Open Source Programmers write code because the creative act gets them high. Speaking as a man whose worked in several mediums, that's the invariable reason in all creative acts. The "love of that goal down the road" is no sustenance. Simple. (In "high" read "esthetically satisfying", "morally satisfying", um... HIGH).
1. Because government is not benign. Government's goal is to remain in power, and will use property it siezes by force from its citizens to further that goal.
I hear you. I think that a more majority-representative system might be successfully devised however. Consider a democracy where the only system of representation would be via dynamically-assignable-to-the-moment (or thereabouts)proxy voting. No official-machinery-composed of officials at all (maybe contracters).
2. Because government is not efficient. If it is the sole provider of these services, it becomes a monopoly with no reason to be good at any of them.
Likewise I think that this aspect might be overcome with the right system. I think the fact that a centralized focus of power is to blame. A perfectly distributed system of government could avoid turning into a parasitical energy-sink which seeks to blow maximum-smoke up it's own ass. A centralized govermment can only evolve into a maximized parasite which unaboidably strangles itself, brain-first. If a robust perfectly-distributed power structure could be devised, more robust than any inevitable power sub-blocs; like a body resists infectious cultures- that would do it.
3. Because socialism removes an individual's incentive to achieve. If a person works hard to attain goals, and sees the result of his/her effort given to someone who has not earned it, what reason is there to work hard in the first place?
I see your point but I think that an efficient system would make the support of the couch-potatos a trivial task, make much labor that is necessary now, unnecessary. And besides, I don't know what your experience with "artistic labor" is but it's the great "unwork". Great thinkers/artists/inventors, argueable the most productive citizens in any society, do it for fun (Thomas Edison notwithstanding, and one might argue that he just dug the businessman game alot). A good "socialist" system would free millions of repressed creative types, that is, everyone, to grow and excel. Look at the tragedy of the open-source programmer, too mindfucked after a day of writing shit code for some shit corporation to write something beautiful.
4. Forced egalitarianism means that innovation is stifled.
I'm not understanding here. You saying that without the attraction of being "one of the wealthy guys" people will cease to create? Surely not!
5. Because making people dependent on government is not helping them.
Dependent like we are on air and gravity? Really, I don't think it would be a problem. I don't think that our culture needs to maintain a red-in-tooth-and-claw contest to evolve or for people to be happy.
I think the "Nanny State" is a wonderful idea. Unfortunately that would be like asking a hog farmer to simply take excellent care of his hogs and refrain from rendering them into porkchops.
Isn't a government supposed to be simply "the people", organized? What's wrong with organization on a large, population-wide, scale? Lots of things work really efficiently that way. Roads, communications structure, energy production... No reason we couldn't extend that to education, healthcare and food. Done efficiently, it'd be *trivial*. WHY NOT have our material needs taken care of by a benign system? I for one have better things to put my attention on than making the rent.
You call it "corrupt govenment", they call it "efficient resource management". Of course the cattle are lied to. Feed the cows pretty dreams while they're starved and milked. Feed them more pretty dreams while they're led to the slaughter house. Pretty dreams make for cheap cattle feed. Next comes soylent green.
Is it just me or do these assertions of "moral outrage" get old? You geeks are a bunch of babbling old ladies.
I see stories like this every day. Is anyone here shocked anymore? I
mean seriously, Look what's going on here. We're cattle. We're being exploited and the farmer's are squeezing
harder every day.
You think we're getting
screwed by the powers that be, check out your brothers in the
third-world. How would you like to be diseased, uneducated and starving
and every time you try to get your shit together the CIA and US Army
come over and kick your ass back into the stone age?
If you're like me you're one of the top-slaves. You're a well-educated
milk-cow and generate prime product for your masters. You've probably
grown accustomed to the 9 inches of abrasive corporate schlong in your
ass and your discomfort is only occasional. Working all week, giving a
third or more of what you make to the government and suffering so many
rules that you've lost count is tolerable.
I call it ugly as hell!
The present system is a consortium of tumors victimizing the
less-consolidated cells. If us peace-loving citizen cells could get
organized the tumors wouldn't stand a chance.
I think that the best way to go about it would be simply to seceed from
the system en-masse. Organize via email, name a day and, on that chosen
day, everyone involved would stop engaging in commerce with the tumors.
Switch to an alternate system. It'd be a bloodless revolution.
The new system? I'd choose something non-centralized and simple: An
officialless direct-democracy (everyone votes on everything) with
proxy-voting. Or something like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Yoga guys (Patanjali for one) say that our 5 senses are 5 interpretations of a single ubersense. Interesting stuff there.
