The freedom to drink coffee

http://raganwald.posterous.com/the-freedom-to-drink-coffee

by llambda • 14 years ago

282 190 14 years ago

raganwald.posterous.com

babarock• 14 years ago

I really like that coffee analogy! I also like the idea that nobody's a loser. And the customer's happier.

I'll go a bit further saying that, while nobody's a loser, I also understand the hippie's cry for a change: Everyone around him is buying espresso machines with pre-formated coffee capsules. The hippie gives away his capsules as whole grains; theoretically, it's the best way of distributing it. However nobody knows what to do with whole grains anymore. People chose the convenience of the capsule, and nobody cares to even try to appreciate this hand-made, fine grained, home grown coffee the Hippie wants to give away for free.

camiller• 14 years ago

The coffee analogy breaks down though because there are plenty of options for refillable pods for the "senseo" style pod machines. And Kurig (and others) sell a refillable K-cup for those style machines. Where there is a demand for something, someone will fill it.

mikeash• 14 years ago

Additionally, the hippie could start fabricating his own pods that replicate the originals sufficiently to work in the manufacturer's machines. The equivalent in software is fast becoming untrue, as platforms increasingly take on tight control by the platform maker, enforced with cryptographic protections.

icebraining7• 14 years ago

Well, that still as an analogue: jailbreaking.

iamgilesbowkett4• 14 years ago

Crockford has total license to create any license he wants, of course, but I absolutely hate that license of his, not just because the lawyers are right -- "evil" is not a term substantiated with definition, and all terms in a legal document should be defined and specifc -- but also because insofar as he has expressed opinions about what constitutes evil, I disagree with him.

The YUI documentation, and similar JS documentation from Yahoo!, is chock full of the term "evil" used as if it were an official technical term. At Yahoo!, it probably is. Crockford identifies certain features of JS as "evil" in his book.

This is a generational divide between modern open source and ancient open source. In ancient open source, being judgmental and controlling was socially acceptable; in modern development, if you don't like a feature, you either don't use it, or you create a meta-language which compiles to your target language and excludes the undesired feature.

Leaving the features out of "JavaScript: The Good Parts" was enough - if he'd left it at that, he'd have sent the same message without the weird moral condemnation.

Technically, it's possible that using eval() in the context of any of Crockford's open source code is against the law. Even Richard Stallman has never been that much of a dick.

raganwald8• 14 years ago

In ancient open source, being judgmental and controlling was socially acceptable;

This in the middle of a rant that is highly judgmental :-P

The simple fact is, in “modern" software development, you are free to route around Mr. Crockford’s license if you so desire. Being a “dick” and being ”controlling” would be to do something like patent his thingummy and prevent anyone else from using it or their own implementation of the same functionality.

If you’re free to write your own thingummy, he is not controlling or judging you, he is controlling and judging himself by deliberately choosing a smaller audience/market for his work, much as the hippie in my story has deliberately chosen to make less money by not selling to the big chain.

Don’t take it so personally!

iamgilesbowkett4• 14 years ago

OK, judgemental yes, fair enough, but not being a dick? Saying "you can't use my software because your code is evil" is not going to win anybody points for diplomacy.

Also, the vagueness of it is actually quite passive-aggressive. In functional terms, putting that in a legal document means "you can use this for anything you want, unless I decide that I don't like it after the fact." It's not an important passive-aggressive action to Crockford, I'm sure, because for him it's just a formality he's turned into a joke, but it does actually set him up with ridiculous power to disrupt a business's operations should he so choose.

mmj48• 14 years ago

Uh, did you mean to comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3693108 ?

iamgilesbowkett4• 14 years ago

Raganwald made his post either after or during a Twitter discussion with me. I'm pretty sure his post was more a response to the Hacker News discussion you linked to than to my own tweet or two, but it looked like an ongoing discussion to me, so I continued it from where it had left off.

jfischer3• 14 years ago

Thank you. I think the coffee analogy is a good one and I believe that it is important that we, as technologists, express our personal values through our work. Also, I don't get this "open source is socialism thing". Although some (e.g. Stallman) may wish to see a socialist coders' paradise, 1) he's certainly entitled to that objective, and 2) the open source movement is much larger than that. These days, picking a license is often just part of selecting a business model. Companies life or die based on the ecosystem they create around their software.

raganwald8• 14 years ago

I think I agree with you, as I said, writing free software is more like going into competition with “The Company” than it is like organizing a union. Why not expand your ideas into a blog post? Could be excellent material...

demallien• 14 years ago

Well, just to be a contrarian, I don't agree with your analogy. The analogy is more like the hippie selling people beans, but then putting a condition on the sale so that people couldn't then put the beans into a pod compatible with their favourite coffee machine. This annoys people for the same reason that DRM annoys people - deep down inside, we feel that when someone gives us something, it is now ours to do with as we like. GPL-style licenses break this unstated assumption, as does DRM stopping you from watching your favourite TV show on your media player of choice.

