(untitled)

I'm not sure if this is the right board to post this on, but I was curious as to what you guys thought about Pirate politics. >These parties typically espouse a set of values and policies related to civil rights, digital rights, internet freedom, direct democracy (including e-democracy), and participatory democracy. Additionally, they often advocate for reforms of copyright and patent laws to make them more flexible and open, with the aim of encouraging innovation and creativity. This often involves opposition to patent-based monopolies. Furthermore, Pirate Party members tend to support the use of free and open-source software, free sharing of knowledge (open content and open access), information privacy, transparency, freedom of information, free speech, anti-corruption, net neutrality, importance of cybersecurity and protecting digital infrastructure from threats, decentralized technologies and platforms, self-governance in online spaces, strong encryption and anonymity to protect personal data and individual privacy both online and offline from mass surveillance, censorship and Big Tech's misuse.[2][3][4][5][6][7] >Their libertarian philosophy is based on the idea that the Internet is a public space where individuals can access, share, and create content freely without government censorship or control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party I personally really like the idea of Pirate parties because there aren't really any political parties in most countries, major or not that advocate for copyright reform and supporting FOSS and the like. The one in my country got dissolved around 2020 but came back recently, but in countries like Iceland they've actually been quite successful.

Its nice that there are parties that are pro-FOSS but from what I've seen most of these parties are run by autistic libertarian man children or are outright vanity projects like the fuarrrking Wikileaks party. The people running them often seem clueless about actual economics and politics or push delusional and extreme libertarian ideology that will never work or have no substantive ideas at all.

Initially it was smart people against police state growing under terrorism pretense. Personal changed a lot since then. I think they are still better than 60+ oldtimer parties but they kinda trash compared to initial days. Reminds of greenpeace among many other orgs that started with good intentions and then got tainted by grifters hopping on.

>>84720 >Their libertarian philosophy is based on the idea that the Internet is a public space I'm not sure I'd call it libertarian. Libertarians believe that everything that can be owned should be owned (electrons and bytes and abstract ideas cannot be "owned" in any meaningful way). They're against public spaces in the sense that the state taxes 10% of people to build a park and then gives everyone equal rights over it. Other stuff you mentioned like positive rights and democracy are anti-libertarian too. The other reason you shouldn't call them libertarian is because you get people like >>84722 who have been trained by mainstream media and state education to mindlessly attack anything you put the libertarian label on. I guarantee if you hadn't used the L-word he would agree with everything in OP. Since democracy means 1 person == 1 vote and most persons are retards you need to think about retards first and foremost. >>84723 >Initially it was smart people against police state growing under terrorism pretense. It's easy to look back 20 years and say terrorism was just a pretense for increasing state / corporate surveillance and control over citizens but I doubt you did anything to fight back against the same thing happening under the pretense of covid or climate change.

>We call on all member states to receive refugees and asylum seekers according to their capacities. It is crucial to implement a European refugee and asylum policy based on solidarity that does not leave individual member states alone with the financial, logistical, and administrative effort. >The Pirates are convinced that the best way to ensure the safety of future asylum-seekers is effective conflict prevention and fighting climate change. >We refuse the criminalization of those providing humanitarian help to people in need. yeah ok straight to the garbage bin

>>84724 >It's easy to look back 20 years and say terrorism was just a pretense for increasing state / corporate surveillance and control over citizens but I doubt you did anything to fight back against the same thing happening under the pretense of covid or climate change. failed your bet, so what now?

>>84726 >failed your bet, so what now? Now you learn how to format your posts correctly instead of reddit spacing. >>84725 Damn I missed all that. >We refuse the criminalization of those providing humanitarian help to people in need. Do what you want with your own property. The problem is they are stealing money and housing from the working class to pay for this reckless immigration policy and that is the crime.

>>84728 >do what you want with your own property yes though it is illegal to rob banks it is perfectly legal to drive the getaway car so long as you do it in compliance with traffic regulations.

>>84730 >yes though it is illegal to rob banks it is perfectly legal to drive the getaway car so long as you do it in compliance with traffic regulations. By driving away with the stolen money inside your car you are interfering with the bank's property without their permission.

>>84724 >I'm not sure I'd call it libertarian I guess most would call themselves classical liberals. The problem is they lack any consistent views or a coherent political theory. Libertarianism or classical liberalism and free software just don't go together at all but you'll often run into people who believe in both. >>84725 >We call on all member states to receive refugees and asylum seekers according to their capacitie This is actually a reasonable policy. It makes more sense for an issue to be distributed to all member states according to their capacity, than to dump the issue on one state. It would cost less and expend less resources. >>84728 >The problem is they are stealing money and housing from the working class to pay for this reckless immigration policy and that is the crime. All state expenditure comes from either taxes or loans. No matter what a government spends on, its going to take money from the working class (or some other group of citizens) to do it. The housing crisis in the US has less to do with immigration policy and much more to do with high demand and low supply. Why is there low supply? Because building affordable housing is not in the interest of private companies and neither political party will subsidize housing. Building affordable homes is also stymied by American culture which idolizes idyllic white picket fence suburbs, which are extremely inefficient, and householders and politicians vote for laws that prevent the construction of affordable homes to deliberately keep up housing costs. In either case, the solutions are pretty simple but neither politicians nor voters are interested in changing anything. This is the final issue with political parties, voting changes nothing when the electorate are insane and more obsessed with tranny bathrooms and the penis size of presidential candidates than actual policy. Politics becomes theater and entertainment where people pick sides the way they cheer for sports teams and pirate parties aren't that different. Its just another narcissist performance.

