Not "democracy"
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Oct 19, 2005 3:26 PM EDT |
Come on. By democratic principles, we'd have to all use Windows because 50%+1 use Windows. Democracy is pretty much the worst way to run anything, it is the iron fist of coercion in the very worn and ragged velvet glove of "you voted, so you chose this no matter how much you don't like it". F/OSS is _anarchy_, as in "without coercive rule". Interested people interact voluntarily. I like the Debian projects to use not only the Linux kernel but also BSD and HURD, and recently someone ported much of the core to run on FreeSolaris. |
| tadelste Oct 19, 2005 6:17 PM EDT |
Well Bob, thank you for sharing your views. You may discover that some people don't agree with your assessment. So, you think the inmates are running the asylum? |
| dinotrac Oct 19, 2005 7:18 PM EDT |
Tom - Bob actually has a point, at least, up to a point (sorry, couldn't help that). Technically speaking, a democracy coerces the minority to accept the decisions of the majority. The reality, of course, is much more subtle than that, and FOSS can be viewed as a Democratic process in that developers and users alike get to vote on software by writing and/or using it. |
| tadelste Oct 19, 2005 7:49 PM EDT |
Dino, Dino, Dino. Which one of us has time to write the complete set of the Annals of Democracy? Of course a democracy coerces the minority. But the minority also has rights and uses those rights to coerce the majority 24x7. You also have to factor in other influences. That's not the point of conflict. We're really talking about the alignment of efforts in the accomplishment of a common goal or set of goals. It's essentially the arguement about agreement. Nothing and everything exist by agreement. Sure Bob has a point. Read it into the record. By agreement the inmates run the assylum. How do I characterize the assylum - as anarchy? By rule of law? Chaos theory? Generally, people just want everyone to settle down and go about their business without driving each other crazy. I don't care what you call it. I want to go out to dinner and I don't want to worry about someone stealing my car, robbing me, setting off a suicide bomb or acting like a drunk and disturbing my meal. Now, for practical purposes think of a population. In that population of 1 million, 2000 have a disease. I go out and solicit contributions to find a cure. No one contibutes a cent. That's the essence of democracy. The majority, no, the vast majority say that the disease doesn't matter. Nothing happens, the 2000 have to accept the consequences. That's why no cure for Lou Gehrig's disease exists. By rule of law, the majority can fall and that's the exception. Did the majority gain its position by legal and ethical means? If not, bring them down. Otherwise get to work and influence enough people to create a majority from the plurality. I'm just rambling because it's you, btw. |
| PaulFerris Oct 20, 2005 1:12 AM EDT |
Bob, interesting point of view. Let me explain my viewpoint on why Linux is to operating systems as Democracy (in the purest sense) is to government. If you want to move to another country (Switch OSes), you're sometimes free to do so. If you want a vote in the way that Windows controls your computer, you have to get hired and move to Redmond Washington. From there on out, you're part of the dictatorship. Try and (as a casual user) get a look at the "Windows constitutional makeup" -- and no, I'm not talking about the EULA, I'm simply talking about the source code. True, most users don't have the smarts, but how many people in the continental U.S. have taken a lawyerly look at the laws -- at least we can. We have a say -- we can "vote" and change some of the laws. If you live in a dictatorship, you can't do that as a regular citizen. That's why I liken it to Democracy. There is dictatorship-like control over the kernel (Linus), but users are free to make their own kernel anytime if they so desire. Try that with any Microsoft product. For these and other reasons, I stand firmly by my analogy. Sincerely, --Paul |
| Koriel Oct 20, 2005 2:01 AM EDT |
Not sure your moving country analogy is a good one there Pauly, i switched from windows to linux in about a month, back in the dim and distant earlyish 90's without to much of a problem you should now see the hoops i am having to jump through with switching from Scotland to the US (wife is American), need to fork out lots of money for various compliance stuff and still no guarantees i'll get anything at the end of the day hmmm sounds just like Microsoft :) Gimme an OS switch anytime! Cheers Ali |
| PaulFerris Oct 20, 2005 2:55 AM EDT |
Koriel: Your move from Scottland to the US sounds like the typical switch from one OS to another, you ask me :0) Is that what you meant to say? --FeriCyde |
| tadelste Oct 20, 2005 3:38 AM EDT |
Paul, it sounds more like being on the wagon. |
| dinotrac Oct 20, 2005 5:24 AM EDT |
Tom - I agree that anarchy is chaos. The funny thing is that democracy, by holding the coercive and cooperative power of government, is actually capable of providing the freedom that anarchy shouts but fails to deliver. The thing that makes democracy so lovely is that there is no such thing as "the majority". Majorities shift with issues, time, current events, etc. Majorities may not even be homogenous, but rather a coalition of disparate groups with common interests. Think of all the political clout African Americans achieved in the 60s and 70s by completing the Democratic majority. Tis a lovely thing. And you're not the only one who can ramble. |
| PaulFerris Oct 20, 2005 5:52 AM EDT |
Quoting: And you're not the only one who can ramble. What is this? Some kind of confession of the obvious?!? I'm breathing oxygen, btw. --FeriCyde |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 20, 2005 6:15 AM EDT |
Dino, anarchy and chaos are two different words for a reason. I can recommend the articles of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://www.mises.org , for investigations into the activities of human beings under differing levels of coersion. And that's really the difference. Chaos can occur under a coercive environment, just as it can occur in an anarchic environment. F/OSS is anarchic because there is no rule. No one is coerced. The choices are not democratic because the majority holds no coercive force over the actions of the minority, or the individual. Individuals cooperate for the same reason that people voluntarily cooperate every day: It's more efficient than trying to do everything alone. As for the "rights of the minority" under a democracy, they only have the rights that the majority allows to them. One of the most basic rights in the so-called "enlightened" west, is Habeas Corpus. The US and England governments are doing a very good job in undermining it with pretty words like "enemy combatant", while the English government is presently going so far as to try to remove the "right" completely. How does this relate to F/OSS? No one, no matter how large a majority they have, can tell me what to run. That is no democracy. |
| dinotrac Oct 20, 2005 6:28 AM EDT |
Bob - Chaos and anarchy are two different words because anarchists can't deal with calling a spade a spade. As to FOSS, if you don't think coercive power exists, you either aren't looking. Coercion need not carry the force of law to be effective. For that matter, it need not be completely effective to be effective enough. Have you forgotten the dustup a few years back when His Freeness, RMS, along with the Deacons of Debian, declared that the QT license was free, but wasn't free enough to soil their precious little distribution? Tell me what kind of QT license is available now, Bobby. I'll give you a hint: you can it under something that starts with G and ends with L, if you are so inclined. How about the XFree86 crew deciding that they wanted a mention from any distribution that packaged up their software? They can still demand that, but they aren't going to get it because the distros have moved on x.org. It's easier to write code for XFree86 now than to find anybody using it. Nope. Say what you will, bury your head in the sand or some other nether place, democracy fits just fine. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 20, 2005 4:39 PM EDT |
Dino, it's clear that we are using two different meanings for "coercion", if you think choosing to write software other people will use is "coercive". Did the decision of the Debian group effect any other distribution? Were people forced to use Debian, Diny? Or rather (since I do not know the details of your example I must make some assumptions) did the QT people change their license because they wanted to reach the Debian users? Democracy is coercive. Voluntary interaction is not. If you can find anything in your examples where someone changed their mind because a gun was held to their head by agents of the majority, then I will agree that decision was made democratically. |
| dinotrac Oct 20, 2005 5:26 PM EDT |
Bob - If your definition of coercion is limited to guns at the head, then there is no reasonable basis for discussion. |
| PaulFerris Oct 20, 2005 5:30 PM EDT |
Rob: you describe government in general. The coercive behavior you describe can happen in either a totalitarian regime or in a democracy, so I don't see relevance in the critism of it (Democracy). We're describing the closest thing here -- the fact is you don't get a vote with Microsoft. You do with Linux. Some people vote -- some do not. Most people see it this way. You do not. Thank God Dave Whitinger believes in some democratic principals -- your comments have seen the light of day. If we were working internal on a Microsoft intranet somewhere, do you think the same thing would be going on? Would that not be a similar situation to a totalitarian government? The analogy stands. It's not perfect, but neither is democracy as implemented in any attempt. Government and Operating Systems are different functions -- but they both deal in control. The fact is, you have precious little control over how Windows behaves or what's included in a "distribution". --FeriCyde |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!