Open Source Values

[Garrett Goebel]

Brian Densmore wrote:
> 
> Open source is about freedom, but not all government
> regulation is bad.

Freedom "to" or freedom "from"?

That's a kind of empty statement. I for one think government regulations
limiting government regulations are a good thing ;) The government which
governs best governs least, and all that. But what's government? What we're
really talking about is the centralization of coercive power. Parents govern
their children. A handful of Rockefellers govern international monetary
policy. Where should the control lie? IMHO, coercive power should be as
decentralized as is feasible.


> I like knowing that not any Joe
> Schmoe can get a license to practice medicine,

In Kansas, a chiropractor can do a physical. Not to knock chiropractors, but
they aren't general physicians. They are going to miss things a MD or DO
would catch. Yet English physicians who have hands down better clinical
skills than your average American MD or DO can not do a physical in Kansas. 

Why not let the consumers and the doctor's employer decide which
accreditations are viable? Why is the big stick of national government
necessary here?


> or that vehicles have to meet a minimum standard of
> to be considered road worthy 

Have you been outside lately? Cars only have to have _once_ been considered
road worthy. And look at the barrier to entry in the automotive market.
There aren't any "new" players. Just slow and steady consolidation heading
toward stagnation...

Look what's happened to the aerospace industry. How many American
manufacturers of planes are left? I wonder whether Scaled Composites and
Armadillo Aerospace will be beaten into regulatory submission if they refuse
to sell out to the established players?

> or that daycare facilities need to check for criminal
> records before hiring. I like the idea of my children
> being cared for by people who haven't been convicted
> of being a pedophile. Call me crazy.

Do they really? Can you cite the statute? How effective has it been?


> The problem is some times there's too much and other times
> there's not enough.

No. The problem is that sometimes it is coercive and sometimes it isn't. 

People love to talk about how the FDA protects us from bad drugs. Ask them
to show you some measurable proof and they'll grow quite. How does the body
count add up? How many lives are saved versus lives lost? Go look for the
answers and you'll find quite a different story:
http://www.fdareview.org/harm.shtml. Did you know that most hospital
patients are given drugs that aren't even FDA approved for their proscribe
use?

What are the detrimental effects of the FDA? How about the excessive costs
required to get drugs through the process? So much for the yearly updates to
vaccines for children and the elderly. And you can also count out drugs for
people suffering from rare diseases. The return on investment doesn't match
the cost.

What about the time it takes to work the process? Prior to 1962 it took
around 7 months from the filing of an IND to approval. In the 80's and 90's
it took 8 years on average. Recently it has averaged around 7.3 years. How
many people die waiting for the FDA to approve drugs? How many people suffer
needlessly?


> I also like knowing that not just any Joe Shmoe can contribute
> to the official Linux kernel. There are regulations in place to
> prevent that. 

Huh? I assume by official, you're talking about Linus' kernel and not the
NSA's. Anybody _can_ contribute to Linus' kernel. There aren't regulations
in place to prevent that. There are self-governing processes in place to
prevent people submitting code encumbered by coercive licenses and patents.
There's a big difference. You can always opt out of the process by forking
the kernel. You can't opt to be seen by the visiting foreign doctor or drive
an unlicensed and unregistered car you built yourself...


> I like the idea that any Joe Schmoe has the freedom to qualify
> under the existing fair regulations to be able to contribute to
> the Linux kernel. Freedom is great but without some form of
> control there is chaos and chaos is not always a good thing.

I hate it when people use the word fair. It rarely means what it is supposed
to mean. Is it fair for Microsoft to allow the "fair" use of patents by
standards organizations? When fair means at a fair and equal cost? I.e.
available to everyone except their chief competitor in standards compliant
infrastructure building blocks... the OSS community?

By control, what you're really saying is that one group of people know
better than another, and that it is alright for them to force others to
adhere to their standards. I think that is a dangerous statement. Especially
when there's no telling which group of people you're standing with on each
toss of the coin.

Freedom is the flipside of coercion. And coercion is rarely a good thing.
The only valid example I can think of, is to counteract the coercive efforts
of others.

There's a difference between a self-regulating OSS community and government.
You opt-in to an OSS community. You can only opt-out of local, city, and
state government by moving. It is a little harder to opt out of national
regulations.
 
--
Garrett Goebel
IS Development Specialist

ScriptPro                   Direct: 913.403.5261
5828 Reeds Road               Main: 913.384.1008
Mission, KS 66202              Fax: 913.384.2180
www.scriptpro.com          garrett at scriptpro dot com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kclug.org/pipermail/kclug/attachments/20050126/0361cee9/attachment-0002.htm