>>84732 >this is actually a reasonable its pro immigrant boilerplate couched in the rhetoric of reasonableness. Maybe I didn't pick the best excepts but they do not seem keen on reducing the numbers, you're free to look at the page yourself. If you give them enough benefit of the doubt then maybe you could read that line as meaning 'we need fewer', but that doesn't seem like what they're saying to me. ( https://european-pirateparty.eu/programme/migration-asylum/ ) >>84731 OK and so if then the robber spends the money at a store and the store gives the money in change to me and I give it to my nephew for his birthday he's a criminal for walking around with stolen money in his pocket ? The getaway driver is actively and knowingly assisting in a crime though he may have no criminal part in it, and the sailor who carries a bunch of fake asylum seekers to help them illegally enter a country where they will proceed to commit fraud is likewise facilitating a crime. Not sure enough about laws around sailing to suppose whether or not he may also be criminal in more direct ways. Maybe the better question is, if I notice a bunch of aspirant bank robbers crashed on the side of the road, stop to help and to take them the rest of the way to the bank, am I an accomplice ? Yes.

>>84733 I hate to break it to you, but the quick fix for population decline, low births, and a declining tax base is to replenish the population through movement. The whole "we need less" is actually not true. Without a steady influx of newcomers, most Western countries would continue to dry up and GDP will stagnate like modern day Russia literally shrinking out of existence. China's huge economy is bolstered by the fact its major economic centers receive massive internal migration from rural provinces. Those immigrants get jobs, start businesses, and purchase goods leading to economic growth and pay taxes resulting in increased state revenue and more funding for housing, healthcare, and amenities. If people are anti-immigration for cultural or nationalist reasons or whatever then they should be honest about that instead of resorting to cheap boilerplate arguments that defy basic economics and whining.

>>84735 The point of immigration is you can wageslave the current ones alive to the point they cant afford kids because you can import more and dont to pay them enough to afford offspring. Any resident supporting immigration is braindead. Only exception is pensioners who dont give a soykaf about the kids and just want to secure pensions.

>>84732 >Libertarianism or classical liberalism and free software just don't go together at all Of course they are compatible what are you talking about. The GPL (i.e. weaponizing copyright law to force it to do the opposite of what it was intended to do) is incompatible with people who think copyright law shouldn't exist at all. But there is nothing incompatible about free markets, property rights and open source software like BSD. inb4 BSD is not "real" open source, I'm not interested in that conversation >This is actually a reasonable policy. You only support mass immigration because you think somebody else is paying for it. If you had to feed and house the migrates with your own money you would change your mind very quickly. Hell if you had to live on the same street as the migrants and walk passed them on a dark night you would change your mind. You are the epitome of white middle class privilege. >All state expenditure comes from either taxes or [inflation]. No matter what a government spends on, its going to take money from the working class (or some other group of citizens) to do it. Correct. That's why if you insist on having a state they should at least spend the money on the people who are paying for it instead of transferring wealth from workers to migrates and corporations. >The housing crisis is caused by high demand and low supply >mass immigration has no effect on supply and demand Get your head out of your ass. >>84733 >OK and so if then the robber spends the money at a store and the store gives the money in change to me and I give it to my nephew for his birthday he's a criminal for walking around with stolen money in his pocket ? Money is a bad example because it's fungible, the original owner need only track down the robber and get an equivalent amount of money back from him without bothering anybody else. But in the case of a non-fungible item like a bicycle then yes the owner takes it back from your nephew, you get your money back from the store and the store gets their money back from the robber. That's assuming the people involved don't have any optimizations in place like insurance. I don't really know what kind of point you're trying to make here, handling stolen goods is a crime under our current legal system so you're not inventing any new attack against libertarian philosophy here. >the sailor who carries a bunch of fake asylum seekers to help them illegally enter a country where they will proceed to commit fraud is likewise facilitating a crime You keep saying "crime" but the only crime is violating property rights. If an unwanted guest is on your portion of land or sea then remove them. If they caused some kind of damage then you can extract compensation from them. I guess the crux of what you're saying is a smuggler boat stops outside your property and drops off some violent subhumans who kill your chickens and rape your sister. How culpable is the smuggler ship? I'm not sure. I mean shoot the thieves and rapists obviously. What kind of compensation you can extract from the smugglers might be a detail for whatever judicial system is in place. There are tricky areas in libertarian philosophy like children's rights and animal rights but you're kidding yourself if you think any form of governance handles those issues perfectly. In terms of mass immigration I hope you can agree that shooting the invaders with your full automatic machine gun with explosive rounds is a better solution than whatever the fuarrrk the current government is doing.

>>84737 >That's assuming the people involved don't have any optimizations in place like insurance. Also assuming the original owner really wants the bicycle back and is not happy to simply get the equivalent amount of money from the robber and leave your nephew alone. Actually the original owner needs to extract compensation from the robber anyway because the time that the owner was deprived of his property also needs to be factored into the bill. You can't just let the robber go without losing anything except exactly what he stole, that's not justice either. >>84735 >I hate to break it to you, but the quick fix for population decline, low births, and a declining tax base is to replenish the population through movement. I hate to break it to you, but these migrates don't have jobs and will never have jobs. What is Jamal who has 70iq and doesn't speak English and couldn't get a job in Somalia, what is he going to contribute to an advanced first world economy? If they were going to China they might end up in sweatshops but we don't have anything like that in the west.

