Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Open Source is better than Open Market

malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 2:49:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If Firefox isn't the best browser out there, it is at least in the top two.

Linux, now that there are open source GUI with Linux at their core, are far superior to Windows or Mac OS, both in terms of usability as well as efficiency and performance (Linux has a partition which acts like extended RAM and it increases the life of older computers which would be considered obsolete for Windows use).

Now, Linux is scary for the uninitiated, so many people think it is more complicated, but once one uses it, they will find that it is ridiculously simpler, but it's different and it's not simple, in and of itself, because it is a computer OS, but it is simpler than the alternatives.

These products are given away, and given away freely. Anyone who wants them can obtain them for free at any time, and anyone who wants to improve them can build add-ons or submit code for inclusion in the core product, and yet these products are less "buggy" and have less security issues than their for-pay counterparts.

How can this be in a Capitalist model? Free isn't efficient, and if one doesn't need assistance in use or network set-up of open source products, free is exactly what they are.

This must be a communist plot, or a liberal fantasy. I'm not sure which. Someone wake me up from this nightmare.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 6:42:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If I am correct, all of these products were made by individuals on a free market.

Did the government make any of these things?

If not, they were made on the good old free market my friend.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 7:02:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 6:42:11 AM, BigRat wrote:
If I am correct, all of these products were made by individuals on a free market.

Did the government make any of these things?

If not, they were made on the good old free market my friend.

Government made the internet, without which a browser wouldn't be necessary.

Governments aren't the only entity that can restrict a market, and beside, this isn't a market, in the traditional sense.

If it were a market, there would be a market equilibrium price for the best product on the market, and that price would be above zero, and would not be brought to market by a non-profit entity when there is so obviously a profit to be made by this company.

The efficiency of the Capitalist system was abandoned here, but it is still more efficient than those working within the constraints of a Capitalist market.

Don't be so literal. I was going for a clever title with symmetry.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 11:38:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You're basically describing agorism (a varient of market-oriented anarchism), as well as more general anti-IP libertarianism (a la Kinsella). Basically, markets qua voluntary exchange aren't at odds with any of this, in fact many market oriented libertarians embrace it.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 6:35:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
From Richard Stallman:

When we call software "free," we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of "free speech," not "free beer."

Lots of money has been made from free software. I use it every day and I work for one of those scary profit-driven corporations. Open source and free market are not incompatible. They work together just fine.

There ARE open source GUI's that run on Linux. I've run Ubuntu in my house for many years (in addition to a couple of Macs and Windows XP). However, in my opinion they aren't as good as Mac (mainly talking usability). How can this be? Why would I pay for a Macbook if I could just buy a (cheaper) PC and run another ubuntu?

Ubuntu is probably reasonably on par with XP - I find both clunky.

Mac itself is based on Unix which IT guys love because it works seamlessly with the servers they work on.

As to funding, there are many twists and turns. First, some developers work on Open source to build a resume so they can, wait for it, go to work somewhere and earn (evil) dollars. Ubuntu was started by a multimillionaire who made his fortune as a (oh no!) capitalist, selling his venture to Verisign for billions (omg, can we get the tax collectors on this guy!). Ubuntu was an investment, which is now generating revenue (see Goobuntu).

As for firefox, Mozilla's revenue comes mostly from Google, which might seem odd, but think about it and it makes sense (ugh, more of that capitalist dirty money. This time Ad revenue. The parecons are screeching).
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 11:28:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The fact that people buy (general purpose) software is fairly bizarre.

To understand Free Open Source Software (FOSS), you just have to realize that there are a lot of people out there who like to go home after work and write software. In the 90's, a lot of these people started realizing they could collaborate over the Internet to create software that reviled, and typically surpassed, the commercial counterparts. The software is completely owned by the public. That's to say, the source code (or blueprints) to the software is available for anyone to study, critique, fix or enhance (within the constraints of whatever licence the code is under). Commercial software almost never comes with the source code, which many consider to be a serious problem.

Anyway, in capitalism, people are free to do whatever they want so some people just write software and give it away; just like some people give away their recipes, write Wikipedia articles, perform at open mic night, etc. Some people just enjoy doing this stuff; no big whoop.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 4:13:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 11:38:58 AM, Noumena wrote:
You're basically describing agorism (a varient of market-oriented anarchism), as well as more general anti-IP libertarianism (a la Kinsella). Basically, markets qua voluntary exchange aren't at odds with any of this, in fact many market oriented libertarians embrace it.

