Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the must-read dept.

An Indian site, YourStory, has an unusually broad ranging interview with Richard Stallman. While much of the background and goals will already be familiar to SN readers, the interview is interesting not only for its scope but also that India is starting to take an interest in these matters.

To know Richard Stallman is to know the true meaning of freedom. He's the man behind the GNU project and the free software movement, and the subject of our Techie Tuesdays this week.

This is not a usual story. After multiple attempts to get in touch for an interaction with Richard Stallman, I got a response which prepared me well for what's coming next. I'm sharing the same with you to prepare you for what's coming next.

I'm willing to do the interview — if you can put yourself into philosophical and political mindset that is totally different from the one that the other articles are rooted in.

The general mindset of your articles is to admire success. Both business success, and engineering success. My values disagree fundamentally with that. In my view, proprietary software is an injustice; it is wrongdoing. People should be _ashamed_ of making proprietary software, _especially_ if it is successful. (If nobody uses the proprietary program, at least it has not really wronged anyone.) Thus, most of the projects you consider good, I consider bad.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @09:20PM (6 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 30 2017, @09:20PM (#561732) Homepage Journal

    I dunno about the rest of you but I really wouldn't mind having about 9K acres, a small lake, a few large ponds, and plenty of wildlife along with the means to keep them all up. So, yes, some people do genuinely want a whole hell of a lot more space than is absolutely necessary.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:31PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:31PM (#561789)

    And your desire may or may not be allowed. Submit a plan for building a cabin around a specific lake and get approved? Congrats. Want your 9k acres within 30mins of a major urban center? Good luck.

    Resource allocation should be more communal, the private wealth system where one individual can horde the wealth equivalent of small countries is b.r.o.k.e.n.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:18PM (4 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:18PM (#561815) Homepage Journal

      Try taking what I've busted my ass for at your own peril, comrade.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by t-3 on Thursday August 31 2017, @02:43AM (3 children)

        by t-3 (4907) on Thursday August 31 2017, @02:43AM (#561930)

        /Take/ what I've got, I'll kill you... but if you need something, and I see that, I will probably give it. "Communal" implies "community", rather than individuals being forced to slave so others don't have to work (which is capitalism).

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 31 2017, @10:52AM (2 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday August 31 2017, @10:52AM (#562057) Homepage Journal

          ...rather than individuals being forced to slave so others don't have to work (which is capitalism).

          You've got that exactly backwards. That is how socialism and communism work not capitalism. See, in capitalism someone not having to work for whatever reason is an anomaly. In socialism it is the end goal that no matter how hard you work, you should never be able to have the things you want out of life until everyone else does first; whether they're willing to work for them or not.

          Otherwise we're in agreement about charity vs. theft.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by t-3 on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:15PM (1 child)

            by t-3 (4907) on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:15PM (#562078)

            You're comparing the economic ramifications of capitalism to the political ramifications of socialism. We're both right, and we're both facetiously ignoring half the problems of each system. I'm not a socialist btw, I empathize much more with libertarians and communal anarchists; I think capitalism is a fine economic system, but it only works when divorced from the political system. If basic needs are met and supplied communally, capitalism is the best system to supply the non-essential things. If capitalism has undue influence on the political system, supplying the basic necessities becomes quickly becomes the only possibility for many, and some will fail to do that, simply because that is how capitalism works. Conversely, socialism will fail due to it's own inefficiencies when implemented at the economic level, rather than the political.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:57PM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:57PM (#562093) Homepage Journal

              Well, as long as we're consistent I guess.

              Personally I think capitalism is hands down the best system for meeting needs as well as wants. It rewards those who contribute more to society with more of the latter but, if not mismanaged by the government, it also meets the needs of everyone so long as they contribute, above a minimum threshold, to society.

              I don't even have issue with people personally lending or giving aid to those who cannot contribute enough to earn their keep. I do have issue with the government being involved because everything they have they've had to take via force. If the "by force" situation changes, so will my opinion. I also have a lesser issue with giving or lending to those able but unwilling to contribute the minimum threshold of value to earn their own living; it is a waste of society's resources because those "helped", by definition, are choosing to be leeches.

              Further, I have no issue with individuals collectively deciding that they would prefer to seek their way in life via socialism, so long as the government has no part in it. Voluntary socialism, on a small scale, works perfectly well within capitalist societies.

              "Society", as used in the above context, is simply a means of addressing all concerned individuals. I vehemently do not believe it is a separate thing whose good should always be addressed above any individual's.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.