>>84737 >shooting the invaders with your full automatic machine gun with explosive rounds is a better solution than whatever the fuarrrk the current government is doing. well obviously but that doesn't seem to be what the pirate party is suggesting. If they were then sign me up. >you keep saying 'crime' I don't like using the word crime but it is generally the cleanest way to convey the meaning I want even if it has legalistic trappings that I wish generally to avoid. My contention is that the 'asylum seekers' and 'immigrants' are generally criminals. In a pure libertarian eutopia there would be no gibbermint handouts, but there are handouts and by claiming to be asylum seekers most of these people are obtaining these things by fraud, which is a crime of the law and the spirit. Obviously many of them are also criminals in other respects as well. If you want to construct this into property crime then because the government taxes me to give these handouts they are personally stealing from me. Under a modern pseudemocracy theoretically I own a share of my country and therefore they're trespassers against me. My contention is that a person who knowingly brings someone to or from a place that he may commit a crime is an accomplice and criminal accomplices are obviously criminals themselves, hence my remarks on the getaway driver; it doesn't matter if he has stolen goods in the car, lets say they broke in and forwarded the money to their bank account or something via electronic transfer. Driver still knows whats up and is part of it, therefore a criminal. >I dont really know what kind of point you're trying to make here just that mere possession of stolen goods does not make one a thief and can be done unwittingly. Yes, the bike probably should go back to the original owner, but neither I nor my nephew are thieves here. If a sailor keeps dropping people on your land to kill your sisters and rape your chickens then he certainly seems to be attacking you with the violent subhumans as weapons, just as surely as if he sat outside your property and shot into your house with a rifle. >>84735 lol. I guess there's some vague appearance of reasonableness to this in the same way that chopping off your jaw is a viable solution to having a toothache.

>>84742 >well obviously but that doesn't seem to be what the pirate party is suggesting. And that's why they're not libertarians. >these people are obtaining these things by fraud, which is a crime of the law and the spirit. I understand what you mean but crime is behavior that the state punishes. So if the state allows it then it's not a crime. Even if some piece of paper says otherwise the only law that matters is the law that is enforced. >Under a modern pseudemocracy theoretically I own a share of my country and therefore they're trespassers against me. I agree with that. It's a fallacy to pretend that everybody should own government property equally. Clearly some people have contributed more than others. When you get down to it the native people of a country who have been paying taxes their whole lives have a stronger claim on "public" property than an immigrant who hopped over a wall 5 minutes ago. >pseudemocracy More democracy is not necessarily the answer. The reason every country has at least one major party who is obsessed with more immigration is because the migrants are expected to vote for that party. There are also plenty of low iq, low information voters who vote for whatever reddit and hollywood tells them to vote for. >My contention is that a person who knowingly brings someone to or from a place that he may commit a crime is an accomplice and criminal accomplices are obviously criminals themselves, I understand your point. The guy who drives the robbers tothe bank, how guilty is he? I never really thought about it. I don't like to make somebody responsible for somebody else's actions. >If a sailor keeps dropping people on your land to kill your sisters and rape your chickens then he certainly seems to be attacking you with the violent subhumans as weapons I would be open to that argument. Like I said if you see the boat coming towards your land then blow him out of the water in self defense. Chasing him down after the fact is a little murky though.

>>84744 >The guy who drives the robbers tothe bank, how guilty is he? I never really thought about it. I don't like to make somebody responsible for somebody else's actions. intentional or not decides guilt. clueless taxi driver = innocent knowing collaborator = guilty you are not responsible for someone else, you are responsible for knowing what they gonna do and helping.

>>84746 Im the fella who introduced that example and I basically agree with this. Of course you could make the argument that the clueless sailor doesn't realize, but perhaps he reasonably should be expected to, as a taxi driver who picks up a group all wearing masks, visibly checking their firearms and asking him to wait outside till they come out again, keeping the engine running and ready to race off, should realize whats going on. >>84744 >Chasing him down after the fact is a little murky though. naturally prevention is better than revenge but a society that lets criminals get away with it just cause they were a little too quick to be caught in the act has I think made a terrible choice. >More democracy is not necessarily the answer. Didn't mean to imply that it was. Has there ever been a system with that universal of suffrage anyway ? Pretty much all historic ones harshly limit suffrage but give the system power. Modernist styles expand suffrage but limit effectiveness. This is a tangent. >I understand what you mean but I appreciate that 'crime' is not the perfect word here. Do you (or does anyone) have a better term ? Failing that I'll continue to misuse 'crime', cringing a little every time.

>>84720 Their ideals and policies align pretty closely with my own views so I support them. There isn't enough mainstream support for online freedom and information commons because these things don't align with major business interests, despite being clearly in the interests of humanity as a whole. Anything that can benefit people and can be replicated and distributed at virtually no cost should be, optimize for human freedom and abundance rather than private control and artificial scarcity.

>>84737 Both economic liberals and libertarians believe that every commodity and every service is private property exchanged on an unrestricted market. Both liberals and libertarians promote selfishness and individualism to an extreme level and believe nobody should be obligated to do anything for the group. In extreme free market conditions, free software simply cannot survive because it isn't profitable, corporations have little incentive to abide by it, and devs have all the incentives to make their software proprietary for a profit. This is ideologically desirable for economic liberals and libertarians who believe paid services are better than free ones even if an individual has a right to offer his property for free. In the most extreme ancap worldview, there would be no way to enforce the GPL. Enforcement would have to be private, and the purchasing power of a private company or conglomerate is going to outstrip anything a bunch of FOSStard tech nerds could ever scrape together. The GPL can be a barrier to commercialization, and is therefore a sin in the eyes of their economic theory and they'd probably refuse to acknowledge it. If libertarians and fanatic liberals support free software, they are contradicting their own beliefs. All the major libertarian theorists were pro-intellectual property, pro-copyright, and believed nothing should be free and everything ought to be commercial with no barriers for commercialization. They'd charge you for breathing air if they could. You can't be a liberal and pro-commons or a Marxist and pro-commons and certainly not a libertarian. Immigration is off-topic but I will say this. If you don't like immigrants because A. your a nationalist B. your a racist C. you just hate foreigners D. you are a devout Malthusian convinced there aren't enough resources, then fine be honest and just say that. I don't see the reason for appealing to easily refutable bullshit underhanded like "I just don't like them because they make food prices go up and also they commit crimes in high numbers". Just be straight with it and format your arguments properly.