Fair enough...what if this was a government sponsored program (program, in this case, meaning endeavor)?

Everything else the same, except instead of a non-profit, it was Uncle Sam - assuming you accept the premise that this is even possible.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 4:17:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 6:35:56 PM, ax123man wrote:
From Richard Stallman:

When we call software "free," we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of "free speech," not "free beer."

Lots of money has been made from free software. I use it every day and I work for one of those scary profit-driven corporations. Open source and free market are not incompatible. They work together just fine.

There ARE open source GUI's that run on Linux. I've run Ubuntu in my house for many years (in addition to a couple of Macs and Windows XP). However, in my opinion they aren't as good as Mac (mainly talking usability). How can this be? Why would I pay for a Macbook if I could just buy a (cheaper) PC and run another ubuntu?

Ubuntu is probably reasonably on par with XP - I find both clunky.

Mac itself is based on Unix which IT guys love because it works seamlessly with the servers they work on.

As to funding, there are many twists and turns. First, some developers work on Open source to build a resume so they can, wait for it, go to work somewhere and earn (evil) dollars. Ubuntu was started by a multimillionaire who made his fortune as a (oh no!) capitalist, selling his venture to Verisign for billions (omg, can we get the tax collectors on this guy!). Ubuntu was an investment, which is now generating revenue (see Goobuntu).

As for firefox, Mozilla's revenue comes mostly from Google, which might seem odd, but think about it and it makes sense (ugh, more of that capitalist dirty money. This time Ad revenue. The parecons are screeching).

I like the Linux Mint distro, and I think it's more accessible to people accustomed to Windows/MacOS, but Umbuntu is cool, too, and I've used it plenty (though, I'm on Win7 at the moment...stupid Corel...make Paintshop for Linux already...I don't wanna run a VPC for one program).

I don't think money, or Capitalism, are bad. I simply see that for some markets and some products, there are better alternatives.

Capitalism works great most of the time, just not all of the time, and not in every situation.

That's the only point I was trying to make...not that you throw out the baby with the bathwater.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 4:20:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 11:28:00 PM, vbaculum wrote:
The fact that people buy (general purpose) software is fairly bizarre.

To understand Free Open Source Software (FOSS), you just have to realize that there are a lot of people out there who like to go home after work and write software. In the 90's, a lot of these people started realizing they could collaborate over the Internet to create software that reviled, and typically surpassed, the commercial counterparts. The software is completely owned by the public. That's to say, the source code (or blueprints) to the software is available for anyone to study, critique, fix or enhance (within the constraints of whatever licence the code is under). Commercial software almost never comes with the source code, which many consider to be a serious problem.

Anyway, in capitalism, people are free to do whatever they want so some people just write software and give it away; just like some people give away their recipes, write Wikipedia articles, perform at open mic night, etc. Some people just enjoy doing this stuff; no big whoop.

My only point was that if we recognize it's better for some stuff, kinda like universal health care is infinitely preferable to what we have currently based on all available info, why not let go of this stupid belief that Americans have that Capitalism works at all times for all things. It doesn't, and we can see this in various markets here and abroad.

Also, efficiency is not always the goal. In healthcare, for instance, the goal is health, and based on the fact that American die more often because they are fat, lazy slobs, than for any other reason, maybe our system is lacking in several ways.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 7:17:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 4:20:49 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/28/2013 11:28:00 PM, vbaculum wrote:
The fact that people buy (general purpose) software is fairly bizarre.

To understand Free Open Source Software (FOSS), you just have to realize that there are a lot of people out there who like to go home after work and write software. In the 90's, a lot of these people started realizing they could collaborate over the Internet to create software that reviled, and typically surpassed, the commercial counterparts. The software is completely owned by the public. That's to say, the source code (or blueprints) to the software is available for anyone to study, critique, fix or enhance (within the constraints of whatever licence the code is under). Commercial software almost never comes with the source code, which many consider to be a serious problem.

Anyway, in capitalism, people are free to do whatever they want so some people just write software and give it away; just like some people give away their recipes, write Wikipedia articles, perform at open mic night, etc. Some people just enjoy doing this stuff; no big whoop.

My only point was that if we recognize it's better for some stuff, kinda like universal health care is infinitely preferable to what we have currently based on all available info, why not let go of this stupid belief that Americans have that Capitalism works at all times for all things. It doesn't, and we can see this in various markets here and abroad.

Also, efficiency is not always the goal. In healthcare, for instance, the goal is health, and based on the fact that American die more often because they are fat, lazy slobs, than for any other reason, maybe our system is lacking in several ways.

You say "it's better". I assume by "it's" you mean "free" (is better). Problem: one, nothings free. Two, in your own example, free software, the word free doesn't reflect price (as I've shown). The free browsers and Ubuntu that people get is "free" like television is free. In other words, it isn't free. It costs you your time and the giving of your eyes to look upon all the goods the world has for sale (google ads).

Why do supporters of government always use the meaningless term "capitalism" and not the correct terms: crony capitalism and free-market capitalism? Answer: either you're ignorant or an egalitarian. Until you go deeper into the rabbit hole and fully understand the difference between the two, you cannot judge wether free market capitalism works or not.

Regarding health care, recognize that it is a scarce resource and you realize that efficiency MUST be part of the goal. I'm sure you recognize the difference between health care and health insurance, but many Americans don't. Just look at the health care debates on DDO:

http://www.debate.org...

Americans are fat because of dietary changes promoted by government. They are still promoting diets high in grains, low in fat, while at the same time subsidizing corn resulting in everything filled with high fructose corn syrup. How much evidence that diets like Atkins and Paleo do we need before the USDA comes clean? I personally went on a modified paleo a year ago and I feel 10 years younger.

I'm not sure about your "lazy slob" comment. I'll only point out that all humans strive to improve their situation in life. Leisure is a form of consumption and welfare programs have certainly had negative impact there.

Many Americans literally think government money is free. An audience member at a Doug Casey speech last year:

"Why do we have to pay for things with our taxes? Why doesn't the government pay for it?"

Also, just google "free government money". You can primarily thank our "free" public education system for promulgating this nonsense.

Young people think money printing and debt is wonderful. Wait until they are my age and they see it has literally stolen 75% of what they saved during their lifetime.

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Frederic Bastiat
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 8:09:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 7:17:07 AM, ax123man wrote:
At 1/29/2013 4:20:49 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/28/2013 11:28:00 PM, vbaculum wrote:
The fact that people buy (general purpose) software is fairly bizarre.

To understand Free Open Source Software (FOSS), you just have to realize that there are a lot of people out there who like to go home after work and write software. In the 90's, a lot of these people started realizing they could collaborate over the Internet to create software that reviled, and typically surpassed, the commercial counterparts. The software is completely owned by the public. That's to say, the source code (or blueprints) to the software is available for anyone to study, critique, fix or enhance (within the constraints of whatever licence the code is under). Commercial software almost never comes with the source code, which many consider to be a serious problem.

Anyway, in capitalism, people are free to do whatever they want so some people just write software and give it away; just like some people give away their recipes, write Wikipedia articles, perform at open mic night, etc. Some people just enjoy doing this stuff; no big whoop.

My only point was that if we recognize it's better for some stuff, kinda like universal health care is infinitely preferable to what we have currently based on all available info, why not let go of this stupid belief that Americans have that Capitalism works at all times for all things. It doesn't, and we can see this in various markets here and abroad.

Also, efficiency is not always the goal. In healthcare, for instance, the goal is health, and based on the fact that American die more often because they are fat, lazy slobs, than for any other reason, maybe our system is lacking in several ways.

You say "it's better". I assume by "it's" you mean "free" (is better). Problem: one, nothings free. Two, in your own example, free software, the word free doesn't reflect price (as I've shown). The free browsers and Ubuntu that people get is "free" like television is free. In other words, it isn't free. It costs you your time and the giving of your eyes to look upon all the goods the world has for sale (google ads).

No, mean an open source set up such that the company operating within that set up is a not-for-profit entity.

Also, I think it's better for society if, at times, the currency one uses to pay for a good or service is their knowledge and the time it took to acquire that knowledge. A little more of that and the free market might actually start working again.


Why do supporters of government always use the meaningless term "capitalism" and not the correct terms: crony capitalism and free-market capitalism? Answer: either you're ignorant or an egalitarian. Until you go deeper into the rabbit hole and fully understand the difference between the two, you cannot judge wether free market capitalism works or not.

