from the libertarian newspaper
23) Operating systems: Lessons for Libertarians 1.0 Strike the Root by Carlton Hobbs "A typical example of socialist distribution vs. market distribution is any market where a free society provides many choices but a socialist state makes a singular decision for everyone. Not only does Linux not match this model of socialist centralization, but Microsoft does. Here is the key, by eliminating heavy dependency on proprietary software, you eliminate one centralization of abusable power. Linux ties its user into its knowledge base, but by its license agreement, that ties users into no one in particular, as good ideas can be taken and forked or merged into other projects. It leaves the source code open so anyone who desires can become an expert." (01/17/07) http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/hobbs/hobbs1.html -- Q: How do I decode unix seconds-since-the-epoch timestamps? A: xterm -T TIMESTAMP_TRANSLATOR -e perl -ple'$_= ~~localtime$_' &
I like it! I'm going to pass this around here in St. Louis... --Don Ellis On Jan 19, 2007, at 1:47 AM, David Nicol wrote:
23) Operating systems: Lessons for Libertarians 1.0 Strike the Root by Carlton Hobbs
"A typical example of socialist distribution vs. market distribution is any market where a free society provides many choices but a socialist state makes a singular decision for everyone. Not only does Linux not match this model of socialist centralization, but Microsoft does. Here is the key, by eliminating heavy dependency on proprietary software, you eliminate one centralization of abusable power. Linux ties its user into its knowledge base, but by its license agreement, that ties users into no one in particular, as good ideas can be taken and forked or merged into other projects. It leaves the source code open so anyone who desires can become an expert." (01/17/07)
http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/hobbs/hobbs1.html
-- Q: How do I decode unix seconds-since-the-epoch timestamps? A: xterm -T TIMESTAMP_TRANSLATOR -e perl -ple'$_= ~~localtime$_' & _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
David Nicol wrote:
23) Operating systems: Lessons for Libertarians 1.0 Strike the Root by Carlton Hobbs
"A typical example of socialist distribution vs. market distribution is any market where a free society provides many choices but a socialist state makes a singular decision for everyone. Not only does Linux not match this model of socialist centralization, but Microsoft does. Here is the key, by eliminating heavy dependency on proprietary software, you eliminate one centralization of abusable power. Linux ties its user into its knowledge base, but by its license agreement, that ties users into no one in particular, as good ideas can be taken and forked or merged into other projects. It leaves the source code open so anyone who desires can become an expert." (01/17/07)
An interesting article, but the author doesn't seem to understand some basic political concepts. There are different types of socialism. The author is thinking about state socialism/communism and misses the fact that there is a significant anti-statist or libertarian socialist tendency around the world. In fact, around most of the world, "libertarian" is synonymous with "anarchist." Libertarian socialism is another phrase that is equivalent to anarchism. I'm working on a paper which will explain how the free software and open source movements, as well as much of Web 2.0, are examples of anarchism in action. This has been pointed out by writers several years ago, but really hasn't gained widespread recognition. Free software like Linux are examples of anarchism in action in that they are cooperative, decentralized, anti-capitalist (to some extent), anti-property (anti-IP), non-government, anti-hierarchical and much more. The free software movement is "socialist" in so far as it reflects the anti-statist socialism of anarchism. I'll forward a copy of my article in several months when it is finished. Chuck -------------------------- Bread and Roses Web Design serving small businesses, non-profits, artists and activists http://www.breadandrosesweb.com/
An interesting article, but the author doesn't seem to understand some basic political concepts. There are different types of socialism. The author is thinking about state socialism/communism and misses the fact that there is a significant anti-statist or libertarian socialist tendency around the world. In fact, around most of the world, "libertarian" is synonymous with "anarchist." Libertarian socialism is another phrase that is equivalent to anarchism.
Um, I disagree with that statement. An anarchist believes in no authority and no government at all. Everyone for themselves with no one controlling anything or anyone. A true survival of the fittest, dog-eat-dog, Mad Max kind of world. A Libertarian Socialist still believes there needs to be a government, but a very limited one. They would need a government to enforce the liberty of others and make sure everyone can do what they want when they want to, so far as they don't impede on the rights of others. The socialist part makes sure that the wealth and capital is evenly spread out among the people so that no one group of people has more power than the other. Those two beliefs are completely separate, and I wouldn't invite either of them to a dinner party...
I'm working on a paper which will explain how the free software and open source movements, as well as much of Web 2.0, are examples of anarchism in action. This has been pointed out by writers several years ago, but really hasn't gained widespread recognition.
Well, it wouldn't be a very accurate paper. As the software you mentioned couldn't possibly be anarchist movements as no one would be in control of what contributor code gets accepted and included and what doesn't. There has to be a governing party that enforces proper code standards, vulnerability and bug checking, runaway feature creep, and bloated code. Someone has to be in control, and control and authority is what anarchism despises. A truly anarchist open source software would have no control and anyone end everyone could add anything into the final product. It would always be broken and development would stall and go nowhere or everywhere fast.
Free software like Linux are examples of anarchism in action in that they are cooperative, decentralized, anti-capitalist (to some extent), anti-property (anti-IP), non-government, anti-hierarchical and much more. The free software movement is "socialist" in so far as it reflects the anti-statist socialism of anarchism.
