outweighs the value of not using Microsoft products, then people will use them. If not, they won't, and if they're immoral thieves, they'll use those products without permission.
Personally, I'd answer software pirates employing the 'force' defense in the same way I'd answer someone defending his theft of my motorcycle by claiming he was 'forced' into it by the retail price of bikes - jail the fucker, and give him a good kicking before the police arrive.
Thanks - it's worth a lot. Not that I need anyones vindication of my position, just that it's uplifting to know that there are other critical thinkers out there:-)
Excellent - lets hear it for less altruism! The more people who write quality Free software because they need it themselves, because they take pride in their own work, and because they want to profit from it, the better. Selfishness is the route to quality in all things, from life to Free software.
As long as you stay with us, you contribute to the common fund, which is used to secure the nation, maintain a free market by smoothing externalities and imprefections, and prevent anyone from falling too far badly behind the pack.
People living in dangerous neighbourhoods have the right to leave too. That doesn't make mugging someone in a dangerous neighbourhood any less wrong.
I'm sorry for the ad hominem attacks, but I find your lack of sympathy for and engagement with the rest of the human race genuinely unsettling and distasteful.
Eh? Say what? I'm not the one arguing that the human species is so stupid and evil that it'd destroy itself rather than pay a small voluntary donation to fund core government!
Oh and one last thing, you still haven't answered me, without compulsory taxation how is the governement going to pay for even the 'core' services?
Through voluntary taxation, I thought I'd explained that. Do you realise how little money is needed to run a country, relative to how much money is taken in compulsory tax each year?
I assumed you were an American since I've never met a New Zealander as stupidly Randian as you.
Sarcasm it was then. For the umpteenth time, Rand was opposed to Libertarianism, calling Libertarians 'hippies of the right'. How many more times?... Sorry to vent, it's just that everyone makes that mistake. FYI also, Objectivists != Randists. Big mistake there too, some of us (unlike the ARI) actually dare to disagree with some of Rands opinions, e.g. those on homosexuality.
because a working majority of your peers seem to support reasonable taxation to prevent the poor from starving to death and to heal the sick.
And those who oppose theft, support the idea of voluntary charities doing it. Tell me, if compulsorily funded social welfare is so great, why do we have missions, Salvation Armies, food banks etc.? Hmmmmm?
Reasoned discussion? How can you compare the policies of Pauline Hanson (anti-immigration racist nut, for those interested) with the policies of a party whose immigration policy is specifically 'let everyone in'?
I must admit though, you're right about the lack of comparison between public-sector teachers and rugby coaches. The latter are generally far more successful, and are held directly accountable for their results by people who care.
[FYI: the point behind that policy is that in a society without theft-funded social welfare, the issue of 'bludging immigrants' doesn't arise]
Hmmmm - I'm not sure if you meant that as sarcasm or not, it's difficult to read such things through a weblog.
Either way, I'm a New Zealander, not an American. We're not as fortunate as you, in that we actually have no Constitution to protect us from our Government.
But I'm not taking your labour from you by force - I'm paying for it. Likewise, I'm not expecting a defense force to mysteriously appear and defend the land on which I live - I'm paying for it. Under my system, however, I do both voluntarily, and under yours, I'm forced to. That's the only difference. It's interesting that you assume a government has the right to allow or disallow trade with another country. You're wrong about that too, for the same reasons.
It's also worth mentioning that Rand didn't agree with Libertarian politics - I believe she called them 'hippies of the right'. Thus, any Libertarian country would by definition not be 'Randian'.
But then, I'm probably wasting my breath discussing this with you, because you've resorted to ad-hominem attacks (e.g. 'shit-tastic Randian wonderland').
Don't get me started on the phony-paper-money argument. There's a reason the party I support (the Libertarianz - see http://www.libz.org/) is seeking to remove the Governments license to print money.
I'm suggesting the government shouldn't be providing the 'services' it does - just defence (not prosecuting wars in foreign countries, e.g. Iraq), police and core government (foreign and local policy, and justice). Everything else can and should be provded for privately.
Slashdot Mirror
No, as a thinking person, I refuse to accept file-format lock-in as coercion.
