3 ms·
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 com
by 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 agoThe 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 agoIf 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?