---- START NEW MESSAGE --- Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109] by dpmail10.doteasy.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.05) id AFE0B0D022A; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:20:32 -0800 Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <13.00CC1BE0@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:20:24 -0500 Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 1864 for PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:20:13 -0500 Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 1559; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:20:00 -0500 Received: from ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com [24.24.2.55] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 430) via TCP with ESMTP ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:19:59 EST X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com Received: from scientiffk65yy (roc-24-169-220-130.rochester.rr.com [24.169.220.130]) by ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i0T1JvuR020090 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:19:58 -0500 (EST) References: <1.5.4.32.20040128013159.006bd9c4@pop.hotpop.com> <009501c3e59c$ef3cbd60$7b01a8c0@Paradise> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Message-ID: <009f01c3e605$e4afd760$8000a8c0@scientiffk65yy> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:19:07 -0500 Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list Sender: pic microcontroller discussion list From: Richard Graziano Subject: Re: [OT:] On Capitalism, freedom & democracy To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Precedence: list X-RCPT-TO: Status: U X-UIDL: 371856180 In most countries those "rules" are codified in a constitution. In the capitalist-marketized economic republics there is opportunity for anyone with intellectual ability and ambition to "capitalize" on those intellectual and personality assets and acquire wealth. However, rather that trying to buy the rules they usually support the constitutional guarantees that allowed them to prosper. It is those who are politically inspired to take the wealth from those who earned it and apply "pseudo Robin Hood ideology, (or Marxism) that attempts to change the rules. It is a valid observation that some wish to play by the rules and some wish to change the rules but it is not a valid observation that some wish to buy the rules. With regards to the discussion on Communism, Marxism, Stalin and Moa I can see that the propaganda illusion that Communism, or Marxism, in it's ideal is inherently good but perverse men perverted it. This propaganda is utterly nonsense. The totalitarian Marxist idealization of governance is a rule of masses by an elite group of rulers that sustain its power by effective social control over the social order according to mass indoctrination, propaganda, education and fear. There was never any ideology of benevolence at the basis only the illusion of social pity and social conscience for the purpose of indoctrination of worker advocates. That being said I don't wish to start a political firestorm but only to provide some food for thought an quiet reflection. I do not expect all people to be a political scientist. And, thank god for that. But I do expect all people to exercise the logical ability they have. Everyone on this list is highly intelligent or they would not be on this list. Any strong reaction should be preceded by some research and directed to me at my personal e-mail address. My apology in advance to anyone I might have offended. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Russell McMahon" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 7:47 AM Subject: [OT:] On Capitalism, freedom & democracy > This is a response to an OFFLIST message I got on the "Re:SCO lobbying > Congress about Linux" thread. > > I found the response residing within my property and decided to open source > it :-) > It's got too much good stuff to let it moulder unseen. > > Change of thread name seems appropriate > O have removed the sender's name etc but they may wish to identify > themselves publicly. > Some of the material commented on was from past and recent private > discussion but the gist should be clear enough. > > > Was: Subject: Re: Re:SCO lobbying Congress about Linux > > > Me: > >If you think that communist ideals were not betrayed then does that > mean > > >that you think that Stalin, or Lenin or Mao or ... were "good" > communists. > > > Him: > If by 'good' you mean that they turned communism from theory > into > > practice, with no deviation from theory, YES. > > > > Can you explain how does THEORETICAL communism deal with the part > of > > society who DOESN'T agree with communist DOGMA ? How does a communist > > 'goverment' 'convince' the peaceful middle classes that they should be > > looted ? I'll tell you: using a gun. After looting comes killing. > > I have no good answers about how communism achieves its ends. I was not > promoting or defending it - merely suggesting that the systems that we have > seen in many places have almost all (if not all) been perversions of "pure" > communism, twisted to suit the ends of those in power. All the "communist" > mass murderers (or killers, depending on your perspective) have not been > pure communists. > > > >ie that they DIDN'T deviate substantially from the communist "ideals"? > > > > No. But for you this what you call a religious argument. > > OK. We seem to agree then > > > >eg I made various assertions about what constituted capitalism. Which if > any > > >of the following are wrong? > > > > >Is an individual NOT entitled to the complete benefit of their capital to > > >deal with it as they see fit? > > > As long as he doesn't interfere with the individual rights of > > anybody else. > > We agree on this too then. > > > BUT, your mentions of people donating money as an example of free > > will are misleading. Capitalism IS NOT about charity, but about PERSONAL, > > INDIVIDUAL responsability. The fact that you are free to donate your money > > is a byproduct of capitalism, not its essence. Capitalism is the system > that > > lets you MAKE that money in the first place. > > On what basis do you make these "additional" claims about what constitutes > capitalism? I do not believe that these are core or liable to be universally > agreed on by the majority who call themselves capitalists. As there is no > absolute basis for capitalism, the only "true" measure of what it is, is > what the significant majority of those who call themselves capitalists think > it is. Why should a minority definition be accepted as being "the one true > capitalism" any more than the view of Mormons or Methodists be taken as > gospel re what "the one true church" is. One *could* argue that Roman > catholics, with approaching 50% of the head count of those who call > themselves Christian, may have some say in what the one true church is. But > that's anothe rmatter. > > > >Is your capital NOT the total resource that you as an individual have the > > >right and capability to control? > > > > Yes, but you said also: > > > > >>For instance, if I decide that viewing beautiful sunsets (or > > >>sunsets that I decide are beautiful) constitutes increasing my capital > then > > >>it is so. > > > > That's utter nonsense. If you are talking about the economics of > > capitalism, that should imply that you know the meaning of the world > 'value' > > in economics, but apparentely, you don't. > > A major part of many business purposes is for intangibles. Goodwill, brand > value etc. Are these also nonsense concepts. A happy worker is liable to be > a more productive worker. Are the componets that serve to make the worker > happy or unhappy not to be accounted for? If not, what point is there to > holidays, tea breaks, improved amenities and their ilk (apart from > satisfying the grossly unresonable demands of strident union reps :-) ) ? > > > Air has no economic value except perhaps in the moon for > astronauts. > > Water has no economic value if you live on the shore of a river. > > That may, perhaps, be true in your country ort where you are, but I assure > you that it is not so in my country, and it is increasingly less so anywhere > on earth. The argument that water is free because it is in a river next to > where I am is akin to the argument that gold is free because it is next to > where I am. The ownership of the river/gold and te rights of property > oweners to water/gold found on theor or adjacent properties is subject to > mutual agreement, as I have discussed previously. Failure of all to agree to > be bound by common restrictions is essential for capitalism. Without this we > soon have anarchy. > > FYI In my country water is controlled by resource management regulations. > Throughout the world a few VERY large companies are manouvering to obtain > control of much of the worlds water supplies. Comin to a reservoir near YOU > soon :-). > > > Your viewing of sunsets has no economic value. It has nothing to > do > > with a discussion about economics. > > See above. > > > > > Software HAS economic value. > > > > >health > > > > has no economic value. You may be able to buy it but, Can you sell > > your health ? More nonsense. > > You are not thinking this through. > You can indeed sell your health, and many people do. While you cannot > entirely control the course of your health you can make capital selling > decisions that include the building up or destroying of your health. > The decision to work in an asbestos plant, painting factory, mine, as a > diver, demolition worker etc can all be statistically expected to have a > deleterious effect on your health. A decision to move from New York to a > lower paying job in rural Colorado may have major positive health benefits > (or may not). Working long hours may be trading health, mental or physical, > for hoped for income. The hoped for income may not eventuate. > > > .... the stock market crashes. You don't know what > > causes them. > > There are many people who THINK that they know what causes stock market > crashes. If you have any knowledge of the history of the US stock market in > the last few decades you will know that top intellectuals, who had it all > figured out, and who left top academic positions and made vast amounts of > money in the market, also ultimately found out that the system was more > complex