It's a simple cost-benefit analysis. Is the benefit of sticking with MS (interoperability with the majority of users, familiarity etc.) greater than the cost (regular expensive upgrades, lack of security, lack of real interop)? If so, then stick with MS. If not, change.
Where is the initiation of force (i.e. coercion) here? Yes, Microsoft tries to make it as inconvenient as possible to change, and as attractive as possible to stay, but at no stage do they force your hand. The choice is yours.
Oh, it's you, greerd! I didn't check the senders name. Why do you even bother at this point? We've discussed issues like this in the past, and unless I'm very much mistaken, failed to convince each other.
And anyway, don't you feel just a little hypocritical, arguing about coercion when you're (IIRC) a Marxist?
In brief - theft is bad because property rights are proper to mankinds existence as a rational being. For a more detailed explanation, visit http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Rig hts.html#RightToProperty.
:-)
I'm not simply spouting 'the party line' - I understand it, & welcome a rational discussion. Please don't start with an assumed ad-hominem attack
Also, what do you mean when you say 'slated for repressive use'? If someone is initiating force or fraud against others, then yes, confiscation of their means to do so may be reasonable. I say 'may', because you'd have to prove it in court.
I assume however you extend that to cover monopolies etc. So, I ask you - when was the last time Microsoft intiated force against you to get you to buy one of their products? Given that they didn't, you have no right to demand the confiscation of any of their property.
Now, in the case of IP violation where MS knowingly ripped off a Stac patent - that should have involved a hefty fine against MS, and criminal charges against the person(s) who okayed the product even though it was in violation of Stacs patent. Of course, this didn't happen, and *that's* wrong.
Don't let your (possibly justified) hatred of Microsoft blind you to the underlying ethical issues.
I like the Montoya reference - that movie is one of my favourites :-) But you're wrong - use of force against citizens, esp. w.r.t. economic controls, is one of the major aspects of fascism (& socialism for that matter - they're just competing variants of the same system).
> By your logic, mandating that Air New Zealand
> will follow a maintenance schedule (or that it
> can't be purchased outright by, say, Singapore)
> puts the government in league with Mussolini.
Yes. Lower on the scale, but definitely the same league.
> Perhaps the government has a compelling interest
> in preventing monopolies from forming, and in
> mandating open standards (NOT "open source,"
> which is a different animal) to promote a fair
> and healthy capitalist marketplace?
No. Any such mandates (prevention of monopolies, enforcing standards) represents an initiation of force - and the only legitimate reason for Government is to protect a countrys citizens *against* initiation of force or fraud.
Furthermore, if you can't legally force MS, yourself, to use open standards, then neither can the Govt., because you can't delegate rights you don't have. The same applies to many other areas - if you don't have the right to prevent your neighbour growing & smoking pot, then you can't morally delegate that 'right' to Government, no matter how many people vote for it.
You do raise a valid point re. standards - they *are* needed.
Where standards (software, maintenance, etc.) are required, they can be provided by third parties. Thus, you would have companies providing safety accreditation for airlines, & software standards with certification for software companies.
No, airlines wouldn't have to be safety accredited by law. However, failure to do so might be a criminal act if it endangers people or property - and only an idiot would fly on such an airline. That is, however, the perogative of the idiot should he choose.
So a compulsory tax isn't initiation of force? How do you figure that? The fact that it's compulsory means that if MS doesn't pay it, someone comes and takes it by force of arms.
Yes, it would *force* Microsoft to adopt open standards - which is why it's wrong, because it's an initiation of force.
[Background - I use OSS myself - Linux, Apache, PHP, Quanta etc. both for leisure & work. My main source of income is as a .NET developer, using C#.]
I'm not opposed to Governments mandating the *internal*, i.e. Governmental, use of OSS, provided it's cheaper & more secure.
However, any proposal to force companies to adopt standards etc., is simple fascism. It's as bad as saying MS can't package whatever software it owns, in whatever way it wants. Oh wait, you've done that too, haven't you?
In NZ, we have a term for this type of behaviour - tall poppy syndrome.
Theft is immoral. Regardless of the identity of the victim, or the thief.
Compulsory taxation is theft. Therfore, compulsory taxation is immoral.
Taking money stolen by complusory taxation, & giving it back to the victims, is reparation, not theft. Therefore, the *original* (fictional?) Robin Hoods actions, in returning money stolen through compulsory taxation, is perfectly moral.
