I don't view Stallman as having a "communistic" mind-set at all. I view him as having a post-scarcity mind-set. In terms of the modern Information Age and its ability to make virtually infinite perfect copies of bits at nearly zero cost, he is correct. That you and others who share your viewpoint would read his works and falsely liken it to a doctrine arising in the mid-1800s (i.e. Marxism/Communism) simply tells me that the man is ahead of his time.

The point about a hammer stands, because much software is used as tools for making other things. No manufacturer of hammers would last a moment in court if they tried to implement an EULA, yet in the quest to make "intellectual property" more like physical property, copyright law allows this sort of thing to be done with software. Obviously this means it goes too far. The desire for software freedom is simply a desire to achieve a more reasonable balance.

The thing I have great difficulty understanding is this need so many have to worry about the guy personally. Did you know that no one is going to try to force you to agree with him 100%? Did you realize that you can take his ideas that resonate with you and ignore the rest? For example, you can run a mostly Open Source Linux system, but then use some proprietary software such as the nVidia drivers? Yes, you can, with your own systems, achieve whatever balance *you* find reasonable, no matter what Stallman says (of course, you have this option at all because of him).

If Stallman were threatening to send storm troopers to your home to force you at gunpoint to live the way he wants, then I would understand all this vitriol against someone you never had to listen to. I've never heard of him doing that and I don't consider it likely. Meanwhile, of course the man is going to advocate what he believes. Did you expect him to advocate a philosophy he doesn't believe in? So what's the actual problem, here? That he has an audience, that when he speaks it makes headlines, and when you speak it doesn't? Is that the root of the problem? If so, that's known as simple jealousy.

Definitely "Funny", since it's an AC. If it were a logged-in user, I'd use "Insightful" to contribute in some small way to their karma score.

If you want to get rid of Facebook (have it go the way of MySpace -- remember them?) without replacing it with the next centralized panopticon, what you need is a completely standardized, completely open, secure, encrypted, cross-platform, peer-to-peer method of implementing the same features. Nothing less will do. Until then, when Facebook finally diminishes it will simply be replaced by the next Facebook-wannabe.

It does take a certain humility to abandon what may very well have been a project dear to one's heart, in order to advance a larger goal that will benefit more people. What's more typical is to see Not Invented Here and other forms of pride get in the way of what should be a technical decision. The very idealism that draws so much (mostly useless) criticism to this guy (from people who haven't contributed a fraction of his works) is his best feature.

The term with which I'm more familiar is "opinion leaders". But to expand on your idea, "the system" isn't the communications medium so much as the prevailing social norms and expectations. Being "different" in terms of which soda to drink, which football team to root for, or which major party to vote for will be celebrated and encouraged. Any serious questioning of anything more fundamental than that would make one a deviant, viewed (at best) as odd or eccentric and likely faced with the "loneliness" you mention in the form of marginalization.

I believe Stallman is credited for this because the average user never heard of Open Source or Free Software until the arrival of the GPL and its enabling of systems built with the Linux kernel and GNU userland. Now that those have arrived and taken off, the corporate investment in open source software has increased tremendously and most people have at least heard of Linux even if they don't personally use it. Lots more people at least use some kind of open source software even if they are not programmers and don't appreciate what this means, e.g. Firefox, much of Android and its apps, many servers run Linux, etc. These things are all based around the GPL.

One could speculate that what the movement really needed was more ubiquitous Internet access, of course, but for whatever reason, FOSS and similar ideas were completely unknown to average users until the GPL took off. That's why Stallman receives this kind of credit. You also have to admire a guy when most criticisms against him boil down to "you are too much of a purist" which can be restated as "you are too consistent [for my liking/convenience] with your stated principles". He contributed not just a license that really facilitated worldwide collaboration, but also a consistent, well-articulated set of principles based on his best understanding of freedom; and he actually got many people to listen to them. That's an accomplishment all by itself.

Getting a message out that can reach many, applies to few, and will be enjoyed by fewer is not the same thing as being truly understood and appreciated by someone who is willing to invest in a meaningful relationship. It's been framed into your standard quantity vs. quality affair.

The obsessive control freaks who run major corporations will never be satisfied with this approach.

Actually a central tenet of libertarianism is the notion that we should have some approximation of a free market. Governments using force/threat of force to arrange any form of collusion is a step away from an approximation of a free market.

Government in general represents force, as government is the only entity legally allowed to use force (up to and including deadly force) and threat thereof to achieve its goals. The whole idea of libertarian thought is that people should be free to live their lives and conduct their affairs without being coerced by force and fraud. Governments using force (that is, using the one tool they truly have) to screw with markets is nothing like this.

See my earlier post in this discussion for my take on why it's so trendy for those who don't understand even the basics of libertarian thought to feel free to issue their opinions on it anyway. For the small-minded, no, "no true Scotsman" doesn't work here, because this isn't some fringe belief, this is a central tenet of libertarian thought, one of its core components. Someone rejecting this tenet is advocating something other than libertarian thought, it's really that simple.

The real problem is regulatory capture and the revolving door between the regulating agencies and the industries they're supposed to be overseeing. I think we need laws stating that anyone who has ever worked for an industry, and their immediate families and their known business associates, is not allowed to work in any capacity for a regulating agency, and vice-versa. The penalty should be ten years imprisonment with the general prison population, and the law should include a $50,000 bounty for the police officers, prosecutors, and any informants who successfully convict anyone guilty of this crime.

If that sounds harsh, consider the harshness of living under a government that no longer represents its people.