than they had ever dreamed. "Little things" like gross government > intervention i the market were easily able to be handled. The complexities > of a chaotic system of this magnitude go far beyond what anyone has been > able to demonstrate understanding of. By all means prove me, and ALL the > experts on eartj wronhg - there's money top be made. > > But, at heart, since you say I don't know what cause market crashes, I'll > tell you what does so you can see that I do know. They are caused by human > greed and stupidity. By people attempting to push things far beyond > reasonable limits and by others (and the same) not realising what reasonable > limits are. In all cases so far :-). > > > > A libertarianism is a pure capitalist who wants the state to > > > > First, you can't even write proper english. You mean 'libertarian' > . > > I can, I assure you. But my sepll chicker sometimes has a baaad day :-). > And, indeed, you are correct, I did mean libertarian. > > > >provide nothing but a strong police force to protect them from their > slaves. > > > slaves ? You mean as the people who can't leave cuba ? Or the > former > > soviet union ? If an american is an slave, then, what word do you use for > > people living in north korea ? How far do you think such a shameful > > subversion of language will get you ? > > Um. I didn't say who I was talking about. > You are providing your own examples. There are no, as far as I know, > libertarian governance systems at work anywhere on earth. I certainly didn't > refer to the US and I do not consider the present US system to be a > libertarian one (even I'm not quite that blind). However, there are many > wanna be libertarians in any country and the US is no exception. I consider > the people of North Korea to be sadly oppressed and wish it were otherwise - > not that they would necessarily follow the US model or South Koream model > but that the average person would be able to more equitably control their > own resources (life, liberty and the pursuit of profit? :-) ). Cuba is, I > am told by some staucnh communits who I have met, the best model of > communism in the world. It appears to me to be less equitable than I would > feel comfortable with. It also seems to me to suffer extremely unfairly at > the hands of its large neighbour across the water. > > To the extent that the US seeks to obtain and employ other peoples' capital > while valuing it at a far far lower rate than they would if it were their > own capital then they exhibit characteristics somewhat akin to those of many > libertarians. > Slaves can exist in many societies. In some cases the meaning is literal, > and these exist. The North & South Sudan situation is a graphic and shameful > example. In other cases the meaning is more figurative but often about as > real. Where WE benefit from the labours of others while rewarding them at > far below the l;evel that we would be prepared to be rewarded while they > work far longer hours under far inferior conditions to those that we woukd > be prepared to work under, then we are party to enslaving them. Any > foreigner who is stupid enough to have sex with a Cambodian* prostitute is a > party to not only slavery but murder (and probably puting their health > capital at grave risk to boot) (* Cambodia used as an example as I have some > small specific knowledge about the situatuion there from friends who work > there.) > > > >As long as I use my capital > > >in the market with the aim of increasing it in a manner that seems good > to > > >me (but may not seem good to you) .... > > > > Wrong. You are a subjectivist and that has no place here. If your > > economic actions in the market are WRONG (are ineficient), as judged by > the > > market, you'll make no profits and will be forced out of it. If you don't > > get this, stop talking about capitalism. > > OK - here's the major departure. > And here's where you don;t seem to understand the open software thing. > You are actually seeking to compell. > You are seeking to make people do as you insist they must. > You are telling them how they MUST run their lives, use their resource. > > You areuggesting socialism (or equivalent). > You, while calling yourself a capitalist, are actually a socialist. > (I won't hold it against you - Some of my best friends are socialists :-) ) > > > The market is NOT the place for charity or donations. > > Which comrade syas so. comrade :-) ? > > > If software > > has no value, as the OSS gang claims, > > Wrong, No, stop. halt etc. > anothe rmajor departure from reality. > The OSS does NOT say that softare has no value. > Tje OSS has NEVER seaid that software has no value. > The OSS definitely considers that software DOES have value. Value is not > necessarily discussed, but the whole reason fro the OSS placing restrictions > on how their software may be used is becaise their software DOES have value. > Many people have started this repeatedly. > If you can't understand this point you are not able to sensibly participate > in the discussion. > Alas. > > > then it has nothing to do with the > > market. Get it ? > > Corollary: If it does have value then it has everything to do with the > market. > And it does have