I'm sorry I wasn't sufficiently clear in my OP.
Run by me again how philosphy (specifically with respect to property rights & capitalism) is off-topic when discussing Microsoft platform evangelism?
Well, specifically: the modern concept of Robin Hood is evil.
Supposedly, Robin Hood took money taken from the citizens in compulsory taxes, & returned it to the taxpayers. This is a perfectly moral act.
However, in modern parlance, Robin Hood 'stole from the rich, and gave to the poor'. This is immoral, & is no different to stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.
Well, I was hacking in a mix of BASIC and Z80 assembly language at the age of 10. I wouldn't write off 10 year olds being able to understand C, & getting GCC to compile an ANSI-C program really isn't that difficult.
I mean, how hard is 'gcc foo.c -o foo' ???
It's disgusting isn't it? I'm heartily fed up with people who claim they were 'forced' to buy Microsoft products - I haven't seen any MS employees wandering around computer stores with assault rifles, threatening me with harm or death if I don't.
It's a simple cost-benefit analysis - if the value of using Microsoft products outweighs the value of not using Microsoft products, then people will use them. If not, they won't, and if they're immoral thieves, they'll use those products without permission.
Personally, I'd answer software pirates employing the 'force' defense in the same way I'd answer someone defending his theft of my motorcycle by claiming he was 'forced' into it by the retail price of bikes - jail the fucker, and give him a good kicking before the police arrive.
Why don't you patent the idea? :-P
Condoning war crimes is illegal? It seems Mr. Orwell was only out by 9 years :-(
Thanks - it's worth a lot. Not that I need anyones vindication of my position, just that it's uplifting to know that there are other critical thinkers out there :-)
And once again, I'm reminded that the /. crowd consider (Troll == UnpopularOpinion).
Excellent - lets hear it for less altruism! The more people who write quality Free software because they need it themselves, because they take pride in their own work, and because they want to profit from it, the better. Selfishness is the route to quality in all things, from life to Free software.
People living in dangerous neighbourhoods have the right to leave too. That doesn't make mugging someone in a dangerous neighbourhood any less wrong.
Eh? Say what? I'm not the one arguing that the human species is so stupid and evil that it'd destroy itself rather than pay a small voluntary donation to fund core government!
Through voluntary taxation, I thought I'd explained that. Do you realise how little money is needed to run a country, relative to how much money is taken in compulsory tax each year?
Reasoned discussion? How can you compare the policies of Pauline Hanson (anti-immigration racist nut, for those interested) with the policies of a party whose immigration policy is specifically 'let everyone in'?
I must admit though, you're right about the lack of comparison between public-sector teachers and rugby coaches. The latter are generally far more successful, and are held directly accountable for their results by people who care.
[FYI: the point behind that policy is that in a society without theft-funded social welfare, the issue of 'bludging immigrants' doesn't arise]
Hmmmm - I'm not sure if you meant that as sarcasm or not, it's difficult to read such things through a weblog.
Either way, I'm a New Zealander, not an American. We're not as fortunate as you, in that we actually have no Constitution to protect us from our Government.
But I'm not taking your labour from you by force - I'm paying for it. Likewise, I'm not expecting a defense force to mysteriously appear and defend the land on which I live - I'm paying for it. Under my system, however, I do both voluntarily, and under yours, I'm forced to. That's the only difference. It's interesting that you assume a government has the right to allow or disallow trade with another country. You're wrong about that too, for the same reasons.
It's also worth mentioning that Rand didn't agree with Libertarian politics - I believe she called them 'hippies of the right'. Thus, any Libertarian country would by definition not be 'Randian'.
But then, I'm probably wasting my breath discussing this with you, because you've resorted to ad-hominem attacks (e.g. 'shit-tastic Randian wonderland').
I never said I was - just without compulsory taxation.
Don't get me started on the phony-paper-money argument. There's a reason the party I support (the Libertarianz - see http://www.libz.org/) is seeking to remove the Governments license to print money.
I'm suggesting the government shouldn't be providing the 'services' it does - just defence (not prosecuting wars in foreign countries, e.g. Iraq), police and core government (foreign and local policy, and justice). Everything else can and should be provded for privately.