4 ms·

As a libertarian, I don't like unnecessary government intervention, but with the case of physical switches, I'm willing to make an exception. We need a legal r

As a libertarian, I don't like unnecessary government intervention, but with the case of physical switches, I'm willing to make an exception. We need a legal requirement that you cannot sell a computer without physical switches for camera, audio, networking, and wi-fi. I think selling gear in any other configuration is too dangerous in a non-obvious way to the average consumer. We can stop this now, or we can go on for another decade or two and try to stop it. It's easier done now, when we're first seeing how this is all going to turn out.

jstanley 10y ago
I'm a libertarian too, I don't like unnecessary government intervention, and I think this case is no different to any other "save them from themselves" kind of policy. If people truly want to buy equipment that saves cost by removing physical switches, there's no reason the government should be stopping them.
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  If people want to engage in open and free trade and make an informed decision, I'm all for it. The problem here is that you are effectively making an open-ended, infinite choice. You have no idea what that information could be used for. You might have grandkids who could suffer. There's no reasonable exchange here that makes sense for the individual. So I just don't see how a free and informed choice could be made, since the person making the choice has no idea what they are choosing. This is a similar question to asking if people have the right to sell themselves into chattel slavery. I think the answer in that case is also "no". Indentured servitude, perhaps -- but that's a discussion for another day.
mindcrime 10y ago
Wait, you want the government to require companies to sell hardware that will let people protect themselves from... the government. I don't see this happening.
zanny 10y ago
The correct libertarian position is the abolition of IP entirely so that you destroy the market for proprietary software. If you still have some draconian FCC type organization controlling light (which is still insane, and should also be immediately abolished by any libertarian administration) you could at least mandate that the radios be open source at all levels to enable citizens to verify conformance. You could probably do an easier job forcing open source just by requiring all government contract hardware / software to provide you with all design schematics and sources that you then immediately publish for consumers to utilize. Without IP bullshit, once someone is publishing it, you can trust it if you personally verify it securely.
- quadrangle 10y ago
  To be picky, there exists no market inherently for proprietary software, only a market for software in which the only way to keep the price above zero is to use artificial scarcity via "IP", DRM, and secret source, etc. So anyway, the correct software freedom position (what Purism is at least claiming to support) is bigger and independent from libertarianism, so if we were to have the optimal legal framework, it needs 3 things: abolish patents and copyright (not trademark though), mandate source release for published works, prohibit DRM.

jstanley 10y ago

I'm a libertarian too, I don't like unnecessary government intervention, and I think this case is no different to any other "save them from themselves" kind of policy. If people truly want to buy equipment that saves cost by removing physical switches, there's no reason the government should be stopping them.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago
If people want to engage in open and free trade and make an informed decision, I'm all for it. The problem here is that you are effectively making an open-ended, infinite choice. You have no idea what that information could be used for. You might have grandkids who could suffer. There's no reasonable exchange here that makes sense for the individual. So I just don't see how a free and informed choice could be made, since the person making the choice has no idea what they are choosing. This is a similar question to asking if people have the right to sell themselves into chattel slavery. I think the answer in that case is also "no". Indentured servitude, perhaps -- but that's a discussion for another day.

mindcrime 10y ago

Wait, you want the government to require companies to sell hardware that will let people protect themselves from... the government. I don't see this happening.

zanny 10y ago

The correct libertarian position is the abolition of IP entirely so that you destroy the market for proprietary software. If you still have some draconian FCC type organization controlling light (which is still insane, and should also be immediately abolished by any libertarian administration) you could at least mandate that the radios be open source at all levels to enable citizens to verify conformance. You could probably do an easier job forcing open source just by requiring all government contract hardware / software to provide you with all design schematics and sources that you then immediately publish for consumers to utilize. Without IP bullshit, once someone is publishing it, you can trust it if you personally verify it securely.

quadrangle 10y ago
To be picky, there exists no market inherently for proprietary software, only a market for software in which the only way to keep the price above zero is to use artificial scarcity via "IP", DRM, and secret source, etc. So anyway, the correct software freedom position (what Purism is at least claiming to support) is bigger and independent from libertarianism, so if we were to have the optimal legal framework, it needs 3 things: abolish patents and copyright (not trademark though), mandate source release for published works, prohibit DRM.