As much as we like to stay away from letting real-world politics bleed over into our ongoing discussion of tech politics, I found an interesting essay over at The Economist's "Democracy in America" blog that draws a parallel between Apple's Mac/iPhone user-friendly ecosystem and the Microsoft Windows freer-but-more-chaotic ecosystem and how that lines up along the authoritarian/libertarian spectrum of real-world political division. They don't mention Open Source in this essay, but I'm sure it could make an interesting addition to the discussion. The essay's main point is that, in governance, attempts to make life more user-friendly for citizens usually ends up giving them less freedom of choice, and a certain segment of the political establishment will reliably oppose such moves. The idea that the tradeoff between choice and usability persists into the world of governance really set me to thinking. What kind of country would you rather live in? An Apple one, a Microsoft one, or an Open Source one?
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-10
really?
can people handle school choice? Alberta, Sweden, Chile, British Columbia.. hmmm.. apparently they can and society does not collapse!
Can people handle drugs? Hmmm, Holland isn't collapsing.
Can people handle sexual morality? Hmm, yep, society is not collapsing as sexual freedoms have arrived.
Can people have guns? Switzerland, Finland, even USA. Despite the rhetoric, crime in the USA is not that much higher (as in orders of magnitude) than other western countries with more gun laws.
Yep, looks like people can actually handle freedom.
Member since:2008-07-15
You don't grasp what a totally free society would be, do you? No rules, no regulations, no laws. If I want to kill someone because they insulted me, in a totally free society, I've every right to and no law can stop me. Managed free choice is one thing, total freedom with the complete absence of law or other governance would, indeed, be the end of civilization. We would live like animals, pure and simple, until someone rose up from the masses to take control yet again and the cycle of civilization would repeat.
Member since:2006-01-10
I'm not going to argue over dictionary definitions of freedom.
If you think freedom means the freedom to kill someone just because they insulted you... well then we don't speak of the same freedom 
I'm not an anarchist nor would I ever risk plunging society into such an unknown. An anarchist or even extreme libertarian state might be workable. I just don't know enough to risk society on trying it out.
However, I do think maximal liberty is essential and the best way for all people.
The fear mongering of those who fear liberty is just that... fear mongering. Society does not collapse when freedom is introduced and we can see it by the countless examples through the world.
These are not theories. These are real world, tried and true methods. Gun ownership, school choice, free speech, sexual freedom, drugs... simply do not destroy societies as the fear mongers say they will and do not necessitate coercive government control and this government control rarely if ever solves the issues raised in fear mongering.
Forcing kids into public schools does not produce social harmony.
Drugs wars do not stop people from using
...
That's all I'm saying.
Member since:2009-01-03
Member since:
2008-07-15
The problem with a "free society" is that most people wouldn't know how to handle freedom when they got it. Total freedom is total anarchy, and would be the end of civilization itself.