I've never known small-'l' libertarians (like myself) to get upset over everything, nor anything practically approaching everything. What's actually happened and accumulated over the years is the discrediting and demonization of the one political philosophy that, if implemented, would prevent the US from inevitably collapsing under its own weight. That philosophy is "the government we need to protect civil rights and institute necessary regulations, but not more than that, and whenever possible actually using federalism and having this government come from the local and state levels".

People can cry about "no true Scotsman" while contributing nothing if they like, I don't care, after all that is one of the currently trendy fixations or memes on this site, though its implied promise of instant effortless slam-dunk "victory" never seem to materialize. But I've never seen a self-described small-'l' libertarian who was an anarcho-capitalist (e.g. you get only the police protection you can afford to pay for, and other rubbish notions like this). I've seen plenty who recognize law enforcement as one of the legitimate functions of government, with the goal of preventing people from using force/fraud to deprive others of their civil rights.

I've seldom met one who didn't recognize the vast wealth disparity as a problem, and reasonable regulations as a method of preventing it from getting out of control. You can't have anything even slightly resembling a free marketplace if a few major players can trample little guys (keywords in that sentence: slightly resembling).

I could go on and on, but the point is simple: there is a certain spectrum of libertarians I've actually observed because I was honestly interested and took the time to look and learn about it... then there are these imaginary "libertarians" someone periodically rails against on this and other sites. The problem is, I've never actually witnessed the latter. The closest I've encountered were genuine anarcho-capitalists who had libertarian sympathies, but they didn't represent themselves as libertarians, they (correctly) called themselves anarchists.

The whole thing smells of a smear job. It's standard PR practice. If "you" are the major political parties and the entire power structure built around them, so you have a lot of power and wealth to lose and want to protect it ... and then something goes against your interests, and it actually is a good idea with no serious logical flaws so you cannot attack it on those grounds, you don't just give up there. You simply can't let this idea catch on, as it would drastically reduce your own size and power. Standard practice at that point is to use FUD tactics, lie, misrepresent, whatever it takes to discredit this idea that, if implemented, would harm your position. With the current media apparatus, it really isn't very hard for monied interests to do this.

So that establishes both motive and capability. It's a smear job. Implementing anything resembling libertarian thought would mean the single largest transfer of power away from the federal government and towards the states and the people. It just can't be represented in a favorable light.

Heh I don't know about that, you did a really fine job yourself. My main contribution was the recognition that much of it comes from the personal insecurities of the perpetrators. Your own recognition of the tendency itself was certainly accurate and I found your illustration of it witty and amusing.

Few people are philosophers (in the sense that Thoreau used the term [see his comment on the news]), so they don't perform regular introspection and they aren't constantly seeking to understand and overcome their weaknesses and character flaws. That causes all sorts of insanity, like making the same mistake over and over again while clinging to a victim mentality that blames anyone or everyone else.

Otherwise, people would make these false inferences a time or two, receive a rebuff, and say "hmm maybe I should be more careful about making assumptions and putting words in the virtual mouths of others". By asking them to cease, you're actually asking them to sort out all of the personal baggage they would have already faced if they had the courage. Most people/sheeple/whatever you want to call them would rather repeat their insanity.

I appreciate (and assume) that the way you mean "need" is along the lines of "the perceived need of those implementing it", and not a need in the true sense of an essential thing that must not be absent. There really is no need. An individual is still much more likely to be killed by their own goverment (typically: shot by a cop) than be harmed in any terrorist attack. If there's a need at all, it's for strongly encouraging surveillance of police and swift, certain, vigorously enforced legal consequences for any failure to perform their legitimate jobs. That's if security is the actual goal.

Like I think you're saying, the "need" comes from a desire to shit all over the Constitution while maintaining a thin veil of legitmacy.

I've never seen a full-service gas station in my state, nor a neighboring state I sometimes visit. I might have a real problem if I had to depend on one for any reason. I've heard that some states have nothing but full-serice stations because of union clout, but I wouldn't want to count on that alone to move entire shipments across the country. Naturally, YMMV.

Now if I exercise a little benefit of doubt and put a little thought into how your idea might work (see my above post on why stupid insecure people refuse to try this -- it deprives them of their deep-seated need to say "hah you're wrong!"), such systems being commonplace may create more demand for full-service stations. The truck-driving jobs lost might be partly offset by new jobs being created since these stations will need attendants. This is consistent with the overall American trend of replacing solid blue-collar jobs with entry-level service type jobs.

I wonder how long that hypothetical arrangement could last? Eventually you can expect that someone will create an economical, reliable way to make these cars self-fueling or self-charging.

He was just joking. When stupid people talk, they generally assume everyone else is as stupid as they are. Thus they ignore what you clearly are saying and how it was obviously intended to be interpreted, because that would make sense -- and you're as stupid as they are, right? -- so that just can't be what you meant. Then they twist the meaning around, play idiotic word games, and perform various mental gymnastics. Then they ascribe the results to you; the fascinating part is that they can do this themselves while believing that you are responsible. Then they state what was obvious all along, patting themselves on the back because of how "wrong" you are and how "right" they have been all along. Finally Daddy will be proud and find time for them, or those bullies back in school will regret picking on them, or whatever their problem was that made them so insecure in the first place. Until next time someone posts anything ever-so-slightly controversial, anyway.

Nothing short of turning a three-line post into paragraphs of legalese covering each potential interpretation of all terms used would satisfy them, as though such personalities aren't destroying the fun of this site already. Even in that case, I suspect they'd find a way to be a nuisance.