Why is it interesting to argue for open publishing, even if one can't necessarily win in one's lifetime? Because it compels the status quo to state its position

Why is it interesting to argue for open publishing, even if one can't necessarily win in one's lifetime? Because it compels the status quo to state its position over and over again, in clearer and clearer terms. If you want to understand science as it is presently organized, read the above summary several times; it's good and it's accurate. Scientists live in a tight community in which everyone shares with everyone else below the radar, via personal networks linked by patronage, mutual favors, and email. This is acceptable, for many within the community, because scientists don't seriously expect anyone who isn't currently a professional scientist to follow anything that they do, and they don't care, so long as the money rolls in. Then they complain that the public can't seem to tell the difference between the scientific establishment and a priesthood. Inexplicable! If nothing else, open publishing is an act of good-faith public relations. The entire point of science is that it has nothing to hide - you have to be able to trace all the interconnections - so when the scientific establishment is seen to be explicitly hiding stuff behind paywalls it sends a jarring message. And, while printed journals available for popular subscription were the gold standard of openness as recently as the 1980s, this is the twenty-first century and that won't cut it anymore.