Why Libertarians Should Celebrate Free Software

The Truth about Libertarians

Timothy B. Lee was featured on this site a couple of months back too, a breath of clear air at last from the CATO Institute. This chap has not lost sight of first principles, and it would seem from his ability to change his mind in public that he is loyal to that which accords with his ethics.

It seems to me many Libertarian writers stopped thinking from first principles years ago, now they reason as though their early conclusions are first principles. Eg. on considering the issues arising from comparing and contrasting the USA and Stalinist Russia, the conclusion is that capitalism is better for freedom. But, that has now become 'capitalism is best', regardless of what new alternatives or adjustments emerge. I'm very disappointed in bright people who fall into that dullards trap.

Some 'Libertarians' are outright charlatans and that's as polite as I'm willing to be. They have hi-jacked libertarianism to promote 'capitalism is best' and ancilliary dogmata. When they talk of freedom it is the freedom of the few at the expense of the many, a vicious predator v prey set of relationships that have no place in a humane civilisation. Of course, this might be expected from privately funded think-tanks designed to alter government policy.

The free software issue is of course divisive, it shows the effective libertarians in sharp relief against the dogmatists and charlatans. The GPL is designed to deliver software freedom to all which is optimal libertarianism, but it prevents a few from parasiting off the many, so some 'libertarians' will argue against the gpl because it reduces the freedom of a few to dominate.

It actually surprises me to

It actually surprises me to hear that libertarians can be so hostile to Free Software. I thought that libertarianism was most closely aligned with Free Software ideas. Something seems to have gone awry indeed.

Well, that's why I never brand myself as any *ist nor care much for putting labels on whatever my current beliefs are.

I think this article emphasized, at least implicitly, the non-commercialness of Free Software a bit too much. As I've said many times, I think Free Software is about restoring the *real* capitalism, by restoring the *really* free market in which more people, not less, can have a chance to make a business and earn money. If this is not a creation of a setting for more, but more healthy, commercialism, I don't know what is.

Because of this I would deliberately blur all lines which make a distinction between commercialism and Free Software. They aren't that relevant as people make them to be. Simply because money isn't the ONLY driving force for Free Software doesn't mean that it isn't one of the more significant ones and that it isn't a crucial part to growing the new software industry, based on Free Software, and more broadly, the new free market, based on principles set with Free Software, Free Culture and the big movement that is being created around them.

When it comes to the difference between Free Software and the current "traditional" way, it is simply in switching from "business as usual" to "business that cares". Cares about what? About empowering customers, not just using them any way you can. About doing something that really matters, not just whatever makes the absolute maximum of money (you'll live anyway, financial success does not have to be in "greatest" of numbers, but in "good enough" to live nicely off). It's about achieving the balance that the current "capitalism" lost, essentially losing what it was supposed to be in the first place.

Nicely put. The freedom to

Nicely put. The freedom to make a living is a priority. for everyone...

The freedom to innovate has got to be protected for the greater good, the building blocks of an advanced civilisation should not be owned and controlled, that state of affairs has retarded our development.

Despots and churches and latterly private interests have held back innovation over the last 10,000 years. If our development has only been reduced by 10%, man should have walked on the moon 1,000 years ago. Since the curve is far above linear, who knows where we'd be now. Past the AI singularity no doubt, so maybe we'll discover in a few years if we've had a reprieve or lost out.