The strictness of patents and copyrights is straight up not sustainable globally. You have entire countries expected to do the gruntwork of the entire production of a product, have the full knowledge of how it works, have all the infrastructure, but they cant make their own and rake in the big bucks for much cheaper because some paperwork says only this american company can sell this. If all of this production was contained within america it could be enforced but eventually and already to some degree countries abroad will decide it doesnt make sense and simply make knock offs as soon as there is a weakness in all of these world trade agreements or alternatively as other countries develop and have the economic pull. Its analogous to the fabled sort of marxist revolution only im confident this one is going to actually happen and is happening because its entire other countries and governments that own the means of production and they arent suppressed by violence but just by various deals and promises and threats of tarifs. So I agree with them there, this idea that there is no incentive to try and develop a great product if someone else who has the means to produce it can just then take it and instantly do it for cheaper is sort of bogus to me. Its unfair and certainly a problem to solve but people are not going to start taking good ideas to their grave or cease coming up with them because of the fact that they potentially cant make millions off of it. And more than likely a system could be developed where someone can still make a significant amount for publishing a design or idea without having exclusive rights to it for potential eternity. A controversial differing opinion but also somewhat an agreement with them is that I dont think you should be able to copyright or patent or make money off of anything that strictly exists online. Its unrealistic cause there is huge advantages and even moral ones to say being able to buy just a download of a video game rather than a disk or a usb or something. But I think that overall the existence of industry and work that strictly happens over the internet is a net negative and im not confident but I think it will "crash" at some point. im not a return to monkey person or luddite I think there is incredible things the internet can do and I think people still would for free and I think some would still even run eshops and stuff for downloads but I think there should essentially be 0 protections or infrastructure around that. This isnt my argument but for one a free internet is in total conflict with an internet where things like a countries currency can be transferred and obtained and traded entirely digitally. It totally reasonably necessitates governments to step in and start putting their foot down in the online space when that happens. Perhaps you could have a seperate isolated internet or network for such things if you want to maintain the convenience. Public trains dont travel the same roads as cars. Probably if this happened either the government or corporations providing the cables and lines and access would offer some kind of digital money or points you could buy with real money inevitably so maybe this all seems stupid but I think even that carries a significant impact and also some increased security and privacy not just for people but also for countries. And it creates less incentive for government or corporate restrictions and interference as their currencies value snd security is not directly affected by this digital sector. The reason I think it should work like this is mostly sentimental in that I think purely digital work is inherently alienating and socially destructive and I actually think it is no longer work even though a lot of work is put into some of these things. There is only communication and information online there is no work being done online, and there is no works (the noun) being created online. If you buy a download or an image or rights to something you have not bought anything. It you sell downloads or an image or rights to something you have not sold anything. Im saying this not because its true I actually dont think saying that is the case or isnt is a matter of mindset or opinion and im saying this should be the broader mindset around "digital work". There was work done at a computer but there is no work until it is physically bound and transacted. I am an artist and I would say that if I sold you a png of an image I made at my computer and you then made prints of that image to sell I am not entitled to anything as you did the work of producing the image regardless of how unfair it might seem. I am not in any worthwhile way producing anything when I make a copy of an image to send to you. I gave up exclusive production of the image the minute I posted it or sold it online, this is already the state of many popular places people post art only rather than the world owning it its whatever social media companies terms of service you signed. This isnt normally taken advantage of because its bad optics but with the advent of ai art its totally kosher and hard to track. Many artists I know already are ceasing to work digitally and decide to make a meager living exclusively selling art within their own community. There is no online transactions only a series of messages to tell someone to do the work of actually moving the money. No work is done online, this is something that must be communicated to people and internalized as a fundamental truth or else we will eventually invest so much into this illusory world that it implodes as the real work ceases to be considered. If it was possible to digitize ourselves this wouldnt be a problem but while I know some here are very optimistic about that I dont see it happening. So il say instead as long as we have bodies, there is no work done online. My last morr total difference is that I dont inherently have a problem with censorship or restricting free speech, I guess I dont see the internet as some independent party that decides its own accessibility. Thats something that is up to that country and its people to determine, and isnt a matter of the internet as this mass communication tool. This is somewhat contradictory to what I said earlier after all then isnt it up to countries whether to digitize their world and work? Yes but im saying I think thats fundamentally a bad idea that should not be globally respected if a country decides to do it. In such a way where if a country decides to say digitize their currency they have now chosen a disadvantage that locks the value of said currency to the same value of whatever internet points system would develop just naturally and thus be tied to the internets perceived value rather than their countries essentially giving up their national autonomy. Which maybe is some altruistic choice, but its certainly a choice. With regards to censorship or restrictions on free speech if a country already cracks down on such things (which all do to a degree) the same laws should probably apply to the citizens internet use and its a matter of what kind of country these people want to be just as it was before the internet. If my country has decided people are not allowed to threaten to rape someone then it shouldnt suddenly be outside my jurisdiction because the persons doing it on rape.org hosted in some other country where its allowed. Likewise this website should be able to have its access from my country shut down just as some real group or place where this is happening would be. If all nations entered some world wide web agreement total freedom of any censorship or restrictions would not be reasonable terms even for countries that are a perfect total true democracy. I just cant go send soldiers to raid someone in another country whos breaking my access rules which is already largely true. So how things are regarding this is fine the way it is to me. Additionally its up to people to protect their privacy or challenge their government for invading it, and this would also be significantly less of an issue in a world where what I said earlier was understood that no work is done online. The internet cant simultaneously be the global public square and also free of surveillance. In a world where its understood that no work is done online, the selling and collecting of information would probably still be a real service just as it was before. I dont see a realistic way around this, you could create some global agreement not to do it but people are going to anyways. However id also say that in my vision of a free internet any entity or group doing such a thing would be a totally legal target for endless attacks and disruption by angry victims. There is no work online, the internet is not an independent state, and so you are not comitting any crime or property damage as its this entity or countries own fault they decided to invest real resources into such a thing. Comes with the trade so to speak, an inherent risk. You are responsible for your own digital protections, anyone is free to copy and recreate such protections without legal repurcussion. Just as I said people are responsible for their own privacy any country who decides to host vital information online should not really have any recourse if its discovered by someone outside their borders. We should return to the mindset of if its that important dont put it online. If you want the efficiency you pay the risk price. Thats all.