In fact in the case of the coffee-growing hippy, it's worse than that. He doesn't mind if you personally take your beans and put them in a pod, but this operation is time consuming and requires a not-insignificant investment in plant to make the pods. It would be wonderful if someone else could start a business doing this stuff for you and everyone else, but they can't, because the hippy wants everyone to buy into their value system, using the oh-so-good coffee beans as a trojan horse.

Yes, I know, you're probably screaming something about entitlement right now. But let's bring it back to software. Most people in this world are not capable of writing software, so they're thrilled when someone comes out with an app that meets their need just right. But then that app gets pulled from the app store because the author included some GPLed code. This is the equivalent of the kid with the bat losing at a match of cricket, so he leaves, and now the other kids can't play. They generally aren't impressed. Note that if the kid had to leave because it was dinner time, or his parents were calling him, or he just broke his arm, the wouldn't be any drama. I suspect that many people feel that someone pulling code from an app store for ideological reasons is more like sulking than leaving because it was dinner time.

jfischer3• 14 years ago

Thanks for the encouragement! I think the discussion about values and work is very important and I appreciate that you brought it up on your blog. Hopefully, a bit got through on HN before it degenerated...

drcube• 14 years ago

How is Stallman's version of free software socialist? I've heard this before, and I don't understand it.

jfischer3• 14 years ago

Well, to call anyone a socialist outside the domain of political science is being a bit facetious. However, a loose analogy could be made. Socialism is about the government owning the means of production. The analogy would be "the base of existing software" = "means of production" and "Free Software Foundation" = "government". Stallman appears to want the copyright for all software to be held by the FSF and licensed as either GPL or AGPL. The analogy breaks down in the sense that, unlike a government, the FSF has no coercive power (beyond the value of their code base). Given the FSF's (relative) lack of coercive power, I don't think anyone should take seriously people/organizations that raise alarmist concerns about it.

joeyh• 14 years ago

Let's take the coffee analogy a little further. Not only is some hippie giving away coffee with a "do no evil" license, but just down the road there is a large market, where many people have come together to give away their own special variants of coffee.

Over time, the many and diverse people in the market (which some might call a hippie commune, but the MBAs in the crowd would probably disagee) have agreed on some common best practices for licensing their coffee, which allow it to be mixed to form special blends etc. Some of the best practices are outright subversive, and have led, through network effects, to some of the coffee from this market appearing in many Starbucks coffees -- which are marketed as "fair trade". Although many of the people who buy them aren't aware of the details of how this obscure market has made the world a better place.

Now back to our hippie and his coffee, which doesn't meet the norms of the market, so cannot be included in its blends, and cannot contribute to the ongoing network effect. Is the hippie actually going to leave the world better than it was before?

amirmc• 14 years ago

"Is the hippie actually going to leave the world better than it was before?"

According to who's principles? (and isn't that the point of the OP?)

funkah• 14 years ago

I thought the hippie's goal was to sleep at night, now we have to compute the global utility function of his whole existence based on what Starbucks is doing? How does this apply to what raganwald is talking about? Perhaps this extension of the analogy has gone off the rails a bit.

uiri2• 14 years ago

The market down the street and Starbucks will decry the hippie for trying to prevent them from using his beans. But they are his beans and he has every right to set terms and conditions of sale. His goal is that those who do receive his beans and make special blends, etc. will give the same freedom to those who end up drinking the coffee as they have with his coffee beans. If the hippie's goal is coffee drinker freedom, he is likely going to leave the world a better place. If his goal is spreading his beans far and wide regardless of the restrictions on the coffee drinker at the end, he won't reach his goal.

(Or am I imagining a GPL vs BSD analogy?)

telent• 14 years ago

I thought it was a jsmin "do no evil" analogy. Even Apple ships GPL code

prestia• 14 years ago

Regarding the coffee analogy:

Nothing would stop an individual from purchasing a large amount of coffee from the hippie, processing it into pods, and selling those pods through the big chains. Sure, the hippie could refuse to sell you more coffee, but then he is no longer giving "other people the freedom to make [a] choice compatible with their personal beliefs." While I like the initial premise, I just don't think this comparison completely fits.

nknight2• 14 years ago

Purchasing, yes. Purchasing. That's a rather important word. Consider its implications for a while, and I suspect you'll see the point.

Dylan168072• 14 years ago

I don't follow. You can do whatever you like with gifted items too.

pessimizer5• 14 years ago

The hippie isn't selling coffee, he's giving it away with terms, but you can clearly lie to the hippie and use the fruits of his labor in a way in which he's specifically asked for them not to be used.

I think your second sentence is the thesis that the metaphor is trying to refute, though. Refusing to give you something under terms that you would like is not removing your freedom any more than any other copyright, it's offering you an option other than growing your own.

kylec• 14 years ago

Um, the analogy clearly states that the hippie is selling the beans:

    A better comparison would be that someone writing free software is like a hippie
    who grows his own coffee beans and sells them at the side of the road by his farm

jasonlotito• 14 years ago

It fits completely. If you purchase the coffee, you've exchange money for coffee, and expressed rights. The same could be said for GPL'ed code. I can purchase the code with specific rights. MySQL is a prime example of this happening in the software world.

SoftwareMaven• 14 years ago

I get the feeling the vast majority of people don't have a clue what socialism even means. Instead, they parrot the silly definitions that come from sources using the term as a political cudgel.

aMoniker• 14 years ago

Thankfully, we have you to point this out for us.

puppybeard• 14 years ago

Argument which apparently led to the post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2082965

I love how oslic describes a dev who maintains their right to say how their work is used as a "protestor". Surely putting in the hard work, and being entitled to do with it as you please, is a cornerstone of free enterprise?

In a funny way, the Open Source and related movements are rocket fuel for idealised capitalism.

The first money I made on the web after college was made using Notepad++ to build sites on a LAMP stack. I'd guess most of us have similar stories. I'm happy to give away my knowledge for free, because it's not 1% of what I've received. And it doesn't mean I do everything for free either.

I don't think anyone can seriously claim that people making free software haven't changed EVERYTHING in software, especially on the web.

nirvana18• 14 years ago

This sounds like libertarianism to me, not socialism (small S or not.)

Libertarianism is the term for people who believe in the Non-aggression principle. (NAP)[1]

The NAP says "The initiation of force is immoral."

Thus libertarians believe that it is immoral to initiate force (against the innocent) though it is moral to defend yourself with force against its initiation.

Ragenwald rightly points out that the free software movement is more like going into competition with the company. Don't like the policies of a for profit (or even another open source) project? Build your own and compete.

The NAP makes it really easy to see the morality of various actions. Apple excluding software that is incompatible with the kind of store it wants to make: Moral. You might not like it, but it is not aggression.

The GPL restricting the way that software licensed under it is distributed or modified? Moral. You might not like it, but it is not aggression.

The workers taking over a company and kicking the owners and managers out to run it as a "workers collective": Immoral. Using force to take property from others violates the NAP.

Those same workers leaving to form your own auto company organized around your socialist ideals: Moral

The difference between libertarianism (those who agree with the NAP) and socialists, is that socialists do not agree with the NAP. This may sound like a tautology, but how many socialists oppose: (just to pick some topical examples.) -- Minimum wage laws -- Laws that require companies to recognize and negotiate with unions -- Universal healthcare -- Mandatory coverage terms for health insurance

All of the above require the use of violence (or its threat) to coerce people to act in a way that the socialists approve of.

Libertarians (by principle) oppose these positions because they violate the NAP. Socialists often support them. Also, practically, libertarians believe that all of the above make people worse off, increase poverty, etc. The NAP is the principle, but the philosophy involves recognizing the economic effects of violating the NAP are always worse than respecting it.

I've always seen the open source movement as intrinsically libertarian, and in a way, capitalist. If you don't like the terms of what's out there- compete. Getting others to contribute their time to make the product better is just an efficient form of competition. It works better for some types of software than others, but it is moral.

[1] Its popular these days, especially among those who came to call themselves "libertarians" because they like Ron Paul, to think it just means "freedom". But this isn't accurate. The founders of the Libertarian movement were clear, and the Libertarian Party required all members to sign a pledge to abide by the NAP as a condition of membership.

scottjad3• 14 years ago

Minor note: enforcement of GPL (and copyright) would be considered aggression (or threat thereof) by some libertarians because it consists in the state abridging life, liberty or property through imprisonment or seizure of property in response to non-aggressive actions.

thomaslangston• 14 years ago

I would think enforcement of GPL would be considered defensive because it would be protection of (intellectual) property.

brlewis• 14 years ago

If copyright enforcement is considered agression, then GPL enforcement is never initiation of agression. The GPL only needs to be enforced in response to someone else's copyright claims.

llambda2• 14 years ago

> This sounds like libertarianism to me, not socialism (small S or not.)

My feeling is you've not read some of raganwald's other writings which more clearly explicate socialism, the way he's using it here:

"Socialists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit or the amount of labour one contributes to society. They generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. They argue that this creates an unequal society that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential."[1]

[1] http://raganwald.posterous.com/hello-my-name-is-reginald-and...

nirvana18• 14 years ago

Correct, I'd read this one piece and followed the "small s socialism" link to read that piece.

Libertarians would have many issues to take with the quoted perspective, which is why I think the term "libertarian socialist" is an oxymoron. (I know, socialists insist that they invented the term libertarian, but socialism has a history of coopting any movement that becomes popular.)

raganwald8• 14 years ago

I respect your right to your views and to express them. The only trouble I have with your comment is that it mixes two things:

1. Explaining Libertarianism and the relationship between my words and its ideals, and

2. Professing the truth of Libertarianism.

I like the parts where you explain what Libertarians believe. I don’t believe those same things, mind you.

nirvana18• 14 years ago

I didn't mean to characterize you, but your thesis. I apologize to the extent that I did this.

jobeirne5• 14 years ago

I didn't read nirvana's comment as conflating your views and Libertarianism. Where is this happening?

cmhamill17• 14 years ago

What's funny about your response, to me, is that 'libertarian,' outside of the U.S., and in Europe especially, is generally associated with an anarchist position, and most anarchists are socialists or communists. The associations with the French revolutionaries is strong.

