Political Leaning and Free Software 629
00_NOP writes "HateMyTory is the world's first political rating site and occasionally gets blasted or promoted by British bloggers on either side of the political spectrum. But here's something even more intriguing: when the right come visiting they hate the site but they are disproportionately likely to be users of free software, whether that is just Firefox on top of their Windows box, or all the way with some Linux distro. But when the left rally to the cause they are more likely than not to be proprietary software users, albeit with a big bias towards Apple. If Microsoft's defenders think free software is the road to socialism, why don't the left seem to agree? As a leftie, and a free software advocate, I find this pretty puzzling."
It's the exact reverse in France... (Score:4, Interesting)
Then again, this is a country where most governement departments are switching to Linux, so...
Re:It's the exact reverse in France... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I think, it is more likely, that your sample (just the circle of people you know personally, right?) is just too limited to be statistically meaningful.
Would be interesting to get similar stats from a French site, that's visited by different sides, rather then just a club of people in agreement with each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, now that you mention it, I was talking about web sites in France.
I know, I know, RTFA and RTF summary and all that. All my apologies.
Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)
Free software is almost the purest expression of "socializing the means of production" I know of. Not in the Soviet sense, but in a different sense. Essentially, those of us who put our effort into the softrware own it. THose who want to use the software get a more limited sense of ownership just by virtue of using the software. But this isn't like soviet communism (what I call Neofeudalism because everything is centrally run by the state) but a real grass-roots communal ownership of the production process (closer in my book to what Marx was talking about anyway).
At the same time, this form of socialism/communism is actually more right-ward leaning than left-ward leaning in that it supports a sense of independance and self-determinism rather than a sense of obedience to legal frameworks built by large collectives (corporations) that we do not own simply by using their products (purchasing power is not ownership if we are afraid to use it).
So there you have it. FOSS is a great right-wing communist conspiracy aimed at world domination!
Re:It's the exact reverse in France... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's the exact reverse in France... (Score:5, Interesting)
Right wings or Conservative, are by definition a group of people who want to keep the current method.
Someone who is more left is more willing to use Linux, just because it is an attempt to push change.
Someone who is more right is more willing to use Windows, just because it is what they used before.
Before some crazy debate on which side is better. I like to break it down to the following.
Liberals want to make the world better, Conservative want to prevent the world from getting worse.
Liberals in the attempt to make the world better could end up making it worse because they push change to fast and make mistakes.
Conservatives in the attempt to prevent things from getting worse will prevent a new and better idea from continuing.
Now that is fair and balanced without spin... I hope.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's the exact reverse in France... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The terms mean very different things in different contexts; they can refer to personality types as much as political positions, and they "play" differently depending on class, nationality and other factors.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Conservatives want to make the pie bigger, without regard to how the pie is divided.
Liberals want to divide the pie equally, without regard to how big the pie is.
The reason I can not vote for a liberal is that they are saying that they will act against their own best interest - they say that they will act to move money from themselves to the poor. I doubt them when they say that...
On the other hand, a conservative says they will act to make the total available bigger. I
Re:Part of the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
A classical democrat believes that the rights of the group is more important than the individual i.e.:
Gun control: believes that the individual right to bear arms is less important than protecting society from the dangerous gun owners
Affirmative action: believes that minorities as a group start so far behind that they need to be given benefits based solely on minority statis rather than by their individual achievements
political correctness/hate crimes: believe that certain speech and actions against an individual act at a nationwide group/race level
Taxation distribution: believe that the government can more efficiently dole out benefits at a national group level, being able to shift money from state to state and manage projects there
Wealth redistribution: believe that the government will effectively redistribute money from the wealthier group and give to the poorer group increasing the overall national economy
Business: believes that the government should be actively involved in regulating the business, to protect the group of consumers
A classical republican believes that the rights of the individual is more important than the group:
Gun control: believes that the individual's rights to bear arms is more important that penalizing all gun owners for the actions of a few individuals
Affirmative action: believes that people are all individuals and each person should be looked at individually
political correctness/hate crimes: believe that peoples actions against an individual are actions against an individual not a group and existing laws are sufficient
Taxation distribution: believe that taxation benefits should occur less at a national group level and more at a state/regional level where state/regional isuess can be more effectively identified and managed since they are closer to it
Wealth redistribution: believes that the
Business: believes that the government should have a hands-off approach in that individual consumers will be the determining factor in how a business is ran
You'll kind of see a trend as to where the two parties differences lies here and their actual historical laws back that up... group level vs individual level. This would be the reason why you are incorrect and the reason why I think you don't have a memory > 7 years ago, the current President isn't acting like a classical anything. He has a good mix of both going on.
