Once you accept that taking care of our most needy citizens, as covered under 'promote the general welfare' in the prologue of the constitution, is a legitimate public function
I think that most traditionalist libertarians (even minarchists) wouldn't really agree with you on this.
I do, but precisely because this isn't exactly a common trait in mainstream libertarianism, I self-identify as "left libertarian". Basically, in agreement with the basic notion that government should only be as big as it needs to be and no bigger, and should be carefully bounded to prevent power abuse, but in disagreement on what constitutes "as big as it needs to be".
This whole "seizing the means of production" thing was supposed to be a recipe for getting to communism, not communism itself. Post-industrial economy of abundance, on the other hand, is communism.
Universal basic income guarantee is not communism. It's simply a more efficient and low-overhead form of government welfare. Government welfare is not communism, either. Communist is public (or, in practice, usually state) ownership of the means of production. Nothing about UBI implies that, and nothing about it makes it impossible to earn millions and billions through your hard work, if you think you're up for it.
UBI specifically had several trials, and none of them were a failure. Look up "Mincome" for one example.
Most people who support basic income envision it as replacing most existing welfare schemes, making minimum wage redundant, and allowing for a vast simplification of the tax code (e.g. flat income tax would actually be viable if BI is large enough).
People don't even realize how hard I worked to get where I am right now I make about $30,000 a year and live in a studio apartment.
So your life was made miserable by the current socioeconomic arrangement, and instead of wanting to fix it so that no-one suffers the same, you want to spread your misery to others to make them feel as bad as you do.
Properly defined BIG should either be a fixed proportion of the budget, or tied to the living wage (which is not the same as minimum wage, but rather computed from actual prices of goods), so it would track inflation. In any case, just like minimum wage, it will cause the prices to rise, sure... but not by the same amount, so it's still a net win for people who are getting most of their income from it.
As a leftie, I found it interesting that quite a few libertarians whom I spoke to on the subject seem to be okay with BIG, or at least strongly preferring it to the current system (on the basis of reduced complexity & overhead). Perhaps we really can get enough political momentum for this to come anywhere...
The Muslims lost round 1, rightly so, by not be allowed to set up their own government systems in parallel to those of the United States or State of Texas.
No, it means being put on trial for manslaughter when they raid a wrong house and shoot and kill someone because some retard in blue thought that a cellphone looked like a gun, because there's no way a black person could hold anything else when interacting with police.
That's the world that people like you have made for us to live in, because you were scared shitless after 9/11, so much so that you were willing to throw everything else - sanity, rights and liberties, the free society itself - under the bus, all for the sake of your precious lives. Because terrorists.
The Crusades were stretched out in time considerably, and that time period does include the Baltic Crusades. And at the very least the Crusade against Old Prussians was officially dubbed such by the Church, so it is a part of The Crusades for any reasonable definition of those (it certainly was for the people who lived at the time).
"Mongol-Tatars", OTOH, didn't particularly care about religious issues, and local churches (including Russian Orthodox Church) rather thrived under them.
1. Because it's a fraud, and the people selling it resist attempts to point out that fact. Fraud is generally illegal in most other cases. Even from a pristine libertarian viewpoint, a transaction is only good when both sides have full and complete knowledge and understanding of what they're gaining and losing - only then it is truly fair. If one party is intentionally deluded, then it's no good.
2. Because in the UK in particular, healthcare is state-funded, and if homeopathy is recognized as health care, it means that everyone's tax money is wasted.
Muslims absolutely want to convert you. Though in the vast majority of cases this is more similar to Christian proselytism, and not the sword-at-the-neck kind practiced by ISIS and their ilk.
In fact, to the best of my knowledge, in all Islamic schools, dawah is considered fard kifayah (a communal obligation - i.e. the community as a whole should provide enough preachers to spread the word), and in some it is even fard ayn (i.e. individual obligation of every Muslim).