Because it's the only word that economic libertarians understand? I'm guessing here.

Regarding health care, recognize that it is a scarce resource and you realize that efficiency MUST be part of the goal. I'm sure you recognize the difference between health care and health insurance, but many Americans don't. Just look at the health care debates on DDO:

PART of the goal - the remainder must be health. Still, in countries with universal health care, single payer systems, % of GDP notwithstanding, they pay less per capita than we do (both privately and publicly) and have a better standard of care than we do.

Perhaps a complete free market system would work (though I have my doubts), but here's a tenable system (they've been on it for a while and no one is going off it as far as I can tell) that we know is better and more efficient than our own.

Knowing that change is incremental,and knowing how much better this is than what we got, how can you not support it?

And, I worked in insurance, so I'm well aware of the difference, which is why I can't understand why people don't think the government, since it doesn't have the 35% cut off the top for "profit" (theft), can send checks to doctors for services rendered.

I don't want the government in your vaginas. Just the payment when the doctor is done examining them.


http://www.debate.org...

Americans are fat because of dietary changes promoted by government. They are still promoting diets high in grains, low in fat, while at the same time subsidizing corn resulting in everything filled with high fructose corn syrup. How much evidence that diets like Atkins and Paleo do we need before the USDA comes clean? I personally went on a modified paleo a year ago and I feel 10 years younger.

I'm not sure about your "lazy slob" comment. I'll only point out that all humans strive to improve their situation in life. Leisure is a form of consumption and welfare programs have certainly had negative impact there.

We are becoming one of the fattest nations in the world, and people make short term decisions that do not necessarily benefit them in the long run.

People will refuse to pay an additional $.03/bottle, for a supply that lasts for over 6 months, of a household cleaner that won't destroy their water supply like the cheaper one will.

People are stupid. Surely you recognize this.


Many Americans literally think government money is free. An audience member at a Doug Casey speech last year:

"Why do we have to pay for things with our taxes? Why doesn't the government pay for it?"

I rest my case.


Also, just google "free government money". You can primarily thank our "free" public education system for promulgating this nonsense.

Young people think money printing and debt is wonderful. Wait until they are my age and they see it has literally stolen 75% of what they saved during their lifetime.

Printing money to pay off some of the debt would make our exports SKYROCKET. Debt, for a government and economy the size of ours, is only an issue when we allow it to be an issue. The world depends on our economy and if we printed enough money to wipe out half our foreign debt today, the effect would last for 6 months and be largely positive, except for those with plans to travel abroad.


"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Frederic Bastiat

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

-Thomas Jefferson
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 12:29:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 4:17:19 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/28/2013 6:35:56 PM, ax123man wrote:
From Richard Stallman:

When we call software "free," we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of "free speech," not "free beer."

Lots of money has been made from free software. I use it every day and I work for one of those scary profit-driven corporations. Open source and free market are not incompatible. They work together just fine.

There ARE open source GUI's that run on Linux. I've run Ubuntu in my house for many years (in addition to a couple of Macs and Windows XP). However, in my opinion they aren't as good as Mac (mainly talking usability). How can this be? Why would I pay for a Macbook if I could just buy a (cheaper) PC and run another ubuntu?

Ubuntu is probably reasonably on par with XP - I find both clunky.

Mac itself is based on Unix which IT guys love because it works seamlessly with the servers they work on.

As to funding, there are many twists and turns. First, some developers work on Open source to build a resume so they can, wait for it, go to work somewhere and earn (evil) dollars. Ubuntu was started by a multimillionaire who made his fortune as a (oh no!) capitalist, selling his venture to Verisign for billions (omg, can we get the tax collectors on this guy!). Ubuntu was an investment, which is now generating revenue (see Goobuntu).

As for firefox, Mozilla's revenue comes mostly from Google, which might seem odd, but think about it and it makes sense (ugh, more of that capitalist dirty money. This time Ad revenue. The parecons are screeching).

I like the Linux Mint distro, and I think it's more accessible to people accustomed to Windows/MacOS, but Umbuntu is cool, too, and I've used it plenty (though, I'm on Win7 at the moment...stupid Corel...make Paintshop for Linux already...I don't wanna run a VPC for one program).