Additionally, your statement "living your personal life" is a *moral* issue regarding abortion, gay rights, etc. and is not part of any classical political affiliation. Only very recently has these moral issues crept into party lines. Since it is a moral issue, it's very much an individual there are the gay republicans and there are the anti-abortion democrats and a bazillion shades in between as to the definition: i.e. abortion is legal until the 1st week, 1st month, 1st trimester, 2nd trimester, abort while baby is half out of the body, a week-month after it's actual birth (yes I've talked with people who actually believe that, in the case of birth defects).
Re:Part of the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I lived under a complete communism. And yes, as far as it worked, we all got a small but mostly even part.
HEALTHCARE:
As far as health care was concerned, the Soviets did alright. You would just show up to any hospital / clinic with your book of medical history and you would get medical treatment, no need for insurance cards or anything like that, if you had
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's the exact reverse in France... (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, yeah...and I'd totally be using an Amiga
Disclaimer - I am NOT a Randian anything.
Obligatory Walter Sobchak (Score:4, Funny)
I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These days it means pretty much fascist/socio-fascist.
Both generalized political leanings have become corrupted with authoritarianism to the extent that neither can be associated with either civil liberties or free market capitalism.
"If I was pro-... make me left- or right-wing?"
It'd make you a dangerous terrorist suspect.
Do not question Authority.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
exactly, try http://politicalcompass.org [politicalcompass.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gay couples (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yay wik
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's the exact reverse in France... (Score:5, Insightful)
you obviously know nothing about libertarianism. it is entirely distinct from libertine, which would be people behaving as poorly as they want. libertarians know very much that freedom requires responsibility. and that's the problem today. people want to be able to do whatever they want, yet want none of the responsibility and desire to blame others. and, libertarians know that freedom can only exist when others act with Aristotelian moderation. Libertarianism is based on the belief that people left to their own will be the most prosperous and will be the most successful.
libertarians also want as little government as possible, but nothing close to anarchy. for example, consider the idea of same-sex marriage. it isn't that libertarians naturally support, but rather, oppose state sanctioned marriage. marriage is a private matter and needs no state imprimatur. issues like joint filing of taxes and property ownership are again, big government issues. there shouldn't be joint filing of taxes, and hell, it's your property, do with it as you please. If given the option in a ballot box, I would oppose same sex marriage, but I don't believe it is a public poliscy issue. and that's a huge difference.
libertarians also oppose government welfare because it is unconstitutional for the government to confiscate the property of one and give it to another. it is also crippling to those who recieve as well as it destroys their initiative.
as for the war, libertarians are split. I tend towards an internationalist though many libertarians tend towards isolationism. but internationals not in consistent with libertariansism as being strong and forceful abroad is fully within the consitutional authority of the government and certainly necessary to deal with enemies abroad to preserve freedom at home.
the attitude that libertarians are a "fuck you I've got mine" lot is one of ignorance and stupidity. they are nothing of the sort. socialism tends far more towards this as socialism is basically "this is all you're going to get, fuck you" system.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, so real Libertarianism, the one you've elucidated so clearly and are defending so eloquently, is just as pie-in-the-sky and bereft of basic understanding of human nature as the previous and current incarnations of Communism?
Wake me up when Libertarians solve the basic problem of pe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's an unavoidable issue with every political system. Greedy fucks with government guns can do quite a bit of damage, and libertarianism tries to minimize that threat.
Re:It's the exact reverse in France... (Score:5, Interesting)
I will, however, contest the second part of your argument. I took welfare payments for about 9 months at one point. Far from "destroying my initiative", it gave me time to consolidate my skills and set myself up in business. Without welfare, I'd have had no option but to take a minimum-wage, maximum-hours job, which would have destroyed my initiative, robbed me of the free time I was able to capitalize on to put my business together, and basically condemned me to a life of poverty.