"The first anarchist journal to use the term 'libertarian' was La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social, published in New York City between 1858 and 1861 by French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque." [1]

The U.S. Libertarian Party's use of the word is an intentional effort by free market supporters to express their support of a certain kind of "hands-off" policy without the baggage of the left.

You're also insisting that "libertarianism"—a political philosophy—tells us anything about morality or ethics. The stance your describing above is actually a deontological ethics which takes aggression and coercion as its principal 'bad acts.' That's a much stronger position than what, in my experience, even U.S.-style libertarians tend to espouse.

Your position is also incoherent, to be blunt. You say that "using force to take property from others violates the NAP." You mean to say that a workers' occupation is an act of aggression or force, if I understand correctly. I simply ask you this: if the taking of property via force is a violation of your "NAP," what do you say to the implicit threat of force which establishes the principle of property in the first place? If your answer is that that force is not used, then I ask you whether it is okay for me to follow you around with a gun, as long as I never actually use it. If your answer is that property is a natural right or a self-evident 'thing,' I ask you to please explain why you feel this way.

I don't want to start a political flame war, but these are the issues at the heart of the article's claims. I'd love if you'd be willing to engage.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#History

nirvana18• 14 years ago

I find it endlessly amusing that communists or socialists would call themselves anarchists. I think this is just an example of socialists attempting to coopt another movement.

Libertarians are often anarchists because they believe the state cannot exist without violating the NAP. The state (By definition as an entity with a monopoly on the use of force in a geography) thus uses violence to conquer a land and takes for itself rights that naturally belong to the people.

>You mean to say that a workers' occupation is an act of aggression or force,

I don't see how this follows from anything I said. I can't connect it so, I can't respond.

>You're also insisting that "libertarianism"—a political philosophy—tells us anything about morality or ethics. That's a much stronger position than what, in my experience, even U.S.-style libertarians tend to espouse.

I'm not insisting anything. I'm giving you the definition. I'm a Libertarian, and that is what we believe. This is consistent across the US, and in my experience, among libertarians across the world. This is consistent with the founders of the Libertarian party in the 1970s, Rothbard and Nolan, and with the philosophical groundwork and economics that they took inspiration from.

FWIW, wikipedia is a crowd sourced entity. It is not authoritative, and it is often quite biased when it comes to political topics that leftists have a strong opinion about.

jobeirne5• 14 years ago

Calling the ethics as described above "deontological" is risky and ill-advised because that term is commonly used to describe Kantianism and a use of the categorical imperative[1]. These two (if taken seriously) rule out a marketplace because participants treat each other solely as a means to an end. Deontology, as it is commonly referred to, and the NAP are incompatible systems of ethics.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics#Kantianism

sliverstorm3• 14 years ago

First, I don't quite understand how you can be socialist and anarchist at the same time.

Second, 'libertarian' means 'anarchist' in the same way 'Republican/conservative' means 'fascist' and 'Democrat/liberal' means 'socialist'. Anarchist/Fascist/Socialist are extremes, and libertarian/conservative/liberal are regions along the spectrum. IMO.

derleth12• 14 years ago

> most anarchists are socialists or communists

How would this work? How would they enforce a 'no-ownership' or 'communal-ownership' principle without a state to prevent people from claiming and defending private property?

usr0110• 14 years ago

> what do you say to the implicit threat of force which establishes the principle of property in the first place?

One has a natural right to at least one property: one's own body. A natural right that is routinely violated in most so called 'free' societies; I should add. This notion of property is established (and recognized) without the threat of force, implicit or otherwise.

Now assume the existence of only one person on the entire planet. None of our political philosophies have any effect on the dealings of that one person. If another person is added however, the two have now the possibility of interaction over a limited resource. The two can attempt aggression as a means of securing the resource, or they can attempt to set out a contract. That is, a set of rules that determine how the two deal with scarcity. For example, they can agree that the person who finds something first shall consider it their property.

The two can reach this conclusion in the absence of any force, implicit or otherwise. They can reach this conclusion in the spirit of cooperation, or for entirely selfish reasons: to avoid or at least minimize the stress of conflicts.

The two can indeed introduce the possibility of aggression as a means of enforcing the contract. But if you think closely, you will see that this aggression is not defined as an initiation of force, but rather as a response to it. That is, contract or not, the first person to go against the will of the other is the aggressor. And since there is no political philosophy which prohibits one to defend themselves - libertarianism included - it seems safe to assume that everyone would agree: the return aggression is justified.