What's wrong with using GIMP?


I don't think money, or Capitalism, are bad. I simply see that for some markets and some products, there are better alternatives.

Capitalism works great most of the time, just not all of the time, and not in every situation.

That's the only point I was trying to make...not that you throw out the baby with the bathwater.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 1:18:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 12:29:13 PM, vbaculum wrote:

What's wrong with using GIMP?

I can't get the hang of it, and I'm too impatient, after spending all this time to learn Corel, to have to take 2 hours to make something I can make in 15 minutes with Corel.

The tech in the application is not as good as either GIMP or Photoshop (man, CS6 does some cool sh*t), but the user interface is infinitely preferable to either and there's a lot more you can do with the settings on the tools than you can with the other two, at least speed-wise (and, I'm all about having the idea, creating the idea in picture form, and moving on to the next one...I'm not an artist. I just like to f*ck around and make jokes).

http://i.imgur.com...
http://i.imgur.com...
http://i.imgur.com...
http://i.imgur.com...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 2:55:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 7:02:11 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/28/2013 6:42:11 AM, BigRat wrote:
If I am correct, all of these products were made by individuals on a free market.

Did the government make any of these things?

If not, they were made on the good old free market my friend.

Government made the internet, without which a browser wouldn't be necessary.

Governments aren't the only entity that can restrict a market, and beside, this isn't a market, in the traditional sense.

If it were a market, there would be a market equilibrium price for the best product on the market, and that price would be above zero, and would not be brought to market by a non-profit entity when there is so obviously a profit to be made by this company.

The efficiency of the Capitalist system was abandoned here, but it is still more efficient than those working within the constraints of a Capitalist market.

Don't be so literal. I was going for a clever title with symmetry.

Well. Actually, government didn't really create the internet. Xerox did.

And, yes, state is the only institution that can restrict the market.

If something happens outside of the state, it is happening on the free market.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 2:26:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 6:42:11 AM, BigRat wrote:
If I am correct, all of these products were made by individuals on a free market.

Did the government make any of these things?

If not, they were made on the good old free market my friend.

It's free, yes. But it's not a market.

Actual Communism. The Anarchist kind.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 2:59:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is free and distributed by the government and it continues to win award after award over its competition. It has now gone through 3 versions and has been best in class each time.

it's not open source, and there is a private/public partnership aspect to it, but it was conceived by a government employee, is distributed by the government and has spawned growth by this group in the government...they did something right?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 6:59:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 2:59:45 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
This is free and distributed by the government and it continues to win award after award over its competition. It has now gone through 3 versions and has been best in class each time.

it's not open source, and there is a private/public partnership aspect to it, but it was conceived by a government employee, is distributed by the government and has spawned growth by this group in the government...they did something right?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

again with the "free". Nothings free. This cost 50 million. I paid for this (a dollar or so probably). And a I had no say in the matter. My kids wouldn't pay for a game that forced this propaganda on them. In fact, they wouldn't play this if it was sitting on the xbox wrapped up in a bow. Awards? Not sure:

http://www.metacritic.com...

Given the feds spend trillions every year, I have no doubt they actually do accomplish things. That isn't the point though. I always ask "compared to what?" and "Would I have voluntarily paid for that?".
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 11:24:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 4:13:14 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/28/2013 11:38:58 AM, Noumena wrote:
You're basically describing agorism (a varient of market-oriented anarchism), as well as more general anti-IP libertarianism (a la Kinsella). Basically, markets qua voluntary exchange aren't at odds with any of this, in fact many market oriented libertarians embrace it.

Fair enough...what if this was a government sponsored program (program, in this case, meaning endeavor)?

Everything else the same, except instead of a non-profit, it was Uncle Sam - assuming you accept the premise that this is even possible.

You mean what if the guvment gave away free software? I wouldn't complain too much, though I don't like the guvment anyways so I'd prefer it this way.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 11:32:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
there is kind of an optimization problem between anti-IP laws vs. IP laws.

At one hand, no IP makes it more difficult for ideas to spread and for any one person to come in and make changes to the system. IPs also create a legal monopoly, which is intuitively bad.

On the other hand, IP provides an incentive for R&D.

Software programming tends to be low-capital, and more intrinsically enjoyable so one can see how open source can win out in this scenario.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...