So, socialist welfare liberated me, while "libertarianism" would have enslaved me? I think I'll stick with socialism, thanks.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then you clearly don't understand Libertarianism at all. I'm tired of a bunch of overpaid buttinskis telling me what I can and cannot do - if I'm not hurting you directly, leave me alone. Banning smoking indoors at bars; OK, even if the science is dubious at best (it actually shows that the only people with significantly heightened risk from secondhand smoke are people who are ma
Easy... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I believe that the knowledge barrier keeps the far Right and libertarians away from Linux
Lefty != Libertarian (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Most newly rich people are business men,
Most newly rich people are conservatives.
It is only the "old rich" that are liberal. Personally, I think it is an attempt to keep wealth through abuse of power, myself. Liberal policies tend to favor stasis - nanny state regulations to keep small company competition from entering; environmental regulations designed to ignore the actual environment, but require million dollar studies so that small companies cannot enter; etc.
Moding up political items (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Moding up political items (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're forgetting something.
This article is about UK politics. Remember that by British standards, American politics is right wing, or far-right. You need to be very careful when just talking "right" and "left" or "Republican" and "Democrat" if you're comparing UK and US politics.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Moding up political items (Score:4, Informative)
Peter Cook put it best:
"American politics is very simple. They have the Republican Party, which is basically like our Conservative Party, and the Democratic Party, which is basically like our Conservative Party."
What you call a far-left bleeding-heart liberal we call a filthy Tory.
Re:Moding up political items (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny, because I see it as a rush to centre. Both the major parties are in favour of maintaining the current high tax, higher spend policy of Brown (left wing); while simultaneously selling anything that isn't nailed down (right wing). Both parties have policies (if not members) that are broadly pro-American (right wing) and pro-EU centralisation (left wing). Neither party wants to spend much money on the military (left wing) or be overly welcoming to immigrants (right wing). Both parties believe that problems with crime, the NHS, infrastructure and education can be solved with media friendly sound-bites and nothing as scary as major shifts in policy. The only difference is that Labour hates liberty in general while the Tories restrict their hate for people who are poor, black, gay or a drug user.
Which in a two party system, leaves voters with a choice between reactionary puritanical racists and authoritarian power-obsessed fascists.
Another victory for first past the post voting!
Re:Moding up political items (Score:4, Insightful)
If I'm reading only the leftist/communist/*nixist side of things then I'll stagnate right? And be less likely to understand how anyone could have any alternate point of view? ewww =(
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Star Trek vs. Star Wars, for example. Hmm... I dig that idea.
groupthink (Score:5, Insightful)
While I think your idea would be interesting to try, and would probably even be helpful on a mainstream political news site, I think moderating that way is a Bad Thing in disguise. Such a system would very powerfully promote groupthink, which is a phenomenon that occurs quite easily even without "affiliation moderation" / "bias moderation" (for want of better terms).
Consider Slashdot, for example. There are occasions when groupthink can be particularly bad - take any article critical of Linux. What generally happens is that the points of the article (or points that other people raise) are refuted (sometimes not systematically, but even one line rejoinders), then modded up. Then someone disputes the refutations, and will be either modded down troll/flamebait, left as they are, and occasionally modded up. Then you typically have another round of refutations that get auto-modded up and the cycle continues.
It's discussion, Jim, but not as we know it. Now, to be fair, this doesn't happen on every story here; and it has been getting better in recent years, though it can be variable. In fact, the discussion is primarily the reason I spend so much time on /. - despite the trolls, frist psots, and Soviet Russia posts, there will be a good deal of genuinely intelligent discourse.
To get back to the parent's moderation idea. I think it could be useful in a couple of cases:
Case 1: Generic Political News Site - delivers headlines and articles based on party affiliation. Mainly there as a story aggregator, with little / no discussion. Maybe spits out a custom RSS feed based on a combination of the moderation and your preferences.
Case 2: Political News Discussion Site - hybridise /.-style editorial selection with moderation. Most stories will be those that the group wants, but editors can most stories that are important despite making a group uncomfortable.
Admittedly those scenarios are fairly similar, but someone could take them and spin them into a service a good few folk would use. Of course it depends on your objective - do you want to provide a selection of interesting stories that folk can read over lunch (case 1), or do you want to provide stories while promoting discussion (case 2). I'm firmly in the discussion camp. In fact, here on /. I recently friended a former foe because a post of his made me realise that he was making posts that went against the groupthink, but had 'truthiness' and were valid counterpoints. Note that I don't agree with all of his opinions, but I do think his expressing them is important. I might even just try and find the post that made me foe him in the first place...
The two party system (Score:3, Interesting)
It's ... (Score:2, Interesting)
My guess, (Score:4, Insightful)
Your "left" leaning folks will probably (IMO) be more willing to follow the "alternative crowd" I.E. Apple. To my line of thought, many on the "left" are just as intolerable of individuality as those on the "right". The difference being one
side wants power in the hands of corporations and the government while the other just wants government to have the power.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I have a decent education and I have quoted one or the other of these figures as sources of knowledge from time to time. In anticipation of your weak response, I will remind you:
(From http://www.logicalfallacies.info/notruescotsman.ht ml [logicalfallacies.info]):
The No True Scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one's position. Proposed counter-exam
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Left / Right not relevant to FOSS. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a leftie, and a free software advocate, I find this pretty puzzling.
As a person, and a free software advocate, I'd be wary of anyone labelling something as left or right. Debate issues for what they are, instead of trying to categorise them as left or right.
than not to be proprietary software users, albeit with a big bias towards Apple.
Interesting. I wrote recently in my journal about Apple's support for the democrats [slashdot.org]. The funny thing is, from where I'm sitting, the Dems look right (it's just that the repubs look righter).
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Can you tell the rest of the house how you can possibly vote for the fiscal conservative Repubs? Looks to me like you're still on a two party system, but the neocons have taken over the formerly sensible GOP.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the two look exactly alike to me. Same problem with the Libertarian Party: some of them are libertarians, the rest are corporatist nutters, but until the respective parties purge their nutters, I can't vote for either based simply on name alone (which, really, is a good thing).
Now, if I could convince everyone else of that, then we might be on our way to being back in control of our government rather than leaving
Why indeed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do right-to-lifer's support the death penalty?
Why do liberals promote loss of liberty?
Why do those who dodge military service advocate preemptive war?
A few more conundrums to ponder....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because big corporations that will lose money if we protect the environment (ExxonMobil, etc) fund their campaigns.
Because they believe in moral absolutism, which always breeds hypocrisy.
You left this one too vague. Honestly, this question makes no sense.
Because rich kids who become president are more
Re: (Score:2)
We don't deny all conservation. But are you talking about saving the bald eagle when there were few left, or are you talking about saving a couple dozen acres worth of area in ANOIR that make up less than 0.5% of the total area? Some conservation makes sense, some doesn't. If some group decided to push a ban on lawn-mowing because it hurts dandelions, would you support it or would you think it goes too far and the price is too high? Just a difference of opinion o
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a difference between conservation and what the environmentalists stand for. I support conservation. I do NOT support the extremist policies the green party wants to enforce. Protecting wildlife, good. Transplanting endangered plants to stop something you don't like, bad. Drilling in Alaska, bad with current tech -- I'm open to the idea of drilling in t
Re:Why indeed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do conservatives disregard conservation?
Most conservatives I have met are just as fond of the envronment as you or I. They are avid hikers or fishmen or hunters (you want to see an environmentalist who means business? Just look for hunting organizations...). In fact most people that really don't seem to help the environment much live in big cities - which are predominantly liberal. I think that any one group is for or against the environment is a large myth propogated by those wishing to demonize others.
Why do right-to-lifer's support the death penalty?
That's pretty easy to discern - some people have more than worn out thier welcome on earth. Infants being, well, infants all have an equal shot at being productive. I personally believe in abortions (up to a certain point, where the majorty of the populace thinks it's OK) but like Guliani think it's a sucky choice for a mother to make. It's better to give that mother real options instead of abortion or a baby they cannot support.
That questions cuts both ways you know. How could you be for abortion yet anything but the stanchest supporter of the death penalty? It's just an abortion that generally comes too late to help out someone else.
Why do liberals promote loss of liberty?
Now that is a mystery. Next to the things Bush has done we can contrast stuff like the Clipper Chip from the current liberal darling, Al Gore. Government monitoring of all encrypted communications? Al Gore really did invent that.
Why do those who dodge military service advocate preemptive war?
Pretty unfair dig I think at a lot of people that get smarter as they grow up. I think very few of us should be judged heavily by actions taken when young.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you look at it carefully, big cities are *good* for the environment. That is, it's much environment-friendly to put millions of people into a few square km than having each of them build a house in the country. Not only do cities require less land per inhabitant (cut less trees), but they tend to also require less energy per inhabitant (at least if public transportation is half-decent). Saying cities are bad for the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm wondering, do you have a source for that? Because from what I can tell, the Clipper Chip was in full swing in 1992. Which was, ahem, before Gore was in the White House.
FOIA Document from the FBI dated December 1992. [epic.org] Curiously, this document suggests that the FBI did not seek explicit approval from the
Why is this (Score:2)
Bleeding heart pinko commies ... (Score:3, Funny)
Darn, my tongue seems to be embedded in my cheek. My mother warned me that might happen.
The education connection (Score:3, Insightful)
Guess who gets cheap Apple products, and who's exposed to the Apple brand every day through iPods, iTunes, and computers in educational settings? That's right, college students.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The education connection (Score:5, Interesting)
*Theoretical* education correlates leftward with politics. *Practical* education correlates rightward in politics.
Try telling a Class A nuclear welder that he's uneducated. You won't get very far. It's also very likely that he and all his buddies vote to the right. They're also very likely to vote the same way as the engineering, business and finance faculties of any university, that is, those university people who have to produce ideas of practical value.
Higher education does indeed correlate to the left, but that's only because trades programs aren't counted and there are far more theoretical subjects in universities than practical ones.
Re:The education connection (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think your comment would have been about perfect without this line: "Education level correlates with leftward politics...". I agree college students get cheaper Macs, buy a larger percentage of Macs vs PCs compared to the general public, have more free time than 9-5ers, and are more likely to be politically active than an average person.
But education level does not necessarily correlate with education. What about all the "rich republican business leaders" people are always stereotyping with? Don't you th
I'm beginning to think that... (Score:4, Insightful)
Separation of Tech and Politics is as important as Separation of Politics and Religion.
My experiences (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What thinking the groups represent (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple users represent a desire for change and improvement but expect to get that by switching to a popular alternative.
Windows users represent people who just use their computers and don't think about anything else around them. These are the same people who get pissed off when news of a new terrorist threat or attack is on TV... not because they feel a connection with the rest of the world, but because it interrupted their favorite sitcom.
Windows does not represent a choice, but rather, the lack of one.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree about Windows. Most Windows users don't know enough to make the choice even if they know the choice exists. They want a computer, so they bought a Dell or HP or what the guy at Best Buy was selling.
Linux... your statement is a stretch. I used Linux for a while but not because of "personal or social accountability." Many people may do that, but I think many more do it because of the reasons I did: to learn, or because it was not Windows but it was cheaper than a Mac (free, after all).
Your Apple ide
"Advocate" versus "User" (Score:2)
There is a big, big difference between being a free software "advocate" and a free software "user." Those who take a personal stand to advocate free software usually tend to be on the left. But unless you're someone who believes that "stupid Republicans are too dumb to use Linux," then it shouldn't surprise you that the users of free software -- the ones who find it to be useful them -- tend to split right down the middle, like you wo
Not really surprising because... (Score:3, Insightful)
When a political label like right groups together everything from libertarians to fascists, and left everything from anarchists to communists (and in the U.S., what with our power-mad government generally being identified as right-wing, a lot of libertarians too), this shouldn't surprise people.
And it shouldn't surprise people that someone can be on the "right" but at the same time oppose capitalist businesses in favor of collectively-written Free Software. "Capitalism" is an ideological abstract that virtually all people identifying as "right" or "libertarian" support: It's an economic system based on free markets, free trade, freedom of choice in whom you do business with, competition, and so on.
But a lot of purportedly capitalist businesses aren't very capitalist at all -- they use their power to dominate markets, limit choice, get laws passed favoring them, lock in consumers, destroy competition through anti-competitive practices, and so on. And things like Free Software may be collectively-written and therefore, to a lot of people, smack of socialism, but they offer a lot more choice to people, and there's little force that the author of any given OSS package could exert if everyone one day decided to up and go use something else.
So you end up with some people who can call themselves "capitalist" or "libertarian" (and hence they fall under the "right-wing" label) and yet not at all support corporations like Microsoft nor use their products -- people who see through the language and look at what the companies like this are actually doing.
Left vs Right arguments are so insipid (Score:2)
An R-tard like George W. Bush would be just as bad if he were from the Democratic party.
The US Left and FOSS (Score:3, Interesting)
We do a fair amount of work for the labor movement: graphic design, satirical cartoons, illustration,and websites. FOSS is barely on its radar. I explained FOSS to a District Council President and her take was that it sounded like socialism and solidarity, two ideas she was strongly in favor of. Local union websites tend to be static sites built in MS Frontpage with very little in the way of interactivity.
That is starting to change. The Service Employees International Union has done some interesting work with Drupal. We're slowly introducing Joomla to the unions we work with.
We are also working with a feminist-oriented women in technology group and have introduced them to Joomla with positive results. They had heard of Drupal, but knew very little about it.
When we try to explain FOSS to Left groups and social advocacy organizations we use the example of how the Howard Dean campaign was able to use Drupal to quickly build websites around the country. That gets their attention.
I'd like to see some real reporting and analysis of the FOSS movement from a leftwing perspective. It's weird to see the "progressive" movement so behind the technological times.
Not political. (Score:2, Insightful)
For home, that is currently a windows XP system because of gaming and "free" software for nearly everything else. At work, Linux for real work (bei
Labels (Score:4, Insightful)
"Tories want open source Whitehall" (Score:5, Informative)
What I found inspiring about the talk by a leading Conservative MP [conservatives.com] was that it emphasised not so much the savings of going Open Source, but that it embraced the idealogogy as a philosophy to run an entire government. I am not a Conservative, but this talk inspired my faith in UK politics as a whole.
social facism? (Score:2)
Duh. If Bush's opponents think the Iraq war is the road to fascism, why don't the right seem to agree?
Perhaps because the left and the right are diametrically opposed? Perhaps the Republicans love Microsoft, the Democrats love Apple, and people with more than ten brain cells like Linux?
Fuck it, mod me troll and flamebait, I'm drunk and have karma to burn. But I'm right nonetheless. And I'm done with the R
Similarities in Spain. (Score:2)
Then of course there's ESR, he's about as gun-toting redneck as it gets. Free Software, there's plenty for everyone, from nuclear subs to anti-
Left-wingers (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. But neither am I a liberal. I actually find the fact that so many liberatarians seem to think the Republicans are the party to vote for to be quite puzzling and leads me to believe that the libertarian party members don't believe their own rhetoric.
But whenever I talk to a left-winger the attitude I get is that this software stuff just isn't very important compared to the hunger and suffering of everybody. I really wonder at this attitude as it seems that most of them don't seem very pragmatic or even interested in realistic attempts to end this situation. They all seem to think that the rich folks should naturally realize that their gains are ill-gotten and find it in their hearts to give up their money to feed the poor souls who don't have food, clothing, medical care or whatever other thing it is they feel people deserve as a matter of course.
So, truly, software doesn't matter to them. And they see no benefit to free software as they just see it as yet another way for rich people to get richer. The idea that people who don't have money could use the software and perhaps make some doesn't seem to occur to them. They are too wrapped up in their little world in which everybody is taken care of by somebody to think that way.
BTW, if you want to flame me... I think the income distribution in the United States is whacked. I also think we may be the first generation to be giving up the freedoms necessary for class mobility. I think intellectual property is one road by which this might happen. If we ever lose class mobility, we are royally screwed as a nation, especially with the income distribution being so totally whacked.
And I do not think being poor is necessarily the fault of the poor person. But the best way for them to become not poor is by finding something they can do or be that others find valuable. It will do them and everybody else a whole ton of good and is more effective than any handout program anybody ever thought of.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That one is easy to answer. Libertarians believe in small government. The Republican Party at least talks about small government. It may not actually believe it, and is certainly not doing a damned thing t
Re:Left-wingers (Score:4, Interesting)
The average voter could support a tax cut, but the Liberatarian Party wants to abolish the IRS. Too extreme. The average voter could support marijuana decriminalization, but the LP wants to legalize all drugs. Too extreme. The average voter could support school vouchers, bu the LP wants to eliminate all public education. Too extreme. There is a strong individualist streak in the American psyche, but there is not an anarchist streak. The LP needs to stop appealing to anarcho-capitalists and start appealing to individualists.