value. > > > >****Competition is an inherent characteristic of capitalism**** > > > > It's also a characteristic of all the other collectivistic > systems. > > Um. No. Surely at least SOME collectivist systems work on the basis of "you > do what you can and you get what you need and we don't necessarily measure > things". > > > So, your point ? > > My point is that you, by trying to deny people the right to utilise their > valuable capital (aka software) as they see fit, it being theirs, as you > would agree, to manage as they see fit, are seeking to compell them to not > behave competitively. You are seeking to destroy one of the principal tenets > of capitalism. > > > >> If you > > >> include open source code in your proprietary algorithms, you must > disclose > > >> them ? Nonsense. > > > > > > > >This is shooting down an argument that has not been made. > > > > > > Ha. That's the underlying argument wich you don't dare face. I'm > not > > entering a contract wich voids my private property. And a contract wich > > voids private property is COMPLETLY AGAINST the spirit of capitalism. And > > the OSS licence is just such a contract. > > > Why can't you understand this? > A if not THE key point about capitalism is freedom to control you won > capital. To not be compelled. To make your own decisions. Capitalism and > democracy are two different birds, but they flock together. > > You keep DEMANDING that people do with their software what YOU want them to > do. > You keep on insisting that they are mking yo, ort others do things against > your will. > This is nonsense. They are offereing a contract. They are offereing valuable > considerations which you may accept or decline as you see fit. If you do not > find their noffer valuable enough you are completely free to reject it. > Nobody is seeking to compell anyone to use OSS software. > What part of NOT COMPULSORY is so hard to undertand? > > What they are saing is IF you choose to accept > IF you wish to use their software > IF you consider it worthwhile > IF you wish to excercise yor free will, > then the capital contribution that theyrequire of you in exchange is the > profit that you would have made if you had been able to sell your software > for money. > > What you are saying is that "this price is too high". Your objection is that > they are seeking to make you do things that you find excessively capital > expensive. If so, and you have a superior and/or cheaper alternative, by all > means use it. They will in no wise whatsoever be distressed by losing your > business. A key tenet of capitalisjm is that the seller sets the price that > they think the market will bear. If youi and all others find their price > (which is NOT free) too dear, please do shop elsewhere. If you are correct > then the mystical fortces of supply and eemand will in due course shape the > market prcies. This is pure capitalism at work. > > > >> It's ironic that the people who are for 'sharing' and not 'profit' > > >> end up hiring lawerys to enforce their copyright free copyrights... > > > >No mention need be made of "profit", for or against, in explaining the > open > > >source concept. > > > > > > We are talking about ECONOMICS, that is, the REAL WORLD in wich > the > > OSS programmers LIVE. So, if you can discuss capitalism with: > > > > a) > > no use of the concept of 'profit' > > No - profit is intended - just not by means of immediate monetary payment. > > > b) > > no knowledge of the concept of 'value' > > As above - the value being asked is what you consider you have to forgo as a > result of the deal. > > > c) > > no knowledge of the stock market, central banking, fiat money, and > > the bussiness cycle, > > The argument has not touched on these issues. > This does not mean that they aren't (or are) pertinent. > > > d) > > calling the freest people 'slaves', > > Nobody did. > But, as you have identified the US as rthe people that you considered were > being called slaves, they are certainly not the free-est. The US has rthe > highest imprisonment rate per capita in the worls, having recently surpassed > Russia (I think it was). This is not i iteslf a measure of absolutevfreedom > but suggests that some other countries are free-er. A very low imprisonment > rate might also indicate a lower degree of societal freedom. I suspect that > my country, while not top of the list, is free-er than thre US on many > measures. > FWIW > > > e) > > not understanding what competion in the market is. > > I'm happy with my grasp of the subtleties of the concept. > > > all right, the joke is on you. Do you feel ok pretending to lecture me on > > capitalism ? > > Absolutely :-) > > > Some links for you: > > > > www.mises.org > > Quite interesting! > Has some material on the SCO / Linux issue. > > > www.lp.org > > Ah. The Libertarian Party. > > From their site > > http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0402/libsolutions.html > > I can see how much they would have hated that great communist US leader > JFK > when he said "Ask not what your country can do for you ....." > > > > > > Russell McMahon > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics > (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics .