tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96033924639858208.post3313901479831949611..comments2023-04-01T20:15:56.666+02:00Comments on Yaakov Nemoy: Open Source and Anarchism?Yankeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16006445457394865979noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96033924639858208.post-60819678526201248722008-12-24T00:50:00.000+01:002008-12-24T00:50:00.000+01:00@linuxcanuck,You're dead on. We definitely have a...@linuxcanuck,<BR/><BR/>You're dead on. We definitely have an anarchistic model that has proven that true anarchy creates a better product. The clincher is that you have corporations and government investing in true anarchy.<BR/><BR/>The value in anarchism is the positive side of things. On the negative side, if you don't participate in the anarchism, you can be sued in court. How would you encourage people to retain the positive side of things when the negative side does not exist anymore?Yankeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16006445457394865979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96033924639858208.post-43993607961789292822008-12-24T00:47:00.000+01:002008-12-24T00:47:00.000+01:00@Kurt,I like your summary.To be on topic though, h...@Kurt,<BR/><BR/>I like your summary.<BR/><BR/>To be on topic though, how would you encourage the value of open source though, if copyright and therefore license and contract law did not exist anymore?Yankeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16006445457394865979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96033924639858208.post-85772642245771063752008-12-24T00:46:00.000+01:002008-12-24T00:46:00.000+01:00@Joel,That's a one sided argument for anarchism th...@Joel,<BR/><BR/>That's a one sided argument for anarchism that i've seen alot. I'm not going to go into the details on how one individual might actually respect the works of another individual. It implies that people place valuation into copyable goods.<BR/><BR/>Better question though. Who knows what an anarchistic society would actually look like? I don't know, and neither do you ;).Yankeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16006445457394865979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96033924639858208.post-30623606121178823832008-12-24T00:43:00.000+01:002008-12-24T00:43:00.000+01:00@Michael,Anarchy does not preclude a meritocracy. ...@Michael,<BR/><BR/>Anarchy does not preclude a meritocracy. The main argument for Anarchy is what Kurt definitely expressed well. People that choose to participate on the inside willingly accept certain rules put on them. People that choose not to accept them sit on the outside.<BR/><BR/>An analogous comparison is the classic debate question "Should all software be open source de facto?". In one class, a professor mistakenly assigned me the con side of that in a debate. He presumed i was completely 100% pro open source. I argued that you can't force anyone to actually choose to play by the rules of open source. It has to be a willing choice. Then i countered that open standards are far more critical.<BR/><BR/>Even in an anarchist society, market pressures will most likely lead to open standards. The only catch is that in an anarchistic society, there will be no DMCA blocking people from cracking closed standards. And yet, it is still ultimately up to the individual which rules he wants to play by. If other individuals have problems with it, the must find a creative solution to the issue, and can't rely on government to enforce their personal point of view. Ultimately this means that a meritocracy can exist, but to make it function, the participants have to convince others of its value over pure chaos.Yankeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16006445457394865979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96033924639858208.post-58524629027721227472008-12-24T00:30:00.000+01:002008-12-24T00:30:00.000+01:00Our strongest defense is our lack of centralized a...Our strongest defense is our lack of centralized authority and organization. One of the things that protects Linux from takeover is that it is more than the basis for an operating system. It is community driven and even chaotic at times.<BR/>What Microsoft would like is for there to be only one distribution and for it to have central authority. That way they could understand it and destroy it. As it stands, it is like trying to nail Jello to the wall. They don't quite know what to make of it and that has protected us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96033924639858208.post-44685175131222597512008-12-21T07:50:00.000+01:002008-12-21T07:50:00.000+01:00@ Vit Pimenov above:"The search for some idealisti...<B>@ Vit Pimenov</B> above:<BR/><I>"The search for some idealistic society is useless, because all these ideas are based on single presumption, that people will behave the same way (whatever its name is), which is not true at all."