The conflict between Jewish settlers and local Arabs began long before 1930s. Kibbutzes had armed militia out of necessity already in late 19th century because the locals were increasingly hostile. Don't forget that settlers weren't buying land from Arabs, because the latter usually weren't wealthy land owners - since Palestine was at the time a province of the Ottoman Empire, the land was mostly owned by the Turks, and purchased from them by the settlers. Arabs were hostile to the Turks and the settlers alike, and considered the land theirs by right.
Jews understood it full well, too. Here's Jabotinsky, one of the prominent figures of the Zionist movement, writing in 1923:
"We cannot give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to other Arabs. Therefore, a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall which the local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy."
Too what extremist christian sect are you referring....I am sick and tired of hearing this as an argument. Please, citation, what modern christian group has danced around in the streets because innocent civilians where killed?....Im waiting....I really want to hear your response....
Here's one ongoing genocide of Muslims by Christians. As to what sect they are, I have no clue, but they do consider themselves Christians, and I haven't heard other Christians denouncing them, so...
To remind, I'm talking specifically about copyleft, not about open source in general. Open source in general doesn't have that problem because, when it comes to viability, it's usually an aspect of a bigger whole, and it serves as a catalyst for bringing paying users to the other parts which actually make money. Copyleft can do this too, it's just much harder to pull off because it is specifically designed to make it hard for copyleft and non-copyleft software to interface (which is intentional, because the people behind it believe that everything should be copyleft).
Come on man, it's been shown to work in plenty of projects. If it works in some, why don't you think it would work in others?
Because it doesn't grow. It's clear that some companies have found a niche in it, like say RedHat, but based on how few of those companies there are - and the fact that we don't see more (or when we do, they don't stay around for long), the number of niches is very limited. And then you have all that dual-licensed software, which is financed by selling licenses to basically dodge the copyleft bullet - i.e. the revenue stream is specifically based on the existence of non-copyleft software.
It's not that I'm not creative. It's just that this reminds me a lot of libertarian rhetoric, where they say that all the world's problems could be instantly solved if only we had pure free markets everywhere with zero government interventions. Yet whenever you ask about the specifics on how it would solve such and such problem, it's all pie-in-the-sky stuff, and most real-world experiments along these lines haven't fared well, or didn't scale etc. I view copyleft in the same way. It has its niche, but I'm unconvinced that it can work on a large scale, and I don't see any empirical evidence that it would.
Come on man, you're looking for arguments, not solutions. LGPL is acceptable to Stallman's ethics.
He prefers GPL; LGPL is a compromise. In any case, the difference between GPL and LGPL only makes sense in the presence of non-copyleft software. If everything is copyleft anyway, you don't need LGPL.
The real problem is how to you get resources (ie money) from people who need software to people who can build it. Our current method works alright, but it also distributes billions to stockholders. Surely you can think of other methods for people to get the software they need.
This is a problem that extends to way more than just software, and it's the problem with our overall system that enables economic rent collection on a large scale (i.e. there are people who actually produce wealth, and then there are people who pocket most of that wealth - and they are usually different groups of people). Copyleft is largely orthogonal to all this. In any case, you can't solve this problem within a single industry - it will always spill over, because people who work in that industry still need products produced by other industries (even the basics such as shelter and food).
Incidentally the vast majority of software is written in-house, so even if all software were forced to be GPL, and it put Microsoft + Apple + Oracle out of business, it wouldn't really be that bad for programmers.
Slashdot Mirror
Once you accept that taking care of our most needy citizens, as covered under 'promote the general welfare' in the prologue of the constitution, is a legitimate public function
I think that most traditionalist libertarians (even minarchists) wouldn't really agree with you on this.
I do, but precisely because this isn't exactly a common trait in mainstream libertarianism, I self-identify as "left libertarian". Basically, in agreement with the basic notion that government should only be as big as it needs to be and no bigger, and should be carefully bounded to prevent power abuse, but in disagreement on what constitutes "as big as it needs to be".
This whole "seizing the means of production" thing was supposed to be a recipe for getting to communism, not communism itself. Post-industrial economy of abundance, on the other hand, is communism.