>>84757 free software is profitable. There is money in support & maintenance. Its the same business model as f2p games- the base product is free but there's a cashshop attached with extras. No copyright would also only foster foss because there is no value in buying garbage like w10 when you can copypaste your own better version. Companies like microsoft were solely build upon lobbying software copyright into existence.

>>84757 >In extreme free market conditions, free software simply cannot survive because it isn't profitable, corporations have little incentive to abide by it, and devs have all the incentives to make their software proprietary for a profit. Sorry that's nonsense. Google has more than enough resources to fork linux and make it closed source anytime they want (the GPL only requires you to release the source if you distribute it, not if you use it internally). They don't because everybody contributing to the same open source project is more productive and more profitable. If you actually think the only reason open source works is because trillion dollar corporations like google and amazon and apple are scared of the GPL then you don't understand open source at all. Try reading a book https://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ Trigger warning: the author is a l*bertarian. The only software business model that would struggle under a free market would be microsoft's because there would be no copyright enforcement to keep their software closed. No government contracts and no government schools would also severely limit windows market share in a free market without politicians and regulators to bribe. >In the most extreme ancap worldview, there would be no way to enforce the GPL. I already told you that. The GPL is not anti-copyright it is abusing copyright to achieve a different goal. >The GPL can be a barrier to commercialization, and is therefore a sin in the eyes of their economic theory and they'd probably refuse to acknowledge it. That's incorrect. You are free to make any kind of contract you want with another consenting adult. I oppose the GPL because it is using the power of the state to impose a one-sided contract on everybody on the internet. That's why copyright is evil. If I make a contract with the vendor then I am legally bound by those terms. But if I encounter some bytes on the internet it is bullshit that somebody I have never met before suddenly has legal rights over me and what I can do with the bytes I found. That's why copyright is bullshit. >All the major libertarian theorists were pro-intellectual property, pro-copyright Wrong. https://mises.org/library/book/against-intellectual-property >All the major libertarian theorists believed nothing should be free and everything ought to be commercial with no barriers for commercialization. Dude you don't even know any "major libertarian theorists". Libertarianism is about property rights. If you want to release your code under an anti-commercial license then go ahead. It's your property. If somebody has agreed to the license in exchange for making a copy of your code and then breaks the agreement you should get justice against them for breaking the contract. But you cannot use the state to enforce this license on an entire internet of people who did not agree to it, that's the part we disagree on. Trying to enforce a contract on people who did not agree to it is the thing that is against libertarian principles here. >>84766 >No copyright would also only foster foss because there is no value in buying garbage like w10 when you can copypaste your own better version. Companies like microsoft were solely build upon lobbying software copyright into existence. You stole my argument before I could make it. How dare you violate my copyright/

>>84767 >If you actually think the only reason open source works is because trillion dollar corporations like google and amazon and apple are scared of the GPL then you don't understand open source at all. It sounds like he thinks the only way to make money from software is to sell it like Microsoft sells Windows and Office.

>>84725 We come to a critical situation whence parties will be judged based on their stance on old, recent, legal and illegal immigration. It's sad that we so much energy will need to be poured into this when we could have been working on true progress.

>>84767 >That's incorrect. You are free to make any kind of contract you want with another consenting adult. I oppose the GPL because it is using the power of the state to impose a one-sided contract on everybody on the internet. That's why copyright is evil. If I make a contract with the vendor then I am legally bound by those terms. But if I encounter some bytes on the internet it is bullshit that somebody I have never met before suddenly has legal rights over me and what I can do with the bytes I found. That's why copyright is bullshit. The American way is definitely making things worse. Isn't it curious that in that same country we find people who are not in possession, i.e. owners, of the software but merely users under a license? People paid for the software yet never benefited from a true ownership. That this became legal early on perhaps speaks volumes about the sheer corruption of the institutions and the spirit of freedom that once drove that country forward.

>>84819 just another step in a long chain. First you had guilds controlling craftsmen in cities limiting who could do a job. Then a royal came up with "monopolize tech, we call it patent" to monopolize cotton market. Since then everyone tried to patent/copyright their own goods to monopolize their market. Software copyright was proxy lobby group with a bunch of massive companies like ibm. Whole pitch was "with software copyright we will print money by printing licenses" - whenever profit overshadows costs things happen. Legality doesnt matter as bribes/fines are just operational costs.

>>84720 I voted for them once like two decades ago. Now they have merged with groups that are totally different and they are a non important voice in that group. Worse, it seem that they have abandoned the fight for freedom of information or privacy or what their ideals were. When Assange was released, they barely gave a fuarrrk. Point the libertarian part of their program, please. I don't want cavemens to own a patent on fire and sue everybody who steal their fire and they want to tax me to fund their pet projects.