Either the Libertarian Party reforms [reformthelp.org], or libertarians will gravitate to other parties [rlc.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Otherwise dollar is 500 times cheaper, because the volume of production is physically limited by two people hunting goats on Tobago, the only situation when this example can be possibly relevant.
I was going to... (Score:4, Interesting)
Stop obsessing with what other people are doing. Stop obsessing with who they vote for, what football team they rally behind, and what desktop they use. It's no one's business but their own what brand of automobile they drive.
So what if I don't use the same software license as you? What business could it possibly be of yours?
Conservative Party Advocating Open Source (Score:4, Informative)
of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Open Source advocates are people who understand that OSS is a functional adaptation of the software marketplace to concentrated market control. For those interested in advocating free markets (in which competition is better for everyone than monopolization), using OSS to break abusive monopolies is a good deal.
So, to clarify, OSS advocates are actually free-market libertarians; Microsoft and Apple apologists are actually the commie fascists. I realize that's the opposite of the convention, but think about it.
Libertarian vs Authoritarian (Score:4, Informative)
RMS and ESR are on opposite ends of the left-right axes, but they are both extreme libertarians on the libertarian-authoritarian axes.
Free Markets vs Centralized Planning (Score:3, Insightful)
The values of Free Software are such that it views a programmers' labor -- his act of creation -- is his economic contribution, rather than the software itself. The economic cost/value of software is measured in hours, not copies. (Which makes sense to me, because additional "units" of software can be copied for free; don't try to look at automobile manufacturing that way! ;-)
Another aspect of Free Software is that the software can be modified by the user or anyone he chooses to designation. Users can't ever get "locked in" to something they don't want.
The consequences of all this, is that use of Free Software results in a free market for software and the labor used to create it.
Proprietary software doesn't really work very well with a free market. As a user, if you want a feature or bugfix for MS Windows, for example, you'll find you have very few options available to you. Furthermore, to some extent, the prevention of the free market from coming about, isn't merely due to the user not having the source code (though that is, no doubt, the biggest reason); it's also due to copyright law. Even if a MS Windows user somehow obtains the source code to the software he runs, it's unlawful for him to take advantage of that and maintain it, sell his maintenance labor to others, etc. Government enforcement of the monopoly, done for the "common good" (encouraging copyright holders to create products), keeps market forces from deciding who gets the job of maintaining a piece of software.
Free Software is about a free market in programming labor; proprietary software is about centralized planning of software products and the use of force to keep it centralized. A Free-For-All versus Father-Knows-Best.
Why wouldn't these two different ways of looking at software and the free-vs-planned approach, correlate with a person's other political views?
I don't know much about British politics, but in the American system, I would expect Free Software advocates to be generally roughly conservative and proprietary advocates to be liberal. You probably wouldn't see that map onto the major parties though, since the two major parties have nearly identical stands on economic freedom, government management of the economy, etc. It's hard to look at the Republicans and Democrats and say one party is more liberal or conservative than the other, in that way.
There might be some correlation between advocates of each system, and representation of "fringe" parties such as Libertarian or Communist; those parties' platforms have something to say about government's role in the economy, central planning, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
As a political moderate I have to say I find that statement of yours pretty idiotic. You say "engineering requires hard work" and imply (but don't have the guts to come out and say) that laziness is a liberal trait.
One could just as easily counter that "innovation requires independent thought" and thus is unlikely to come from conservativ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both sides I would say have equal percentages of people following "just because". You have on the right the bigoted, religious, militaristic types that are trained from a young age to be that way. Then you have on the left you have artsy, bleeding heart type people who think it's "cool" to be left-wing and jump on board.
Both sets are equally brainwashed, though at least in the fake-left's case they still have to stand out t
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The lefties are also hell bent on their own social agenda, and though it has privacy and freedom implications, it is not so inva
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely. The conservative christian movement has no use for 'feed the hungry, heal the sick'. It's all gay marriage and abortion with them. Which is why the christian church has abdicated its moral leadership in the USA.