I will, for one.
Universal basic income guarantee is not communism. It's simply a more efficient and low-overhead form of government welfare. Government welfare is not communism, either. Communist is public (or, in practice, usually state) ownership of the means of production. Nothing about UBI implies that, and nothing about it makes it impossible to earn millions and billions through your hard work, if you think you're up for it.
UBI specifically had several trials, and none of them were a failure. Look up "Mincome" for one example.
Most people who support basic income envision it as replacing most existing welfare schemes, making minimum wage redundant, and allowing for a vast simplification of the tax code (e.g. flat income tax would actually be viable if BI is large enough).
Start taxing capital gains at proper rates (instead of the huge tax break for the rich that they currently are), and you'll have plenty of money.
Stop blowing up camels in the desert with cruise missiles halfway across the world fighting in other people's war, and here's some more.
Get rid of the humongous bureaucracy that surrounds the present welfare system, with numerous duplicated roles and processes, and there's more still.
We absolutely can support BIG economically if we wanted to. It's only a matter of priorities.
"Social parasitism" was a crime in the USSR.
People don't even realize how hard I worked to get where I am right now I make about $30,000 a year and live in a studio apartment.
So your life was made miserable by the current socioeconomic arrangement, and instead of wanting to fix it so that no-one suffers the same, you want to spread your misery to others to make them feel as bad as you do.
Maybe they will clean up the litter on the highways, or maybe they will dig ditches and re-fill them afterwards, but they should be doing work.
I have a wonderful idea. Maybe some of them should walk around breaking windows, and then the rest can have a job repairing them!
Properly defined BIG should either be a fixed proportion of the budget, or tied to the living wage (which is not the same as minimum wage, but rather computed from actual prices of goods), so it would track inflation. In any case, just like minimum wage, it will cause the prices to rise, sure... but not by the same amount, so it's still a net win for people who are getting most of their income from it.
As a leftie, I found it interesting that quite a few libertarians whom I spoke to on the subject seem to be okay with BIG, or at least strongly preferring it to the current system (on the basis of reduced complexity & overhead). Perhaps we really can get enough political momentum for this to come anywhere...
The Muslims lost round 1, rightly so, by not be allowed to set up their own government systems in parallel to those of the United States or State of Texas.
Do you know what "consensual arbitration" means?
In other words, he was physically and psychologically abused by the cops.
How would you like to walk in front of your coworkers in handcuffs?
No, it means being put on trial for manslaughter when they raid a wrong house and shoot and kill someone because some retard in blue thought that a cellphone looked like a gun, because there's no way a black person could hold anything else when interacting with police.
That's the world that people like you have made for us to live in, because you were scared shitless after 9/11, so much so that you were willing to throw everything else - sanity, rights and liberties, the free society itself - under the bus, all for the sake of your precious lives. Because terrorists.
It doesn't have to be that way.
The Crusades were stretched out in time considerably, and that time period does include the Baltic Crusades. And at the very least the Crusade against Old Prussians was officially dubbed such by the Church, so it is a part of The Crusades for any reasonable definition of those (it certainly was for the people who lived at the time).
"Mongol-Tatars", OTOH, didn't particularly care about religious issues, and local churches (including Russian Orthodox Church) rather thrived under them.
1. Because it's a fraud, and the people selling it resist attempts to point out that fact. Fraud is generally illegal in most other cases. Even from a pristine libertarian viewpoint, a transaction is only good when both sides have full and complete knowledge and understanding of what they're gaining and losing - only then it is truly fair. If one party is intentionally deluded, then it's no good.
2. Because in the UK in particular, healthcare is state-funded, and if homeopathy is recognized as health care, it means that everyone's tax money is wasted.
Muslims absolutely want to convert you. Though in the vast majority of cases this is more similar to Christian proselytism, and not the sword-at-the-neck kind practiced by ISIS and their ilk.
