The goals of Richard Stallman and the "free software" movement: stupid and evil (was Re: Spinoff: Using Linux for work?)

["Richard G. Combs" <richard -dot- combs -at- polycom -dot- com>]

Bruce Byfield wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 16:39 -0400, Brian Gordon wrote:
>
> > Just because
> > something is a need does not oblige others to provide
> > it. (Not restricting access is the same as giving it
> > away.)
>
> No, but it's generally considered higher ethical behavior to share and
> to assist others than to horde it for yourself.

Then Sean Wheller added:

> My prediction:
> In the next few years, issues such as access to information and knowledge
> empowerment will drive the principle of Open Source Software to become -
>
> A Human Rights Issue
>

So there you have the two faces of altruism/socialism. First comes the
gentle, easy-going approach that uses shame, guilt, and bogus logic: "You're
not obligated, of course, but don't you feel _guilty_ for not sharing your
stuff with others who _need_ it more than you do? Most of us more evolved
and sophisticated human beings frown on hoarding, you know."

But there are always plenty of people such as me who reject this crap, so
Bruce's easy-going approach inevitably evolves into the imperious demand
that Sean predicts (or hopes for): "The need for information and empowerment
is a basic human right, just like the right to food, shelter, a job, health
care, education, transportation, leisure, dignity, cable TV, cool sneakers,
blah, blah, blah, ... Therefore, your failure to fulfill those needs
violates the needy people's rights. The punishment for this is..."

The trouble with altruism/socialism is that it denies human nature and the
nature of reality, making it both stupid and evil. Since all goods exist
only in finite quantities and require effort to produce, and since humans'
needs are infinite, humans _will_ compete to fulfill as many of their needs
as they can for as little effort as possible.

If you insist that someone's "need" represents a moral and/or legal claim on
goods that someone else has produced, you get at least two terrible
consequences: (1) People compete to be the most needy. (2) People are discou
raged from producing things.

To the extent that Bruce's "moral suasion" is replaced by Sean's
"enforceable claim," there is a third terrible consequence: A totalitarian
police state is necessary to decide among competing claims of need, to force
people to produce, and to detect and punish the countless attempts to get
around a system that cannot be made to work.

Sean, I'm sure you feel all noble and all, but whether you admit it or not,
your vision of the future logically leads to "anti-social behavior" crimes,
internal security forces, and labor camps. It's been tried several times.
The results aren't pretty.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is one
of the most horrible ideas ever created.

Other than that, I have no problems with you Stallmanites and your "free"
software. <g>

Richard


------
Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom

303-223-5111
------
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom
303-777-0436
------








^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now Shipping -- WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word! Easily create online
Help. And online anything else. Redesigned interface with a new
project-based workflow. Try it today! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l

Doc-To-Help 2005 converts RoboHelp files with one click. Author with Word or any HTML editor. Visit our site to see a conversion demo movie and learn more. http://www.componentone.com/TECHWRL/DocToHelp2005

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.