</I><BR/><BR/>On the contrary! The beauty of an anarchist society is that it makes no such assumptions, and allows people to truly behave in their own way as long as doing so does not exploit others and prevent them from doing the same.<BR/><BR/>Anarchy is the ideal of inclusive societies, because it (or rather, the conditions that create it) explores all possible methods of accommodating the behavior and needs of others.<BR/><BR/>Where problems occur, an anarchist society would look at other non-coercive options, such as mediating a mutual agreement to resolve the issues - on an ongoing basis if necessary.<BR/><BR/>If that didn't work and the individuals concerned still could not resolve their issues, then the final option is for those individuals to drop out of the society, and thus lose the privileges which go with that - a sort of "exile".<BR/><BR/>Sure, a few people would probably do this, but they'd be choosing an unnecessarily hard life for themselves - which is hardly human nature, is it!?<BR/><BR/>Also, don't forget that once an anarchist society was established, people would behave pretty differently in the first place. Freed from the current dog-eat-dog mentality (largely a creation of external economic circumstances which pit us against each other), we would be far more likely to understand, accept and accommodate the needs of others - who would in turn be far more likely to understand, accept and accommodate our own needs.<BR/><BR/>Nobody is particularly saying it would be easy to get to this point, but it's not an insurmountable problem either. We start by understanding the problem and changing ourselves and our own treatment of others.<BR/><BR/>A final point: Anarchy is not an "ideal" society in that it can be defined and created by following a recipe to arrive at a static "perfect" point. Instead, Anarchy is a constantly adaptive, dynamic way of organising society so as to maximise liberty (including economic liberty) for all, while at the same time dealing with problems in a co-operative, non-hierarchical, non-coercive manner.<BR/><BR/>The "ideal anarchist society" is not one in which everything is <I>"perfect"</I>, but one in which it is possible to resolve problems in an adaptive, truly democratic and non-coercive manner.<BR/><BR/>Creating anarchy in reality is therefore a constant, adaptive, living human <B>process.</B>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04227522052395007225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96033924639858208.post-510609438613872242008-12-20T19:28:00.000+01:002008-12-20T19:28:00.000+01:00>An anarchistic society could very well have a ...>An anarchistic society could very well have a copyright, so long everyone chose to respect that right<BR/><BR/>no, if you have stupid transfers of wealth from one class to another like that you're UNDOING anarchy.Joel Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02661800619666245838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96033924639858208.post-29515688530576625632008-12-20T16:44:00.000+01:002008-12-20T16:44:00.000+01:00You confuse anarchy with a meritocracy of ideas.You confuse anarchy with a meritocracy of ideas.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11104956637215569339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96033924639858208.post-39316251182592677432008-12-20T13:15:00.000+01:002008-12-20T13:15:00.000+01:00Thank you. Your words make sense.I think it is not...Thank you. Your words make sense.<BR/><BR/>I think it is not a problem of an Open Source itself, but rather a problem of human nature.<BR/><BR/>The search for some idealistic society is useless, because all these ideas are based on single presumption, that people will behave the same way (whatever its name is), which is not true at all. <BR/><BR/>All we can do is to anticipate changes and adapt to them quickly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96033924639858208.post-80003439039305808412008-12-20T10:40:00.000+01:002008-12-20T10:40:00.000+01:00An anarchistic society could very well have a copy...An anarchistic society could very well have a copyright, so long everyone chose to respect that right. The premise is that the consumers of the Open Source code would choose to abide by a social agreement that would essentially be the same Open Source licenses.<BR/><BR/>I'm making a presumption that many people will continue to play by the same rules, more or less, even if there were a revolution tomorrow morning.Yankeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16006445457394865979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96033924639858208.post-73738951167275138922008-12-20T08:56:00.000+01:002008-12-20T08:56:00.000+01:00In an anarchist society there is no government and...In an anarchist society there is no government and hence no copyright. Therefore in anarchist society copyright licenses would not exist. The topic of free software/open source in the absence of copyright is an interesting one that we could all do well to think about, especially Debian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com