28 ms·

Rather than seek to coerce your fellows, just give money yourself to the causes you like and encourage others to do the same. If you and a just a hundred others

by dpatru 17y ago

Rather than seek to coerce your fellows, just give money yourself to the causes you like and encourage others to do the same. If you and a just a hundred others give one hundred dollars per month, Rick would be making a nice salary. And no one would have to be coerced. This way, besides supporting useful software, you're also supporting something even more important: a free society.

JesseAldridge 17y ago
That kind of idealism falls short because of the free-rider problem. See the above link.
- pelle 17y ago
  You could then counter argue that the project that you wish to support through force becomes a free-rider it self as the project beneficiaries don't have to compete in the economic market the same way as those forced to pay for them are. Voluntary doesn't always work but is always preferable over forced.
  - JesseAldridge 17y ago
    The project itself would not be a free-rider, because it would need to provide sufficient value to justify its cost. In a government system, expert judges are the conventional way of making this assessment. True, you would lose conventional market incentives, but you would gain all the benefits that history has shown come from open source: higher quality, lower cost, free exchange of ideas, etc. For projects such as Clojure, which don't have an obvious business model, there is no better way to secure funding. Force should be used when it will yield great benefits for society.
    - dpatru 17y ago
      > Force should be used when it will yield great benefits for society. I agree with you that force should be used when it will yield great benefits. But I would define the greatest benefit to be liberty. Force should be used to defend liberty. The freedom govern one's own life and make one's own decisions is worth a lot more than the benefits of open-source software. The irony is that societies that value freedom over more tangible benefits like software tend to have more of both than societies that give up freedom for material benefits.
      - Robin_Message 17y ago
        If liberty is that important, don't you think there are more important arenas to fight in than funding of public goods? For example, Guantanamo bay and the so called "Patriot" Act?
- ewanmcteagle 17y ago
  This is a problem with open source and an argument against it. Does it really make sense to give something away and then complain that people just don't pay enough for it and should be forced to do so?
- dpatru 17y ago
  So what if some people are free riders? What is that to you? Don't give up on a free society just because its costs are not equally distributed. By advocating government support, your saying that you want government to take by force from a bunch of people who couldn't care less about this software you like, so that you can continue using it for very little cost. You're exchanging everybody's freedom for your convenience. This is diametrically opposed to the attitude of the people who won freedom by giving up a lot of their own conveniences, like their property, the use of their limbs, and even their lives, so that their countrymen, most of whom they didn't know, could enjoy a little more freedom from taxation and other freedoms from government control. Sure this is idealism, but it's idealism that's worth at least arguing and voting for. If you personally don't have enough money to support all the causes you want to support, persuade others to join you, don't try to force them. Also, one reason for you having less money is that government has taken a lot of it to fund things that other voters have thought important enough to sacrifice your freedom for. Don't perpetuate the problem. Besides, if Rick really wanted to, he could charge for clojure as he explains in his appeal. He could in effect, force his users to make the choice to fund him or forego using his product. Right now, users are not forced to make this choice. But that choice is still available to them. If he could get government funding by simply being open source, he would in effect be taking away users' choice to fund him. Users would be forced to fund him whether or not they used his product.

by dpatru 17y ago

JesseAldridge 17y ago

That kind of idealism falls short because of the free-rider problem. See the above link.

pelle 17y ago
You could then counter argue that the project that you wish to support through force becomes a free-rider it self as the project beneficiaries don't have to compete in the economic market the same way as those forced to pay for them are. Voluntary doesn't always work but is always preferable over forced.
- JesseAldridge 17y ago
  The project itself would not be a free-rider, because it would need to provide sufficient value to justify its cost. In a government system, expert judges are the conventional way of making this assessment. True, you would lose conventional market incentives, but you would gain all the benefits that history has shown come from open source: higher quality, lower cost, free exchange of ideas, etc. For projects such as Clojure, which don't have an obvious business model, there is no better way to secure funding. Force should be used when it will yield great benefits for society.
  - dpatru 17y ago
    > Force should be used when it will yield great benefits for society. I agree with you that force should be used when it will yield great benefits. But I would define the greatest benefit to be liberty. Force should be used to defend liberty. The freedom govern one's own life and make one's own decisions is worth a lot more than the benefits of open-source software. The irony is that societies that value freedom over more tangible benefits like software tend to have more of both than societies that give up freedom for material benefits.
    - Robin_Message 17y ago
      If liberty is that important, don't you think there are more important arenas to fight in than funding of public goods? For example, Guantanamo bay and the so called "Patriot" Act?
ewanmcteagle 17y ago
This is a problem with open source and an argument against it. Does it really make sense to give something away and then complain that people just don't pay enough for it and should be forced to do so?
dpatru 17y ago
So what if some people are free riders? What is that to you? Don't give up on a free society just because its costs are not equally distributed. By advocating government support, your saying that you want government to take by force from a bunch of people who couldn't care less about this software you like, so that you can continue using it for very little cost. You're exchanging everybody's freedom for your convenience. This is diametrically opposed to the attitude of the people who won freedom by giving up a lot of their own conveniences, like their property, the use of their limbs, and even their lives, so that their countrymen, most of whom they didn't know, could enjoy a little more freedom from taxation and other freedoms from government control. Sure this is idealism, but it's idealism that's worth at least arguing and voting for. If you personally don't have enough money to support all the causes you want to support, persuade others to join you, don't try to force them. Also, one reason for you having less money is that government has taken a lot of it to fund things that other voters have thought important enough to sacrifice your freedom for. Don't perpetuate the problem. Besides, if Rick really wanted to, he could charge for clojure as he explains in his appeal. He could in effect, force his users to make the choice to fund him or forego using his product. Right now, users are not forced to make this choice. But that choice is still available to them. If he could get government funding by simply being open source, he would in effect be taking away users' choice to fund him. Users would be forced to fund him whether or not they used his product.