context is everything
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tbuitenh Jun 25, 2009 6:38 AM EDT |
"Freedom" means different things to different people. To libervisco "freedom" means "no government". I think the article makes much more sense when you keep that in mind.
Just to avoid any confusion, I strongly disagree with pretty much everything libervisco has written since he converted to anarchism, and I no longer cooperate with him in any way. I know and understand his point of view, but do not share it. One sentence summary of the article: If there can be no freedom as long as there is a law, it is illogical and impossible to use the law to create freedom. I think there's one bit of confusion in the article that hasn't been pointed out yet: what libervisco advocates is "free usage" (some call this "piracy"), NOT "free software". In "free software", it is the _software_ that is free (for some definition of freedom), that is, no (enforcible) restrictions can be added to the software. In "free usage" on the other hand it is the _user_ that is free (for some definition of freedom), meaning the _user_ can do anything to the software, including adding restrictions. I think everyone here would agree that it is technically impossible to "own" (have ultimate control over) software (or any other type of information) - uncrackable DRM is impossible. It seems libervisco denies the possibility of ethical or moral ownership of information. This is not one bit surprising, since that specific morality follows from the idea that society should look after those who work for the common benefit, and libervisco does not believe an individual can or should have obligations to society. Libervisco, please feel free to correct me if anything I wrote in this post about your beliefs is incorrect. |
| hkwint Jun 25, 2009 8:05 AM EDT |
Thanks for the distinction between 'software' freedom and 'user' freedom, that one is really helpful I think. Danijel and I discussed this before, and what I learned from it was 'some freedoms take away others'. Or, you cannot have all freedoms at the same time; not all freedoms can co-exist. I think that's true when it comes to the software / user freedom. |
| jdixon Jun 25, 2009 9:16 AM EDT |
> Or, you cannot have all freedoms at the same time; not all freedoms can co-exist. That's why freedoms must be prioritized. A higher priority freedom displaces a lesser priority one when they come into conflict. It's not like this is a new concept, it's been known for thousands of years. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 25, 2009 1:05 PM EDT |
> It's not like this is a new concept, it's been known for thousands of years. There is also the concept that what we call "rights" are negative in their application, not positive. That is, I have a "right" to my own labor, but not yours. By being essentially negative, they don't conflict. "My right to swing my fist ends at your nose" is an excellent example. I'm all for Libre software, because it is the choice of the author to place their work into the hands of others. I prefer to use Libre software over proprietary, not because of price. Because the authors _want_ me as a customer, where the proprietary software authors do not (because I don't have the money). As to the idea that there can be no freedom while laws exist, that's putting the idea way out in extreme terms. As an extreme, it's easy to take exception to it by presenting yet more extremes. (cue Caitlyn) I agree completely that "freedom" cannot be legislated, which may very well be a better way to say it. |
| caitlyn Jun 25, 2009 1:42 PM EDT |
Actually freedom can and should be legistated. Your freedom or mine to take unpopular positions and to be protected from violence or discrimination on the basis of taking those positions is a perfect example. In the U.S. 51% of the population cannot vote the other 49% onto boxcars. We both live in the South. It wasn't long ago that a majority here would have voted for racial segregation. The courts ruled that under the law we don't have the right to discriminate based on race and that segregation constituted discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is legislation that guaranteed freedom, one of many such examples in the United States. There are similar examples in other free countries. |
| Libervis Jun 25, 2009 2:45 PM EDT |
tbuitenh: You said I should correct you if you wrote anything wrong about my beliefs. Well you started with it...Quoting:"Freedom" means different things to different people. To libervisco "freedom" means "no government". I think the article makes much more sense when you keep that in mind. It doesn't mean "no government". It means "no coercion". Simple as that. As for freedom meaning different things to different people, that can be said in theory, but in practice if somebody attacts you or steals from you, you defend yourself. Then freedom appears quite clear. It seems people bring the definition of freedom in question only when its obvious violations are distant or when they are benefiting from or are too heavily invested into violations of somebody elses freedom (reputation, receiving welfare, being a government officer, owning shares in a company that profits from government contracts etc.). Quoting:One sentence summary of the article: If there can be no freedom as long as there is a law, it is illogical and impossible to use the law to create freedom. Another wrong. I am not against law. I am against one company (group of people) forcing their services and with it terms of service on others. Currently this company is what you call "government" and these terms of service is what you call "law". Obviously, I believe you should be able to choose from which company you buy your services and thus which companies terms of service you will abide by. That's what some call "private law". As for your distinction, if I understand correctly you're merely differing "Free Software" as in software under FOSS licenses with respect to *legal* rights they provide from freedom of the user that is independent of what the legal system says, right? In which case it's a fair distinction, but as you can imagine I give little credence to these "legal rights" beyond seeing them as merely "things I can do without being threatened violence". And "society"... nobody I encountered, read etc. has EVER been able to demonstrate that "society" is anything more than a concept, that it is something that in itself actually has the capability to grant or deny rights. This seems to me like a mass delusion.. but there you have it. In my view what lies beneath this fallacy of a "society" giving or taking anything or one being obliged to a "society" is simply some groups of individuals deciding the behavior of other groups arbitrarily (albeit often through a complex seductive process, like democracy). |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!