Stallman: Open source misses the point

>speaking out against socialist statists and Jews makes me a tranny

You should really kill yourself redditor

Not a single piece of word salad you quoted addressed what I said either. Its the promotion of a large state while simultaneously pretending that that state won't violate freedom. The most naive and historically ignorant point of view that exists.

There has never been a large state that did not infringe on liberties and stallman is a fucking joke kike and pretends like he supports freedom. He doesn't, he likes to spew pretty nothings about open source, that's all. He is limited and stupid.

Him saying " I support free speech " while espousing support for a socialist state is proof of nothing other than either his deluded naivety or even malicious lying to misguide others. Wouldn't put it past a Jew.

You're an idiot for swallowing his shit. Then again I expect nothing less from a post sticky Stallmanite newfag.

Attached: ff.jpg (1128x751, 71K)

>liberty of people
>*steals their money, property, firearms and speech*

Youre the typical college pseudo intellectual who pretends to be for liberty.

If you don't know what socialism is, and have never read Marx, why do you feel you are qualified to talk about socialism, and what Marx thought of it?

>>*steals their money, property, firearms and speech*
What did he mean by this?
All of those are individual freedoms, all of those are exactly what I stand for.

Yawn. At least make an effort.

>I'm going to give power to a large central state so they can attempt in vein to implement my idealist vision of financial equality
>this surely will not result in the loss of liberty!

Large state = loss of liberty every time, and by your previous statement the implication is you support a large state.

Yeah faggot because your stupid retort of a line of quotes that didn't address my point and now a single sentence of a reddit response complete with "yawn" and all is definitely effort. Fuck off.

The lack of a central authority to monitor the liberty of individuals will only result in conglomerates forming in the result of the power vacuum that will themselves abuse those freedoms.

I think the argument RMS and other advocates is a state that has sufficient power to contend with multinats but also with the attempt to place checks and balances on the abuse of that power against non-corporate entities.

So in your terms, large state = loss of liberty to the state
Small state = loss of liberty to non-state actors who functionally become the state
Take the middle way

Being conservative wouldn't save the dumpster fire that is Marvel movies.

>they're making shitty company decisions on the regular; see: Marvel

Attached: 768.jpg (680x450, 41K)

The required amount of state is so minor you don't need fucking socialism. Don't try and excuse this kike and his kinds typical draw to central power.

you can even have decentralized states formed around a central system with a strong constitution much like the US. Its a good system if the constitution was even more unbending.

You will objectively lose more liberties with a large state, not one instance in history has that been untrue. You can talk about corporations and monopolies all you want but do you even realize that all of these exist under the large states we have now? They exist in largest part BECAUSE of the states that give the corporations their power. Whether it be through regulating out competition and smaller companies or whatever else.

I will never understand this argument. It just comes from a fundamentally flawed, blind and naive place.

The state, like the GPL, ensures that all retain their freedom. You want a BSD state where you are at the mercy of corporations.

>The state, like the GPL, ensures that all retain their freedom. You want a BSD state where you are at the mercy of corporations.

Ensures they retain their freedom by taking it from them? That's a nice pipe dream but that isn't how it works. If you want some manner of state stick to it being as decentralized as possible.

You're a fool if you think central power systems have ever cared about freedom. The point of the american system is to remove the central power system in large part and have it enforce the constitution and only step in when violations occur. The problem being how bastardized everything has become due to abuse of how it was written and allowances for central control.

>Be New Zealand
>Hey guys, let's privatise our electicity infrastructure
>What do you mean private industry stopped supporting it because it's not actually profitable
>Hey guys why do we have blackout

>Be London
>Have private fire brigades
>Hey guys, why do we have all these fires all the time, why isn't there some coordination with putting them out?

>Be the UK
>Have nearly a hundred different train companies, each owning their own line
>Hey guys, why is it literally impossible to use the train lines anymore?

>Be Sydney
>Have literally no plan for urban planning beyond "let the developers do it"
>Run out of infrastructure, watch house prices become some of the least affordable on the planet and watch developers pocket the difference

>Be Yankland
>Have nothing but private telecom companies
>Why do they keep fucking over their customers and abusing the rules to create monopolies?

>Be most of the world
>Why does this one company keep paying off governments to maintain a monopoly on diamonds?

Actually no, historically certain things do need to be socialised (or rather nationalised) because despite being essential they aren't actually profitable, because the risk of abuse by a private entity is too great, or to prevent them from establishing a position that is unassailable (i.e. a monopoly). Historically we have seen time and time again what happens when either states get too much power, or when companies do. And the results in either case are never pretty.

It's taking away the freedom to be destitute in favour of the freedom to pursue one's goals. Sounds like more freedom to me, since one has far more opportunities.

Very nice strawman. Notice how nothing I said is anarcho capitalism and how I have been promoting decentralized control systems over centralized ones.

youre a fucking 80 IQ dimwit fuck. No wonder youre prone to idol worship of people like stallman. You can't think for yourself.

That's not even addressing the blatant inaccuracy of a lot of your posted "examples". You don't even realize the connection here. " wow government and corporations are in bed, better give more power to the government! ".

Freedom isn't about whatever arbitrary determination you assign to it. It has a clear meaning. If you think stealing, removing someone's property, removing someone's speech, removing someone's protection etc. is compatible with " freedom " youre deluded.

I'm done now. Nothing more to say that hasn't been said, and as always, no argument presented.

>If you think stealing, removing someone's property, removing someone's speech, removing someone's protection etc. is compatible with " freedom " youre deluded.
So prisons should not exist? Welfare should not exist? Taxes should not exist?

You fucking imprison people for violating others freedom, that should be the entire point.

Taxes if possible should be done in a decentralized and voluntary manner. Even if it is so convenient as to being a borderline necessity (ie access to roads, police services etc.), welfare should be decided on by smaller decentralized governments so as to not impose a large burden onto everyone and give people the option to move around and not be stuck slaving away to pay for a corrupt and bloated system. Governments should be held accountable for their money and how they run and conduct themselves just like everybody else. Unfortunately we don't have anything resembling that now since most are like you and are too shortsighted and accepting of the status quo of zero accountability and treating the populace like their subjects.

But then the government is violating their freedom by imprisoning them.