>>84767 >open source projects are more productive and more profitable This just isn't true. At best its unproven or rests on shaky rational arguments and not on empirical fact. The reason companies like Google don't just fork Linux is to cut development costs. In the 80s, big companies had to either develop UNIX clones or purchase one from a vendor. Why throw resources into developing a Unix-like OS in-house (which then has to make a profit) or risk ending up like IBM when they can just let the Linux Foundation handle all of that with no strings attached? They have no incentive to make a proprietary system. This is a highly specific circumstance and can't be generalized to software development as a whole. If it were the case that open source projects are more profitable and productive, then all software would be open source. Companies only support open source project when it reduces their own operating costs not because this software makes money. Neither Stallman nor the GNU Project have ever claimed that free software is more productive or profitable. Stallman concedes that free software might make programming less lucrative but he is willing to accept that because it is more ethical and contributes to social justice. >You are free to make any kind of contract you want with another consenting adult. Libertarians like Rothbard, Rand, and Nozick are idealist political theorists. What that means is they try to model an ideal society and identify how best to implement that model in practice. Sure, building something for free and giving it away is well within your right but it is not ideal or desirable behavior. Indeed, a libertarian society would seek to eliminate that kind of thinking. None of these theorists think social altruism is a good thing (except maybe Nozick). In the libertarian worldview, society functions best when people maximize their individual self-interest and reject any higher social or collective obligation. While you are free to give away your property in accordance with the Lockean Provisio, this is not a desirable behavior in a libertarian society and people like Rothbard and Rand think humans are morally wrong to act in this way and in an ideal world they wouldn't do it. >All the major libertarian theorists were pro-intellectual property, pro-copyright The two most important libertarian political theorists were Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick. In Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard argued in favor of copyright and patents. He said that a designer of a mousetrap should have the right to stop others from selling other mousetraps with an identical or similar design. He's actually harsher than the current copyright regime. If we follow Rothbard's logic, Linux is theft and whoever owns the right to UNIX should have the right to shutdown Linux and throw Torvalds in jail. Nozick's theory of entitlement is more or less favorable to the pro-intellectual property, pro-copyright camp and some followers of Nozick claim the un-libertarian aspect of copyright enforcement is justified to protect intellectual property. Free software as outlined by Stallman in the GNU Manifesto is not compatible with right libertarian ideology. Stallman believes software should be free because its a net benefit to users, programmers, and society as a whole even if its at the expense of the individual and less profitable. Stallman sees software as a social contribution that should make the world a more just, fair, and equitable place. This is kind of thinking is something Nozick opposed.

Use math to overcome stupid people and their stupid opinions. No, don't advocate for that or try to formalize it into law, just do it.

>>85166 this will get even crazier since the demographic pressure is getting higher and higher

>>85169 >demographics Chemistry and physics.

Aren't these the assholes that watched My Little Pony during one of their meetings?

>>85165 It seems hard to take Stallman seriously without thinking he was horribly naive or had some kind of communistic tendencies. Nothing is free and above all nothing of quality is and should be free. Qualified people must be paid and someone's gotta shell out the shìllings. Many years before the age of SaaS there were plenty of affordable paid solutions, when giants were not trying their best to ruin them with anti-competitive practices. As for the patents, what were their defenders' stance regarding the patent trolls? Or the fact that we do business with China that has no issue to create literal knockoff copies of entire ranges of automobiles? We have given so much to China, paid them to rise (and still do in Europe based on a scam of GDP per capita), while that country cheats. We pull down our pants, teach them our tech, get metaphorically raped on the business side and we ask for more. There's too much hypocrisy regarding the patents and we can see that our own governments can suddenly easily look away and act as if patents didn't matter much when China got involved. I prefer a system where a patent has to be put to use and no matter what happens, within five years it's free for all, at least for the companies registered and operating within the country where the patent was filled.

>>84766 It's also a call for one huge mess. With tons of forks, good luck finding the right people educated into managing a specific system. Having not too many options isn't a bad thing.

>>85987 >nothing of quality is and should be free. Qualified people must be paid and someone's gotta shell out the shìllings. You exchange work for $ you get your labor stolen by taxes. Many people rather have poor people than gov leeching off them. And you work on software you want to have, the product is the payment while "free" bypasses the entire system build to extract your labor. Not to mention that it makes doing things much easier because you can ignore patents while not working for $. As for China - west likes to blame china but does same soykaf. Western countries arent saints and engage in technology theft likewise. Ive seen arms manufacturers say intelligence steals their tech and distributes it for patenting among their own countries arms companies and there are various less high profile examples of it too. Im honestly more mad my dumbfuck country didnt act like china than mad about china.

>>84720 Our pirate party has had vocal wing of people who claim to be communist. Which is big nono. Also, I think internet freedom is not ideological foundation strong enough to build government party on. Like, what about welfare and taxes? What about the pension reform? What about foreign policy?

>>85992 The original goal was putting a small party into gov to push issues tech people care about while leaving the old crap to old parties. Ideally you would pool together people from both sides rather than split your potential voterpool getting involved in additional topics. Of course people didn't play along and did what you do - not mirroring all my views? fuarrrk em.