So all the contract winds up doing, is codifying the interaction and determining exactly what the two view as aggression. For example, unilateral contract termination is typically viewed as such.

When scaled up to more than two persons, the complexities increase, but the principles remain the same. A contract is a document that governs interaction. This is markedly different from a person who governs interaction in that the contract requires the agreement of all parties involved, whereas a tyrant simply imposes his or her will, unconcerned about the will of others.

Libertarianism is a way of thinking that rejects the initiation of force. It is not a way of thinking that denies the existence of force. Neither does it deny the necessity of force -- but only in response to it.

eldude3• 14 years ago

I've heard the "Libertarians are one step away from anarchists" argument multiple times before, but I've honestly always found it perplexing. At least with regards to my own libertarian views, government is essential. In libertarianism, the government is the objective enforcement of contract laws and the defender of rights. Without the government, you would have anarchy, which is a rule by force by intrinsically dishonest people resulting in the exact opposite of the upholding of contract law and rights.

That is the _opposite_ of libertarian desires for freedom from the desires of others. Why would any libertarian desire this?

I'm going to speculate, as I'm not well versed in the history of libertarianism, but I suspect it grew out of anarchism inasmuch as it was a righteous rejection of government abuse. You see this occurring today with the Occupy movement; the government has failed and rejected its duties, therefore they reject the government. I consider this throwing the baby out with the bath water.

With regards to the NAP and force, the American founding fathers regarding the 2nd Ammendment did not even believe the government should have a monopoly, but instead the whole of the populace should hold its propensity for tyranny in check with its own force so to speak. This is consistent with the libertarian value of the right to defend oneself. Force is therefore permissible whenever necessary to rectify the violation of one's rights (contract law being subsumed by this). As far as whether violating my (property) rights is an initiation of force, according to the NAP[1] it is:

     Specifically, any unsollicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property, including that person’s body, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficiary or neutral to the owner, are considered violent when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination, as based on the libertarian principle of self-ownership.

So at the end, the obvious glaring disparity between socialist and libertarians is whether the right to own property is in fact a right. Socialists as you see here (comments), obviously refuse to acknowledge the assumption of this right. Unfortunately, the natural progression of having no right to own property is the socialist value that everyone else has a right to your own mind, sweat, etc... Or in other words, we are all beholden to the desires of others as all that we own, even ourselves, are community property.

This in my mind is the most unimaginable tyranny of all, and thus I see socialism as fundamentally incompatible with libertarianism.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

javert• 14 years ago

The fact that the non-aggression principle cannot stand without an underlying philosophy is precisely why Ayn Rand, who originated that principle, rejected the U.S. libertarians' attempts to promulgate that principle in a way that was divorced from her philosophy.

olalonde3• 14 years ago

Libertarianism is basically anarchism + property rights + government that enforces freedom.

pessimizer5• 14 years ago

Socialism isn't a specific ideology, it's just a declaration that some collective involuntary actions are legitimate for the good of the group. People who label themselves as socialists range from neo-nazis to hippie farm collectives. Most libertarians believe in involuntary collective enforcement of contracts, many in involuntary collective protection of property, and some in involuntary collective enforcement of exclusive monopolies on intangibles like songs and arrangements of bits.

It's important how you define the initiation of force.

nirvana18• 14 years ago

When you sign a contract, you've voluntarily consented to its enforcement. When you're born, you've earned the right to your body, and I think the "involuntary" action is when someone violates this property right. When you trade your labor with someone else for property, you've voluntarily entered that relationship, and thus accrued right to that property (provided it wasn't previously stolen.) Land ownership is a more complicated issue. Your assertion about intellectual property is inaccurate, libertarians only believe in intellectual property rights protected by contract, not government.

I don't think libertarians believe in any collective. A collective is an abstraction. This is what trips people up. They think the "USA" is an entity, its not, its a collection of people. If I don't have the right to pull a gun on you and take your money, I don't get that right simply because I claim to be part of a collective.... but somehow many people feel that you do. Libertarians don't. Many people feel that if someone is part of a "government" or some other "collective" that this somehow gives them power over others they wouldn't have as individuals. An extreme example for counter argument is, do 5 guys get the right to rape a girl simply because they out number her and took a vote? Libertarians would say no. So, I don't think libertarians agree with "involuntary collective enforcement" in general.

>It's important how you define the initiation of force.

This is absolutely true. One thing that I've discovered is that many people I debate with think that using violence to accomplish ends they see as moral or justified is not an initiation of force (they'll even insist it is not violence.) This stumps me completely. I recognize where violence is, I feel, justified (namely in response to an initiation of force) and I'm willing to defend it. I don't have to pretend that it isn't what it is. And in the issues you bring up, some of them do bring up thorny areas (Which would require more debate than can fit here.) Abortion is the classic quandary... I'm pro-choice, but the nature of the issue makes it less cut and dry.

However, these are exceptions that prove the rule. Using the initiation of force as an indicator its easy to recognize the morality or immorality of many situations that seem to otherwise trip people up.

