BTW I do not agree with the argument that government should be allowed to use proprietary software. I believe the best tool for the job should be used. The argument I am in agreement with is that government operates by a fundamentally different "business model" than the private sector, and should always be treated as such.
Does the public have a RIGHT to know the government's network infrastructure? Does the public have a RIGHT to know what data is on every civil servant's hard drive?
Yes, I believe they do. At least that's how democracy is supposed to work: Government is 100% accountable to the people, and those who choose to work for government need to be aware of this. Otherwise, they should not work for government.
A secretive government is an opressive government.
My only concern is that you forgot to define those rules (well, rule). The rule is that government operates by coercion, always and by definition. At the root of all government programs is the barrel of a gun. This is the single most critical fact to understand when talking politics. The private sector does business through voluntary exchange; otherwise they have committed a crime and are prosecuted accordingly. Government is the exact opposite. Government does business by force.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mozilla is currently the most standards-compliant browser in existence. Hence, there is really no such practice as "coding for Mozilla" -- you are simply "coding for portability".
Innocent people end up in jail all the time, should we stop locking up people for them?
The only solution is to reduce the number of offenses that you can be arrested for. Your chance of being locked up for a crime you didn't commit (or a crime you did commit, but don't consider a crime) is directly affected by the size of government. The US government is currently (a) the most expensive government in the world, and (b) the one that has the highest ratio of inmates/population. I seriously doubt this is a conincidence.
So, industry self-regulation? Well that doesn't seem to work - and it didn't work with Enron (or WoldCom or Andersen
We already have laws in place that are quite capable of both preventing and punishing corporate fraud. Moreover, the market is more competent at performing both functions than government could ever be. The government is (once again) blowing things out of proportion in an attempt to gain support for more expensive and more powerful government. And (once again) the vast majority of citizens are buying their propaganda without even questioning it. Read this and you will reconsider your opinion:
Perhaps you would be interested to know that the biggest corporate accounting scandal of all is the US federal government. While Enron et all misappropriated revenue by the billions, our federal government does it by the trillions. Can you smell the smokescreen now?
On a more philosophical note - I wouldn't mind living in a world without copyright or patent laws. Neither of them protects my rights to be free from violence or fraud.
Precisely. Only under an artificial set of rules (not part of human nature) does the concept of IP apply. The question is whether IP does more to promote innovation and art, or more to stifle it. Personally I think that IP does much more harm than good, especially patent law.
It doesn't surprise me that he offers government as the solution. People who work in government are just like people who work in the private sector: they aim to better their lives by earning more money and/or acquiring more responsibility in their career (including power over other individuals). It certainly wouldn't hurt this guy's career for government to expand in his direction. After all, he is the official government "Computer Security Advisor"!
Of course, when the private sector behaves accordingly (normal human behavior to be sure), it does not impose on civil/human rights as government does with every and any expansion. That would be illegal!
How about the fact that many innocent lives had to be sacrificed in order to achieve Empire status (this is true of any empire)? You may also be surprised to know that the USA represents the largest and most powerful empire since the Romans.
You basically are saying that in order to be a good service/product it has to have the incentive of making a hefty profit.
Hard cash isn't the only incentive that human beings respond to. What you haven't considered is that open source programmers work out of incentive too -- incentive to learn, incentive to acquire skills that can be put on a resume, incentive to make a name for themselves in the programming community, or incentive to simply enjoy themselves in their spare time. The programmers' time and effort is valuable, and therefore they must invest wisely in order to obtain the profit (in whatever form it takes). In the socialist solution, there simply is no profit incentive, because the market is forced into a solution, and not convinced through voluntary means. Look at Amtrak: if Amtrak was a private enterprise, it would have failed a long time ago because of its failure to turn a profit (which, again, is measured in more ways than just hard cash). Since Amtrak is a forced solution, instead of reflecting the true state of the market (and failing as a solution) it is rewarded with more tax funding which only worsens the problem.
Now, a defining characteristic of a market solution is voluntary association. Open source programming is a perfect example of voluntary association. For this reason, open source programming is in fact a free market solution, and is 100% compatible with free market economics. A government solution (for example the postal service) represents the exact opposite: an involuntary, coercive solution, which is decidedly incompatible with free market economics. The program's existence simply does not depend on its ability to reflect the state of the market. On the contrary -- it's existence depends on the government's ability to collect and disperse revenue through coercion. Hence, socialist solutions almost always represent a net loss. The investment, measured in civil rights (particularly the right to maintain control over your assets and earnings), simply does not justify the outcome.
If I only had a nickel for every time I had to explain why coercion is poor economic policy...;)
The founders were some of the most recognized Libertarian thinkers in history (back then it was called "liberal") but they were not perfectly consistent in their philosophy. The postal service is one example. Slavery, which is probably the single biggest mistake ever made by the USA, was tolerated and even endorsed by authority. Strange for a government which proposed, as it's foremost responsibility, to protect against coercion.