Open Source Programmers write code because the creative act gets them high. Speaking as a man whose worked in several mediums, that's the invariable reason in all creative acts. The "love of that goal down the road" is no sustenance. Simple. (In "high" read "esthetically satisfying", "morally satisfying", um... HIGH).
Cool, straight answers. I'll bite.
1. Because government is not benign. Government's goal is to remain in power, and will use property it siezes by force from its citizens to further that goal.
I hear you. I think that a more majority-representative system might be successfully devised however. Consider a democracy where the only system of representation would be via dynamically-assignable-to-the-moment (or thereabouts)proxy voting. No official-machinery-composed of officials at all (maybe contracters).
2. Because government is not efficient. If it is the sole provider of these services, it becomes a monopoly with no reason to be good at any of them.
Likewise I think that this aspect might be overcome with the right system. I think the fact that a centralized focus of power is to blame. A perfectly distributed system of government could avoid turning into a parasitical energy-sink which seeks to blow maximum-smoke up it's own ass. A centralized govermment can only evolve into a maximized parasite which unaboidably strangles itself, brain-first. If a robust perfectly-distributed power structure could be devised, more robust than any inevitable power sub-blocs; like a body resists infectious cultures- that would do it.
3. Because socialism removes an individual's incentive to achieve. If a person works hard to attain goals, and sees the result of his/her effort given to someone who has not earned it, what reason is there to work hard in the first place?
I see your point but I think that an efficient system would make the support of the couch-potatos a trivial task, make much labor that is necessary now, unnecessary. And besides, I don't know what your experience with "artistic labor" is but it's the great "unwork". Great thinkers/artists/inventors, argueable the most productive citizens in any society, do it for fun (Thomas Edison notwithstanding, and one might argue that he just dug the businessman game alot). A good "socialist" system would free millions of repressed creative types, that is, everyone, to grow and excel. Look at the tragedy of the open-source programmer, too mindfucked after a day of writing shit code for some shit corporation to write something beautiful.
4. Forced egalitarianism means that innovation is stifled.
I'm not understanding here. You saying that without the attraction of being "one of the wealthy guys" people will cease to create? Surely not!
5. Because making people dependent on government is not helping them.
Dependent like we are on air and gravity? Really, I don't think it would be a problem. I don't think that our culture needs to maintain a red-in-tooth-and-claw contest to evolve or for people to be happy.
I think the "Nanny State" is a wonderful idea. Unfortunately that would be like asking a hog farmer to simply take excellent care of his hogs and refrain from rendering them into porkchops. Isn't a government supposed to be simply "the people", organized? What's wrong with organization on a large, population-wide, scale? Lots of things work really efficiently that way. Roads, communications structure, energy production... No reason we couldn't extend that to education, healthcare and food. Done efficiently, it'd be *trivial*. WHY NOT have our material needs taken care of by a benign system? I for one have better things to put my attention on than making the rent.
Look at what kind of replies are getting modded down here. Has slashdot gotten really conservative all of a sudden?
You call it "corrupt govenment", they call it "efficient resource management". Of course the cattle are lied to. Feed the cows pretty dreams while they're starved and milked. Feed them more pretty dreams while they're led to the slaughter house. Pretty dreams make for cheap cattle feed. Next comes soylent green. Is it just me or do these assertions of "moral outrage" get old? You geeks are a bunch of babbling old ladies.
I see stories like this every day. Is anyone here shocked anymore? I mean seriously, Look what's going on here. We're cattle. We're being exploited and the farmer's are squeezing harder every day.
You think we're getting screwed by the powers that be, check out your brothers in the third-world. How would you like to be diseased, uneducated and starving and every time you try to get your shit together the CIA and US Army come over and kick your ass back into the stone age?
If you're like me you're one of the top-slaves. You're a well-educated milk-cow and generate prime product for your masters. You've probably grown accustomed to the 9 inches of abrasive corporate schlong in your ass and your discomfort is only occasional. Working all week, giving a third or more of what you make to the government and suffering so many rules that you've lost count is tolerable.
I call it ugly as hell!
The present system is a consortium of tumors victimizing the less-consolidated cells. If us peace-loving citizen cells could get organized the tumors wouldn't stand a chance.
I think that the best way to go about it would be simply to seceed from the system en-masse. Organize via email, name a day and, on that chosen day, everyone involved would stop engaging in commerce with the tumors. Switch to an alternate system. It'd be a bloodless revolution.
The new system? I'd choose something non-centralized and simple: An officialless direct-democracy (everyone votes on everything) with proxy-voting. Or something like that.