In fact, to the best of my knowledge, in all Islamic schools, dawah is considered fard kifayah (a communal obligation - i.e. the community as a whole should provide enough preachers to spread the word), and in some it is even fard ayn (i.e. individual obligation of every Muslim).
The conflict between Jewish settlers and local Arabs began long before 1930s. Kibbutzes had armed militia out of necessity already in late 19th century because the locals were increasingly hostile. Don't forget that settlers weren't buying land from Arabs, because the latter usually weren't wealthy land owners - since Palestine was at the time a province of the Ottoman Empire, the land was mostly owned by the Turks, and purchased from them by the settlers. Arabs were hostile to the Turks and the settlers alike, and considered the land theirs by right.
Jews understood it full well, too. Here's Jabotinsky, one of the prominent figures of the Zionist movement, writing in 1923:
"We cannot give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to other Arabs. Therefore, a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall which the local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy."
The Crusades were a long overdue defensive reaction to Muslim aggression.
Really, they were? Did they find any of those Muslim aggressors among the Baltic and Slavic tribes of northeast Europe?
Too what extremist christian sect are you referring....I am sick and tired of hearing this as an argument. Please, citation, what modern christian group has danced around in the streets because innocent civilians where killed? ....Im waiting....I really want to hear your response....
Here's one ongoing genocide of Muslims by Christians. As to what sect they are, I have no clue, but they do consider themselves Christians, and I haven't heard other Christians denouncing them, so...
Surely you meant to say, "homosexual Muslim ISIS sleeper agents from Mexico"?
Gotta keep up with the times.
To remind, I'm talking specifically about copyleft, not about open source in general. Open source in general doesn't have that problem because, when it comes to viability, it's usually an aspect of a bigger whole, and it serves as a catalyst for bringing paying users to the other parts which actually make money. Copyleft can do this too, it's just much harder to pull off because it is specifically designed to make it hard for copyleft and non-copyleft software to interface (which is intentional, because the people behind it believe that everything should be copyleft).
Come on man, it's been shown to work in plenty of projects. If it works in some, why don't you think it would work in others?
Because it doesn't grow. It's clear that some companies have found a niche in it, like say RedHat, but based on how few of those companies there are - and the fact that we don't see more (or when we do, they don't stay around for long), the number of niches is very limited. And then you have all that dual-licensed software, which is financed by selling licenses to basically dodge the copyleft bullet - i.e. the revenue stream is specifically based on the existence of non-copyleft software.
It's not that I'm not creative. It's just that this reminds me a lot of libertarian rhetoric, where they say that all the world's problems could be instantly solved if only we had pure free markets everywhere with zero government interventions. Yet whenever you ask about the specifics on how it would solve such and such problem, it's all pie-in-the-sky stuff, and most real-world experiments along these lines haven't fared well, or didn't scale etc. I view copyleft in the same way. It has its niche, but I'm unconvinced that it can work on a large scale, and I don't see any empirical evidence that it would.
Come on man, you're looking for arguments, not solutions. LGPL is acceptable to Stallman's ethics.
He prefers GPL; LGPL is a compromise. In any case, the difference between GPL and LGPL only makes sense in the presence of non-copyleft software. If everything is copyleft anyway, you don't need LGPL.
The real problem is how to you get resources (ie money) from people who need software to people who can build it. Our current method works alright, but it also distributes billions to stockholders. Surely you can think of other methods for people to get the software they need.
This is a problem that extends to way more than just software, and it's the problem with our overall system that enables economic rent collection on a large scale (i.e. there are people who actually produce wealth, and then there are people who pocket most of that wealth - and they are usually different groups of people). Copyleft is largely orthogonal to all this. In any case, you can't solve this problem within a single industry - it will always spill over, because people who work in that industry still need products produced by other industries (even the basics such as shelter and food).
Incidentally the vast majority of software is written in-house, so even if all software were forced to be GPL, and it put Microsoft + Apple + Oracle out of business, it wouldn't really be that bad for programmers.
For the programmers, no. For users, though...