If you read the links I posted you will see that there is simply no good reason to keep the postal service around, and many reasons to eliminate it. The postal service is a drain on the economy, and the costs (measured in civil rights) don't even begin to justify its existence.
The post office is nothing but another example of failed socialism, and should be phased out and replaced with market solutions which offer an incentive to deliver (pardon the pun;). The answer is to allow the market to supply the demand by voluntary means, instead of by coercion (the tool of government).
Playing Music
on
Gaming Zone?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The "zone" is applicable to playing music as well. I think there are plenty of musicians who would testify to this. I play the drums and I have experienced it before (at least I'd like to think so).
Government is the root of this problem. Only government holds the power to legally initiate force. Accordingly, only government can authorize a legal initiation of force. If you recognize the fact that government holds a monopoly on the initiation of force, the bottom line is quite apparent.
It proves that in an unregulated market, monopolists can emerge that can't be dislodged by any competing firm.
The problem is that our market is hardly "unregulated". On the contrary, the U.S. market is very heavily regulated. As it was pointed out, government takes nearly 50% of the average individual's earnings per year. This is hardly what I would consider "free market economics", which is defined by the *voluntary* transfer of assets.
I suspect the BSA is run by rampant free market ideologues.... they would probably say... while open source may not be illegal, maybe it should be.
As a "rampant free market ideologue" (Libertarian), I will be the first to point out that you have confused the meaning of free-market economics (i.e. capitalism), which implies the absence of government interference (coercion) in the market, with a hypothetical regulation, imposed through coercion, which happens to favor one particular group over another. Capitalism does not necessarily imply profit but only the absence of coercion in the market. Free market economics is grounded in voluntary cooperation, not coercion (which is the definining prerequisite of any government). Hence, open source software falls squarely into the category of free-market enterprise, and in fact, to a greater degree than any software vendor which relies on patent law to sustain a business model. (Patent law, you may be surprised to know, is contrary to the true principles of free market economics, because it is derived from coercion.)
Then I figured out the painless way to install debian: go through the installation and install the bare minimum that you absolutely need (this means no X!). Then once you've got that running, which is quick and easy, use apt for everything else you use. This has the side benefit that there's no wasted space on your drive.
Yes! That is the way to do it. dselect is not required for anything. Bypass it (in favor of apt) and your life will be much easier. If you're a current Debian user, it's even better: just run "dpkg --get-selections | awk '{ print $1 }' >package.list" to save your current list of packages. Then on the new system, "apt-get install $(cat package.list)" to have [most] of your previous software installed automatically. (There will be some hangups. Use the "--no-act" option and edit your package list accordingly. This is no big deal.)
Slashdot Mirror
BTW I do not agree with the argument that government should be allowed to use proprietary software. I believe the best tool for the job should be used. The argument I am in agreement with is that government operates by a fundamentally different "business model" than the private sector, and should always be treated as such.
Yes, I believe they do. At least that's how democracy is supposed to work: Government is 100% accountable to the people, and those who choose to work for government need to be aware of this. Otherwise, they should not work for government.
A secretive government is an opressive government.
Governments play by different rules.
My only concern is that you forgot to define those rules (well, rule). The rule is that government operates by coercion, always and by definition. At the root of all government programs is the barrel of a gun. This is the single most critical fact to understand when talking politics. The private sector does business through voluntary exchange; otherwise they have committed a crime and are prosecuted accordingly. Government is the exact opposite. Government does business by force.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mozilla is currently the most standards-compliant browser in existence. Hence, there is really no such practice as "coding for Mozilla" -- you are simply "coding for portability".
Innocent people end up in jail all the time, should we stop locking up people for them?
The only solution is to reduce the number of offenses that you can be arrested for. Your chance of being locked up for a crime you didn't commit (or a crime you did commit, but don't consider a crime) is directly affected by the size of government. The US government is currently (a) the most expensive government in the world, and (b) the one that has the highest ratio of inmates/population. I seriously doubt this is a conincidence.
We already have laws in place that are quite capable of both preventing and punishing corporate fraud. Moreover, the market is more competent at performing both functions than government could ever be. The government is (once again) blowing things out of proportion in an attempt to gain support for more expensive and more powerful government. And (once again) the vast majority of citizens are buying their propaganda without even questioning it. Read this and you will reconsider your opinion:
Link
Perhaps you would be interested to know that the biggest corporate accounting scandal of all is the US federal government. While Enron et all misappropriated revenue by the billions, our federal government does it by the trillions. Can you smell the smokescreen now?
Precisely. Only under an artificial set of rules (not part of human nature) does the concept of IP apply. The question is whether IP does more to promote innovation and art, or more to stifle it. Personally I think that IP does much more harm than good, especially patent law.
("Radical" group of political nerds who value individual liberty, for those who didn't know.)