Everyone needs food, right? Should the government force people to work in fields to provide it, so that everyone in society is fed?

luser0012• 14 years ago

Thanks for honestly emphasizing "initiation". http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php analyzes why that qualifier renders the statement almost meaningless. I, at least, found his points convincing.

nirvana18• 14 years ago

I read quite a bit of that, despite the very hostile opening, and found it to be a quite a rant. He seems to be claiming that everything is relative, and thus the NAP is meaningless.

I really don't think the initiation is so meaningless. I know that a lot of people like to rationalize the initiation of force because they think the ultimate result is better (Which gets into practical debates, and at the end of the day is still an ends-justify-the-means argument.)

It is true that the NAP is meant to be something everyone should agree with, because we believe everyone is naturally a libertarian and just gets convinced otherwise via a lot of sleight of hand, and rationalizations.

I'd be willing to discuss it if you can provide a concrete example where the NAP fails to provide the right outcome. Or where initiation becomes "meaningless".

I certainly don't deny that there are sticky areas (abortion and rights in land being two of them.)

mchusma• 14 years ago

I was about to type the exact same opening line, then saw your post with a well crafted response. My response to the article at first was: "whoever equates open source software with socialism has no idea what either open source software or socialism is." In that, both the author (of the article, not the quote), you, and I agree. Great response, thanks!

eldude3• 14 years ago

Thanks for the fantastic articulation of the distinction between socialism and libertarianism especially with regards to FOSS. Personally, I am adamantly libertarian and adamantly anti-socialist, something that at times I find at odds with the socialist factions within FOSS communities. Nonetheless, I find the large minority (majority?) of libertarian/free-market capitalists within the community to be encouraging, though they tend to be less vocal.

At the core of the issues is the use of force and the NAP. One way this is often contentiously illustrated in the US is with government protected labor unions. As a libertarian, I view labor unions as the to-be-encouraged populist counter to incumbent monopolies, yet I find myself all too regularly unwilling to support them due to their violation of the NAP and insistence on socialist values/tactics. This is unfortunate, since it seems to create a de facto support of wealthy "capitalists" by libertarians in the view of detractors.

Government protected labor unions are the populist equivalent of corporatism, corrupt by definition, allowing workers to explicitly violate employment agreements without repercussions. Until government protected labor unions are abolished, they'll consistently fail to receive support from a large majority of the people that may share their otherwise noble intentions, pay for the value you create. The problem of course with socialists though is that value should be objectively decided by others, aka the _free_ market.

The software community and Silicon Valley seem to have gotten at least this part right, an oasis amongst many tragically morally unsupportable industries. (I would absolutely _love_ to whole-heartedly embrace support of the teachers union, but cannot.)

nirvana18• 14 years ago

You make some good points about labor unions. On one hand, a voluntary association is intrinsically moral, and it could be a force for positive good.

I don't know if you've read it or not, but Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in one lesson" is a great book. [1]

One of the chapters covers unions and he shows how economically they cannot in the end benefit workers. However, even if they are inefficient or foolish, workers have a right to form associations. Its just that employers have a right to refuse to negotiate with them.

It is interesting how libertarian the software community is, and silicon vally, in some regards-- unions being a good example. And yet in other regards they seem often to be hardcore socialist. I find it perplexing.

[1] You can get it here: http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/

rbranson2• 14 years ago

I think the main reason why there is such a large difference in the modern software industry is that unlike almost every other industry, individual developers wholly own the means of production and distribution. This is why software companies tend to have an ethos much more like a syndicate.

In other industries, workers do not own the means of production and/or distribution, therefore they MUST transact with capital owners to engage in business, creating a much more hostile relationship.

jacquesm2• 14 years ago

> This sounds like libertarianism to me, not socialism (small S or not.)

Yes, but this happens a lot with you! There isn't a day that goes by without a post from you where you take some hook and use it to put up a wall of text (or even several walls) about the libertarian view ;).

nirvana18• 14 years ago

This response, and your personal attacks in general, are why Hacker News is not what it could be. You're getting up votes not on the quality of your response, but because you adhere to the same ideology as the up vote brigade. (which makes your disclaimer in your profile amusing.)

One of the reasons I generally don't respond to responses to my comments is that so often they are along these lines.

Do you want to try and make me feel ashamed for making my comment (Something that is doomed to failure) or would you rather have a productive discussion?

Which answer do you think is better for the site?

And, for the record, I often go weeks without posting here because I have work to do.

smokeyj• 14 years ago

Capitalism and liberty are a requisite for entrepreneurship -- which is what this forum is about. Just like this community opposes regulation that is harmful to entrepreneurship, I think we should recognize philosophies that oppose entrepreneurship (socialism, fascism, communism, etc). I personally enjoy hearing the pro-liberty view point that is commonly dismissed as nutty or juvenile.

pippy• 14 years ago

Also from wikipedia: >Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy

There seems to be a myth that socialism means anti-capitalism. This is not true. You can have private, but managed private companies working in a socialist countries. You have have a fully capitalist country but with socialised essential state assets.