Linux has Linus Torvalds as its sole governing party's executive, and he makes all final decisions. So, Linux is hardly anarchism in action. Plus there is a hierarchical structure of developers. Those in the higher levels get more code accepted and included than those in the lower levels. It is cooperative and decentralized, however those aren't anarchism specific properties. If Linux was truly anti-property, it wouldn't even have a license. You could use it however you want, with zero restrictions. I fear your argument is pretty weak.
Jeremy Fowler wrote:
Um, I disagree with that statement. An anarchist believes in no authority and no government at all. Everyone for themselves with no one controlling anything or anyone. A true survival of the fittest, dog-eat-dog, Mad Max kind of world.
You can disagree with my statements, but that doesn't means that your ignorant statements about anarchism should be taken seriously. Anarchism has never been about "true survival of the fittest, dog-eat-dog, Mad Max kind of world." That's just silly and it doesn't even recognize what 130+ years of what anarchists have actually said.
A Libertarian Socialist still believes there needs to be a government, but a very limited one. They would need a government to enforce the liberty of others and make sure everyone can do what they want when they want to, so far as they don't impede on the rights of others. The socialist part makes sure that the wealth and capital is evenly spread out among the people so that no one group of people has more power than the other.
A libertarian socialist, aka an "anarchist, is against any form of government. I would refer you to my website to explain this, but it is offline today. Check out Wikipedia if you are still confused about what a libertarian socialist really believes. Noam Chomsky is one of the more famous libertarian socialists. Libertarian socialism = anarchism = no authority, no government.
Those two beliefs are completely separate, and I wouldn't invite either of them to a dinner party...
Well, I wouldn't come to your dinner party, because if your cooking reflected your understanding of politics, the apple pie would have meat in it and the steak would be a combination of lentils and dandelion greens. Chuck -------------------------- Bread and Roses Web Design serving small businesses, non-profits, artists and activists http://www.breadandrosesweb.com/
You can disagree with my statements, but that doesn't means that your ignorant statements about anarchism should be taken seriously.
No? That's too bad...
Anarchism has never been about "true survival of the fittest, dog-eat-dog, Mad Max kind of world." That's just silly and it doesn't even recognize what 130+ years of what anarchists have actually said.
Well, according to Merriam-Webster, Anarchism is the belief in anarchy, which is "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority". Sounds rather Mad Max to me... Hope your not going to argue that Merriam-Webster doesn't know what their talking about... http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/anarchy
A libertarian socialist, aka an "anarchist, is against any form of government. I would refer you to my website to explain this, but it is offline today. Check out Wikipedia if you are still confused about what a libertarian socialist really believes. Noam Chomsky is one of the more famous libertarian socialists.
Wikipedia, eh? Ok... Lets see what they say.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism "The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: management of the common good (socialism) in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimizes concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). It attempts to achieve this through the decentralization of political and economic power, usually involving the collectivization of most large-scale property and enterprise. Libertarian socialism denies the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property, since, according to socialists, when private property becomes capital, it leads to the exploitation of others with less economic means and thus infringes on the exploited class's individual freedoms."
Libertarian socialism = anarchism = no authority, no government.
How are those the same? There is no government or order with anarchy, agreed. However, libertarian socialism there is minimal authority and minimal government, it doesn't work without it. The key word there is minimal.
Well, I wouldn't come to your dinner party, because if your cooking reflected your understanding of politics, the apple pie would have meat in it and the steak would be a combination of lentils and dandelion greens.
I was being facetious, I didn't mean to offend. However, there is no reason to insult my cooking skills.
On Friday 19 January 2007 10:39, Chuck wrote:
An interesting article, but the author doesn't seem to understand some basic political concepts. There are different types of socialism. The author is thinking about state socialism/communism and misses the fact that there is a significant anti-statist or libertarian socialist tendency around the world. In fact, around most of the world, "libertarian" is synonymous with "anarchist." Libertarian socialism is another phrase that is equivalent to anarchism.
How is anarchy socialism at all? This makes no sense...
I'm working on a paper which will explain how the free software and open source movements, as well as much of Web 2.0, are examples of anarchism in action. This has been pointed out by writers several years ago, but really hasn't gained widespread recognition.
Because it's not really true.
Free software like Linux are examples of anarchism in action in that they are cooperative, decentralized, anti-capitalist (to some extent), anti-property (anti-IP), non-government, anti-hierarchical and much more. The free software movement is "socialist" in so far as it reflects the anti-statist socialism of anarchism.
Linux *is* centralized, in a hiearchy even. Anti-"IP" is not anti-property, but rather anti-usury. Socialism is by definition statist.
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 14:13 -0600, Luke -Jr wrote:
Linux *is* centralized, in a hiearchy even. Anti-"IP" is not anti-property, but rather anti-usury. Socialism is by definition statist.
I was with you on your comments (and strangely even agreed with them) until I got to "anti-usury." I am against "intellectual property" as defined by software patents, but I can't make the connection to usury. Rick
participants (6)
-
Chuck -
David Nicol -
Don Ellis -
Jeremy Fowler -
Luke -Jr -
Richard Piper