>>85165 >This just isn't true. At best its unproven or rests on shaky rational arguments and not on empirical fact. Is it not an empirical fact that the most profitable tech companies in the world are built on open source? >The reason companies like Google don't just fork Linux is to cut development costs So using open source is more profitable? >This is a highly specific circumstance and can't be generalized to software development as a whole Except everything in software development is open source Operating system? Linux -> open source C compiler? GCC / LLVM -> open source Scripting language? cpython, mri, perl, lua, php...... -> all open source Database? sqlite, mysql -> open source Web server? apache, nginx -> open source Virtualization? kvm, xen, virtualbox -> open source Containers? Docker, lxc -> open source Actually paying to use a closed source library or tool is practically unheard of these days. >Neither Stallman nor the GNU Project have ever claimed that free software is more productive or profitable. You realize RMS didn't invent open source. >Libertarians like Nozick Who? >Indeed, a libertarian society would seek to eliminate that kind of thinking. No it wouldn't. >None of these theorists think social altruism is a good thing Only Ayn Rand was against the concept of charity and open source is not charity anyway. The whole point is you fix bugs and add features that affect you and benefit from other people doing the same thing. Open source is a voluntary collaboration with no force of coercion involved, that is actually very libertarian. >In the libertarian worldview, society functions best when people maximize their individual self-interest You are making the classic mistake of confusing self-interest with high time preference. If an action is a loss in the short term but a gain in the long term then that is still acting in your self interest. By your logic all investment bankers would be altruists because they give away money and don't get an immediate return. >The two most important libertarian political theorists were Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick What's your source on this? I have literally never heard of Robert Nozick. >In Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard argued in favor of copyright and patents. I have read the Ethics of Liberty and he says no such thing. It's actually the opposite he argues that breaking a contract is not an act of aggression so don't count on somebody keeping their word. You obviously didn't read the book or you are maliciously misquoting it to fit your strawman. >Free software as outlined by Stallman in the GNU Manifesto is not compatible with right libertarian ideology. It might not be compatible with the pile of projections strawmen and horseѕhit you made up. The only part of the GPL specifically that bumps up against libertarian principles is the part where you threaten violence on a person who distributes changes without distributing the source. But open source is more than just GNU and the GPL. >>85987 >nothing of quality is and should be free. Qualified people must be paid and someone's gotta shell out the shìllings. fuarrrk I just realized this is /hum/ not /tech/ that's why you are all so clueless about software.

>>85992 I am curious, do your internet freedom warriors support or oppose Elon's free speech? >>85987 Patents are illegal after 20 years.

>>86121 >20years >just wait til your 40s brah very viable... Too many patents are corrupt bribery results if not straight stolen tech. Like "round corners on smartphone" is best example of being a result of $ not innovation. In the last decade the patent system has been largely weaponized by megacorps to create patent walls against upstarts. They make 100 bullshit patents and you simply dont have the money to fight through it. GG

>>86121 >support or oppose Elon's free speech? Musk is not enabling free speech, people get derezzed from X for calling him the first lady. What he is doing though is breaking up the monopoly that currently exists by allowing a different subset of speech. Because all other tech platforms (facebook, reddit, youtube) enforce identical censorship policies (can't criticize pharma corpos, israel, the ukraine war, the transgender-industrial-complex etc.). Now X allows people to have some conversations that our corporate overlords previously deemed unacceptable so that is a net win for the people. I still wouldn't associate Musk with free speech though.

>>86148 He also derezzed two of the biggest anarchist accounts on Twitter (Crimethinc and It's Going Down), this was basically the first thing he did when he took over. Like most free speech warriors he supports free speech for those he agrees with and supports censorship of those he disagrees with. Which is of course not a support for free speech at all.

>>86155 What did they post to get derezzed?

>>86156 Crimethinc didn't post anything to get derezzed, they where derezzed by Elon Musk himself on the request of another user. https://crimethinc.com/2022/11/25/elon-musk-bans-crimethinc-from-twitter-on-request-from-far-right-troll As for It's Going Down I don't know, but since they where derezzed at the same time I assume the situation is similar

>>86155 >far-right troll Andy Ngo Far-right troll. Andy Ngo. The gay asian independent journalist. >at the urging of a far-right troll Andy Ngo is an independent journalist who has spent years investigating far-left violence and terror groups, published books on his research and during the course of one investigation was attacked and hospitalized by one of those groups. Crimethinc trying to make it sound like Musk is listening to some random online troll when it's somebody who is actually an authority on this topic. Crimethinc is not at all acting in good faith here and lost any benefit of the doubt from me. >A wide range of accounts belonging to anarchists, anti-fascists, or leftists have been derezzed since Elon Musk took control of Twitter Yeah I don't know you need to provide context. People get derezzed for all sorts of stuff. At one point people were getting derezzed for saying the word "retard". If anything these leftist accounts are not getting derezzed for being leftists now that Musk is in charge, they probably just lost whatever protection they had before and are now being treated the same as everybody else.

>>86155 Odd, I can see plenty of people who oppose him. At the very least, all the ones who left for the echochamber after the election. That give us a low estimate of 200k people strongly opposing Elon, yet being allowed to speak. >>86157 This site seem extremely biased.

>>84720 Trying to gain power through the political system is quite counterproductive and ultimately a dead end. It's far more efficient to focus on your own life and how your life affects others. People look at the world and see everything that is "wrong". And their gut instinct scream: "this has to change!". And then you become much like the hamster in the wheel. By actively partaking in the political system, either through voting or through becoming a politician campaigning for power, you are that little hamster stuck in the wheel. It's much more efficient to become the change yourself rather than trying to bend the world to your liking. Case in point: most people currently think and act like that: trying to make the world into what is acceptable to them. Whether it is the parent scolding the child for not living up to expectations or whether it's a corrupt politician sh!lling for carbon tax, it's all the same. In stead, one can become like water and go with nature: rather than forcing change, become the instrument for change. If you want something to change then do it. Don't yell about it.

>>86159 >>86160 I don't know why I thought it was a good idea to engage in a political discussion on a *chan. It is not a mistake I will be doing again

>>86176 >how dare you guys refuse to blindly agree with me I am running back to my echochamber now With this mindset you never had anything to add to the discussion anyway.

