> It's an attitude which says that as long as the elite class of techies get freedom to do as they like, that's good enough. Well, no. The question (if you re

> It's an attitude which says that as long as the elite class of techies get freedom to do as they like, that's good enough. Well, no. The question (if you read the blog post I linked to) is whether you go for institution-centric and centralizing controls here or whether you go for decentralized controls and questions of community structure. The point is the best protection for everyone is widespread ownership over private property. Ownership means "the right to use" here. The BSD licenses demand greater community controls because the community cannot survive without them. > Freedom to oppress, monetize and lock-in the peons who don't know how to code. And yet, if you demand that there be a stronger power capable of preventing oppression, then you typically get stronger organizations more capable of oppression. The end goal is, really, to decentralize and ensure that end users have a choice of what to use. Interestingly I am living in Indonesia right now. It is amazing to see a Distributist economy in motion and see that, although the nation is poor on paper, the society functions for the poor much better than it does in the US, and so real poverty is far less of a problem. Sure the poor may have fewer television sets than in the US but they do have better access to housing and wholesome, nutritious food..... The reason why things work so well is because the economy is so heavily decentralized. 70% of the economy is self-employed. Self-employment means that capital and labor are not separate. This is what the freedom to produce things with the software has to offer our economy.