UnFleshedOne• 14 years ago

"The NAP is the principle, but the philosophy involves recognizing the economic effects of violating the NAP are always worse than respecting it."

Why are they always worse? A very contrived example: a company choosing to pay significantly lower wages for, say, black people does not violate NAP. They might not like it, but nobody forces them to work for that particular company, right? But is this a global economic benefit?

Free of regulations (most of which do violate NAP), entities with power will search for a local optimum, and the thing with local optima is that they can be surprisingly low, but impossible to get out of without external force.

nirvana18• 14 years ago

>"Why are they always worse? A very contrived example:"

Thank you for providing an example, but your example is not of someone violating the NAP. I was saying that if you violate the NAP the result is worse than if you don't. An example: Minimum wage laws increase unemployment, by preventing jobs that would otherwise exist from being created.

Your example of a company discriminating in pay is, unfortunately, consistent with the NAP. The NAP doesn't ensure people make the best choices, it just draws a line between moral and immoral. I believe that a company that discriminates in this way will do worse than companies that don't.

I'm not clear what the point you're making about optima is... I don't think that discrimination is optimal, even if it is moral.

jshen10• 14 years ago

"The NAP makes it really easy to see the morality of various actions."

I beg to differ. To take one example, we know for a fact that the pollution from coal fired power plants causes serious illness for thousands to millions of people a year. I've never met a libertarian who could explain to me how this situation is resolved via the NAP.

Second, I've never met a libertarian who really followed the NAP. How does the NAP deal with a serial killer?

Third, isn't the NAP a faith based belief? Why adhere to the NAP? Isn't it possible that we could measure the effect of some use of government force, and through that force it does good for the society at large? Why would we not use force in that way other than a faith based belief in the NAP?

dantheman4• 14 years ago

NAP allows for defensive violence; i.e. if someone is violating your rights you can defend yourself.

Stopping a serial killer & pollution are both cases where someone's rights have been violated.

olalonde3• 14 years ago

There seems to be a lot of hard data that supports the NAP and limited government. Think of communist vs capitalist countries, economic freedom vs standard of living, regulated vs non-regulated industries, etc.

itmag2• 14 years ago

To apply the NAP to property in good faith, one would need to have an unbroken chain of rightful lockean property acqusition - through free trade or by mixing one's labour with unclaimed land - since time immemorial. Clearly, this is not the case.

More reading: http://mutualist.org/id4.html

augustl• 14 years ago

For me, free software is about practical concerns, not activism: I don't want to depend on one company or entity, especially if I don't pay them. But even if I do pay them, I'll have troubles in using their binary blob if they go bankrupt.

So, it's about ensuring I have the ability to maintain control over the software I use in case the current maintainer stops maintaining it.

thechut• 14 years ago

Since when does a post about free software turn into a political discussion on HN?

lukejacksonn• 14 years ago

Socialist or Libertarian we should just look at the point being made..

Developers don't HAVE to develop for any specific platform. Corporations don't HAVE to distribute software they don't want.

If you want your applications to be truly 'open' then develop them for the web and don't append a licence.

The reason people are developing for platforms like iOS, is because companies like Apple provide an easy entrance to a massive market. If you want to tread on their turf, you have to play by their rules. And that is fair enough.

If the big corporations are really getting it wrong, then users and developers alike will eventually abandon their platforms for a better one; and life goes on.

If we want to make a change.. then manufacture better espresso machines, design more appealing pods or grow better beans.

smsm423• 14 years ago

I'm not sure the comparison to unions is proper. Let's see. Unions are about limiting freedom - limiting freedom of employees to work where the want and do what they want with they money (with unions, they can't work unless they join the union, they have to pay union duties and they have to abide by unions rules), and limiting the freedom on employers to hire (or cease to hire) anybody they want on conditions that are freely negotiated between them. Now, some may consider this limiting of freedoms beneficial and desirable, but it's limiting anyway.

Now, most of the people in free software movement are the exact opposite of that - they want to expand other people's choices and let them do more stuff, not less. However, some fraction of the movement (and I'm not going to name names, anybody is free to guess who they are) does want to limit choices of others in order to make them behave in ways they approve. They believe it is for the better of all, but however you take on that question is, you must recognize there's this agenda and the goal of it is to limit choices of other people in order to make them behave in a certain way. Of course, they do not go nearly as far as unions do - while unions may very well be able to deny you the use of your own property and work, these people would only at the worst deny you the use of the fruits of their work, not yours, which is completely different league.

So while for the most of the software movement comparison to unions is completely off base, there's some semblance of analogy between some parts of it and unions, but even there it's only hint of resemblance, far short of being in the same ballpark.

twelvechairs• 14 years ago

This is ridiculous - your view of unionism is way off reality. Some points just on the first paragraph:

> with unions, they can't work unless they join the union

Er. No. This is a 'closed shop' (compulsory unionism), illegal in most of the Western World, and not advocated by the great majority of unions either.