>>86157 They never cared when the other side of the pond was being censored. They still have reddit facebook.

>>85994 >Is it not an empirical fact that the most profitable tech companies in the world are built on open source? That cooperations use open source software does not mean they do so because the open source development model is inherently more profitable. Your claim was that open-source software is better and makes more money, this is an unsubstantiated claim. >So using open source is more profitable? No, they use Linux or GCC because they aren't profitable. This is software developed by a third party, allowing a company like Microsoft to cut R&D costs while spending more on the development costs of their own product, the stuff they are actually producing and selling. The Linux Foundation makes no money because it is a non-profit. Now, in economics, profit has a specific meaning. Just because something is beneficial to a company doesn't make it a profit. You've given a good list there but is Linux really better than proprietary systems? There are many things Solaris still does better than Linux and these examples count for a fraction of consumer software, If the open source development model is inherently more productive and more profitable than other models, then why isn't all software, from Windows and Mac OS X to Microsoft Office open source? Why did Microsoft panic when Linux exploded in the early 2000s? They were worried about a free OS stealing away their market share and reducing their profits. >Open source is a voluntary collaboration with no force of coercion involved, that is actually very libertarian. Open source is pro bono work. This is when paid professionals offer their services for free to benefit the public or those who can't afford paid versions of those services. Another word for this is charity. > I have literally never heard of Robert Nozick Nozick was the libertarian philosopher. I'm surprised so many libertarians don't know who he is. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nozick-political/ >I have read the Ethics of Liberty and he says no such thing On page 123 of the book, Rothbard states "Violation of (common law) copyright is an equivalent violation of contract and theft of property." He discusses the example of a mousetrap, arguing that if Mr. Green sells an identical clone of Mr. Brown's mousetrap (and Mr. Brown holds the copyright) then this is theft and should be prosecuted. Rothbard is critical of states enforcing copyright, he sees it as contractual violation, but its clear he isn't opposed to copyright and does believe people should be prosecuted for violating it. >The only part of the GPL specifically that bumps up against libertarian principles is the part where you threaten violence on a person who distributes changes without distributing the source Copyleft does violate libertarian principals, but that's not all there is to free software and not my claim. The values outlined in the GNU Manifesto contradict libertarian ideology. This is evident and clear to anyone who has read it. Stallman puts collective freedom and social benefit above the individual's right to his own property. I'm really not sure why libertarians are interested in free and open source software or why they rail against companies like Microsoft or Apple. In Western political philosophy, a central question is how the state is legitimized. In the Hobbesian 'state of nature,' life is violent, brutish, and short, and the need to solve this problem led to political authority. For monarchists like Hobbes, the issue is resolved by having an all powerful king while liberals, anarchists, and socialists all give their own answers. For libertarians like Nozick, the way you tame the savage 'state of nature' is not by establishing a powerful state or government. Instead, private enterprises offer services (like security for example) and individuals should have the right to choose which company's services they would like to buy on a free market. Isn't this what big tech offers? You can choose from Apple, Lenovo, HP or Fujitsu. You can pick Mac OS, Windows, Solaris or something else. Have these companies colonized the tech world? Yes, but for someone like Nozick that's exactly the outcome he's looking for. Sure, you could argue that Microsoft or Google are monopolies, but Nozick did not see monopolies as inherently unjust and Microsoft might not even meet Rothbard's definition of a monopoly since Apple has about 15-20% market share. Libertarians parading around Linux and complaining about big tech is as weird as a communist complaining about free healthcare. You people are railing against the very system your political economic ideology sees as ideal and many of the people running big tech in Silicon Valley are libertarians or at least sympathetic to one or another variety of free market fundamentalism. This is also why libertarian pirate parties don't make sense either. The whole idea of piracy runs against their political and economic beliefs.

Like all other politics and ideologies, Pirate Politics looks absoletly perfect, obvious, and irrefutable on paper. Then you try to implement it in the real world and run into all kinds of problems that weren't on the paper. Fanatical adherence to any ideology is a recipe for disaster.

>>86405 Every policy creates losers who will work against it or try to exploit loopholes. That's why stable measures are only those who are in some game theory equilibrium.

>>84720 I do support their ideals, but politisperging won't get one anywhere. I'd like to imagine that their goal is aiming for your average Joe to be as much capable as those in large corporations, but it seems somewhat paradoxical or counterintuitive in nature given that most of us don't have the talent, expertise or skills necessary, or aren't in good health (lethargy, mental disorders, gut problems), or don't have a team of people to rely on, lack of time, maybe expensive hardware is required, commercial software, equipment, instruments, etc. I'm more interested in the artistic/material/intellectual aspect of it rather than the social side (we already got platforms like Nostr and Mastodon). The problem is that most people are too dumb (myself included) to make stuff that aren't vanity/toy projects, there's like a big blind spot when it comes to more technical stuff or advanced mathematics that's often overlooked or not discussed in the mainstream. I think educating people to make high-quality/useful stuff would be better than making it easier to steal from each other by abolishing copyright laws, even though it's been abused to death. I don't enjoy things as much as I used to when I was younger (music, games, movies), I feel rather alienated. I think proprietary software should die out on the other hand.

>>86490 There also needs to be more intelligent local open-source AI models, just think about the large amounts of sensitive information being sent to “Open”AI every day.

>>86490 The goal was simply to limit corporations taking negative influence on tech laws by inserting themself into politics run by 60+ men who dont even know how to use a browser. The goal is protecting rights because good tools can only be used by normal people if government doesn't ban everything. Look at crypto right now - EU is making anonymous crypto illegal with MiCA on 30.12 and limiting btc to have a receipt+kyc or its not yours. So now people have to operate illegal or leave EU and thats how millions of people get excluded from tech.