It doesn't surprise me that he offers government as the solution. People who work in government are just like people who work in the private sector: they aim to better their lives by earning more money and/or acquiring more responsibility in their career (including power over other individuals). It certainly wouldn't hurt this guy's career for government to expand in his direction. After all, he is the official government "Computer Security Advisor"!
Of course, when the private sector behaves accordingly (normal human behavior to be sure), it does not impose on civil/human rights as government does with every and any expansion. That would be illegal!
How about the fact that many innocent lives had to be sacrificed in order to achieve Empire status (this is true of any empire)? You may also be surprised to know that the USA represents the largest and most powerful empire since the Romans.
Hard cash isn't the only incentive that human beings respond to. What you haven't considered is that open source programmers work out of incentive too -- incentive to learn, incentive to acquire skills that can be put on a resume, incentive to make a name for themselves in the programming community, or incentive to simply enjoy themselves in their spare time. The programmers' time and effort is valuable, and therefore they must invest wisely in order to obtain the profit (in whatever form it takes). In the socialist solution, there simply is no profit incentive, because the market is forced into a solution, and not convinced through voluntary means. Look at Amtrak: if Amtrak was a private enterprise, it would have failed a long time ago because of its failure to turn a profit (which, again, is measured in more ways than just hard cash). Since Amtrak is a forced solution, instead of reflecting the true state of the market (and failing as a solution) it is rewarded with more tax funding which only worsens the problem.
Now, a defining characteristic of a market solution is voluntary association. Open source programming is a perfect example of voluntary association. For this reason, open source programming is in fact a free market solution, and is 100% compatible with free market economics. A government solution (for example the postal service) represents the exact opposite: an involuntary, coercive solution, which is decidedly incompatible with free market economics. The program's existence simply does not depend on its ability to reflect the state of the market. On the contrary -- it's existence depends on the government's ability to collect and disperse revenue through coercion. Hence, socialist solutions almost always represent a net loss. The investment, measured in civil rights (particularly the right to maintain control over your assets and earnings), simply does not justify the outcome.
If I only had a nickel for every time I had to explain why coercion is poor economic policy... ;)
The founders were some of the most recognized Libertarian thinkers in history (back then it was called "liberal") but they were not perfectly consistent in their philosophy. The postal service is one example. Slavery, which is probably the single biggest mistake ever made by the USA, was tolerated and even endorsed by authority. Strange for a government which proposed, as it's foremost responsibility, to protect against coercion.
If you read the links I posted you will see that there is simply no good reason to keep the postal service around, and many reasons to eliminate it. The postal service is a drain on the economy, and the costs (measured in civil rights) don't even begin to justify its existence.
Here is one argument that addresses the costs of sustaining the post office monopoly. Also see this one.
The post office is nothing but another example of failed socialism, and should be phased out and replaced with market solutions which offer an incentive to deliver (pardon the pun ;). The answer is to allow the market to supply the demand by voluntary means, instead of by coercion (the tool of government).
The "zone" is applicable to playing music as well. I think there are plenty of musicians who would testify to this. I play the drums and I have experienced it before (at least I'd like to think so).
Government is the root of this problem. Only government holds the power to legally initiate force. Accordingly, only government can authorize a legal initiation of force. If you recognize the fact that government holds a monopoly on the initiation of force, the bottom line is quite apparent.
The problem is that our market is hardly "unregulated". On the contrary, the U.S. market is very heavily regulated. As it was pointed out, government takes nearly 50% of the average individual's earnings per year. This is hardly what I would consider "free market economics", which is defined by the *voluntary* transfer of assets.
Okay, but I am talking about capitalism of the laissez-faire variety, which is based on individual rights. Do a search for "capitalism" on Google...
That was me. Forgot to login.
As a "rampant free market ideologue" (Libertarian), I will be the first to point out that you have confused the meaning of free-market economics (i.e. capitalism), which implies the absence of government interference (coercion) in the market, with a hypothetical regulation, imposed through coercion, which happens to favor one particular group over another. Capitalism does not necessarily imply profit but only the absence of coercion in the market. Free market economics is grounded in voluntary cooperation, not coercion (which is the definining prerequisite of any government). Hence, open source software falls squarely into the category of free-market enterprise, and in fact, to a greater degree than any software vendor which relies on patent law to sustain a business model. (Patent law, you may be surprised to know, is contrary to the true principles of free market economics, because it is derived from coercion.)
See free-market.net if you are interested...
Yes! That is the way to do it. dselect is not required for anything. Bypass it (in favor of apt) and your life will be much easier. If you're a current Debian user, it's even better: just run "dpkg --get-selections | awk '{ print $1 }' >package.list" to save your current list of packages. Then on the new system, "apt-get install $(cat package.list)" to have [most] of your previous software installed automatically. (There will be some hangups. Use the "--no-act" option and edit your package list accordingly. This is no big deal.)