> limiting freedom of employees to work where the want and do what they want with they money

Errr. Unions don't stop employees from changing jobs or spending their money how they want. I don't understand where you get this from at all.

> limiting the freedom on employers to hire (or cease to hire) anybody they want on conditions that are freely negotiated between them

Part of the freedom to negotiate conditions is the freedom (non-compulsory) to allow a union to negotiate on your behalf. Although this doesn't always work out well for either party, I don't see how you can say that allowing a worker to appoint a union in this way is reducing anyone's freedom.

smsm423• 14 years ago

Closed shops are perfectly legal in the US. Only 23 states in the US have right-to-work laws.

"Errr. Unions don't stop employees from changing jobs or spending their money how they want. I don't understand where you get this from at all."

Unions demand (in closed shops) from employees to give them part of the money as dues, and compel them to participate in union activities (such as strikes, etc.). It is true they do not limit how they rest of the money is spent - but I never claimed they take all the freedoms away. I claimed they limit them - by requiring payments and forcing to take part in their actions.

"Part of the freedom to negotiate conditions is the freedom (non-compulsory) to allow a union to negotiate on your behalf"

This is true, however in many union shops you do not have this choice. You either accept collectively bargaining conditions or you can not be hired. You can not just come to your employer and negotiate separately. Appointing somebody to negotiate on your behalf does not limit freedom, giving him exclusive right to negotiate - and that's how many unions are working in the US - does.

jberryman• 14 years ago

> Now, some may consider this limiting of freedoms beneficial and desirable, but it's limiting anyway.

You have an odd definition of "freedom"; who is more free: the un-unionized warehouse worker who is hired by the week by a shell temp agency, or the unionized warehouse worker who can negotiate a sane contract, decent wage, and sue in cases of abuse.

smsm423• 14 years ago

No, my definition of freedom is not "odd", yours is. You are confusing "free" with "comfortable" - you can be perfectly comfortable (highly paid, well fed and cared for, respected, etc.) and be a slave (look into the ancient world - famous Aesop, for example, was a slave), or be completely free and be a penniless hobo. Freedom has nothing to do with salary. You can say you would gladly give up your freedom for a decent wage and union lawyers - fine, it's your choice. But you can not make this choice for anybody else. That's their freedom.

Confusion• 14 years ago

I like this post and most of your posts. You have full freedom to spend your time in whatever way you want. That being said: I don't understand why you feel the need to respond to a silly analogy that someone wrote 429 days ago in a comment responding to a comment of yours. I doubt you are reaching anyone that would agree with this analogy and if you were, I doubt you would convince them of their silliness. The analogy makes no sense whatsoever (at least, it is completely incomprehensible to me and I don't understand how anyone could come up with it) and the clueless are usually so unconsciously incompetent they wouldn't understand your retort if it was covered in chocolate sprinkles. I feel I've been cheated out of a more insightful post by this 'oslic'.

raganwald8• 14 years ago

I wrote the post back then, not today.

Porter_423• 14 years ago

Really awesome writing.A true example of libertarianism. Thanks for explaining the definition of freedom so well,

toddkaufmann• 14 years ago

I think this is a good piece for what it addresses. However, market capitalism (or whatever it is we have) is more complex.

This does not address the issue of monopsony: I may like my corner store, and spend my money there, but long-term they are going to fall to Wal-Mart because everyone ends up shopping there, because Wal-Mart has the power to dictate to its suppliers what the price to them will be. I guess the software equivalent is App-Mart.

Similarly, if I have a cool new device, but major platform wants big bucks for me to get "certified" as interoperable or to include my driver, this could be a stumbling block. (However it seems like standards have really been adopted, and the internet is widespread enough that this might no longer be an issue.)

Overall, I think the playing field is really being leveled now, with widespread network access and clouds and stuff. I (we) might be too exposed to the free and open possibilities, but it does seem like there is (has been?) a revolution.

Is software political? After internet access being a basic human right, should the right to choose ones software be one as well?

itmag2• 14 years ago

Personally, I think all ism-proponents are missing the point. De facto, lots of systems work and have worked.

My own ideal system would be some kind of wacky mix of libertarianism, scandinavian-style safety nets, green politics, minimum guaranteed income, heavy state support for startups, etc. But I don't pretend that this is The Way.

I'm much more interested in what you might call a taoist approach. To change the macrocosm, first change the microcosm. The key to everything is personal development.

I think we as hackers can make a difference by influencing personal development on a wide scale. Case in point: e-learning sites like Khan Academy.

hessenwolf• 14 years ago

Writing free software is not like giving away free coffee. Writing free software is like design parts for coffee machines and giving them away for free. Software is the medium, not the content.

bsphil• 14 years ago

>I do not lose because I cannot run a free program on my iPhone.

That's some peculiar logic.

The freedom to drink coffee

Related Stories