Meghan Stavig Term Paper Should Software Be Free? Part 1. The notion that software should be free is one that is highly critiqued within the technology industry. Free, as in the idea that users can obtain the source code for any given program, and modify and redistribute it as they like. Currently most all software produced is proprietary in nature. Corporations pay developers to create proprietary software that they then obstruct (so that no modifications can be made), and sell (to turn a profit). Richard Stallman has been fighting the idea of proprietary software, and specifically software ownership, for decades. Stallman holds the stance that software ownership is a detriment to society, and stifles innovation, education, and social cohesion. Stallman presents an argument for free software that is supported with an abstracted view of the harm the …show more content…
comes from obstructed software. He claims that each level has some form of psychosocial harm (Stallman, 3), and can have profound effects on interpersonal relationships as well as varying material consequences. Stallman calls this the three different levels of material harm caused by the obstruction of software. The first level of material harm impedes the simple use of a program: fewer people use the program (Stallman, 4). Unlike a material object, a copy of a program has no cost. There are no raw material fees or production costs; a digital copy of a program is virtually free and takes little effort to produce many copies. If there is no cost to reproduce an exact replica of a service, the people in power are imposing an unnecessary cost; all for the sake of ownership. The second level of material harm, no users can adapt or fix the program, produces frustration and broken spirits. The limitations and blockades that make up proprietary software are often the root cause of user dissatisfaction and ultimately, the termination of use--users simply give up. This mindset often bleeds over into other aspects of life; people who feel demoralized by programs do not do good work and do not live happy lives (Stallman, 5). The third level of material harm has perhaps the most poignant effects. Level 3, other developers cannot learn from the program or base new work on existing code. By obstructing programs, the owners are hindering education and progress. Stallman states that “in any kind of intellectual field, progress is built by standing on the shoulders of others. That’s no longer generally allowed in the software field--you can only stand on the shoulders of the other people in your own company” (Stallman, 6). If we think of software as a public utility--something most, if not all people desire to use, then we can imagine concrete examples to the three levels of material harm. The first, that fewer people will use the program, can be related to a road with a toll booth. The toll helps raise funds for the road, but subsequently causes pollution, traffic congestion, and has the potential to cause dangerous accidents when compared to a free access road. The second level, that no users can adapt or fix the program, causes companies to either succumb to the limitations of the software, or to spend time and resources building their own--neither a “feel good” solution. This scenario can be related to the early days of computing; when hardware had free software attached to it because they weren’t connected to a software conglomerate. Imagine giving candy to a baby, and then taking it away. Baby is unhappy. Once the hardware companies started creating their own proprietary software, the flexibility and ability to manipulate the program vanished. Programmers, unhappy. And the third level, that other users cannot learn from the program or base new work on it, can be compared to, and criticized by the education system. There seems to be a catch 22 between learning to code, and using proprietary code to learn. Part 2: I agree with Stallman on many levels, especially the frustration caused by proprietary software and its’ limitations.
However, one argument that I can dispute is his first level of material harm, on software ownership damaging social cohesion. Stallman remarks on sharing software, otherwise you are betraying your community and being a bad neighbor, thus, damaging social cohesion. If this principle were true, it wouldn’t be limited to intellectual property, but would encompass material property as well. Of course, Stallman wraps it up to limit the problem to IP. This creates a sort of “Software Socialism” mentality. There are several reasons why the US is not a socialist government, one of the glaring criticisms is that it stifles economic growth. By taking from the successful and rewarding the less-successful, you are naturally going to have less successful people. Is this what Stallman imagined social cohesion to be like? The current state of the US economy, the free enterprise, (or more specifically, private enterprise) encourages creative competition by rewarding those who make (or own) the best
product. Stallman says early on in his paper that there are, “two arguments in support of [their] claims to own programs: the emotional argument and the economic argument,” (Stallman, 1). He goes on to describe the emotional argument to say that authors willingly sign over the rights to their work to a large corporation for a salary. But he doesn’t reflect on the author's personal investment and their entitlement to control the disposition of their intellectual property--including selling it. Why is the music industry so heated about P2P file sharing? Why is the movie industry cracking down on streaming websites? They recognize that their time and hard work is being undervalued and ignored by the “less-successful”, who have taken on the mentality of, “it’s out there in the ether, why can’t I have it too?”. Just because software provides services and platforms that enable us to connect and share with the entire world does not mean that the service itself should go undervalued. Let’s bring up Stallman’s classical music example. He describes classical music as a field of study where there is little opportunity to become rich, and that people, “enter the field for their fascination or their perceived value to society,” (Stallman, 7). While it’s true that the money may not be there, it must be said that if everyone were equals in creating classical music, there would be no desire for ownership. The same can be said for software ownership. If we were all equals in our skills for creating fantastic programs, as we are equals in consuming software, there would be no discussion for ownership. But since we’ve all been granted the same opportunity in using software we have come up with the sense that we are entitled to know what went on behind the scenes. Who can mimic Beethoven’s genius? Is there source code available for the years of diligent practice that went into his composing? If there is, let’s f***ing share it. An individual's time is perhaps the most expensive factor in creation and ownership. We may place a monetary value on someone's’ time, but in the grander scheme of things, time spent is time you cannot get back. There is currently no reward system in place for someone's intellectual work; no measure for effort given or time spent, except for the ability to do with your work as you please. Since the marketing boom of the 60’s, society has continually convinced people to buy things--”this shirt will make you more attractive, buy this shirt”, “this liquor will make your night out more fun, drink this liquor instead of the others guys”, “you will be happier if you have brand new appliances”, the conscious and subconscious messages in advertising never end. Why is this mindset different in terms of the software we choose to use? Software socialism should not and will not prevail when the rest of life has bludgeoned you into paying for what you want. This brings into question the “invisible hand” justification of free enterprise. When an individual pursues self-interest through economic activity, that activity will result in the growth of economic resources. The success of free enterprise (and generating more resources for everyone) depends on individuals acting on self-interest. Part 3: I believe that Stallman would argue that the mindset is wrong here. If everyone acted in self-interest, what advancements wouldn’t exist? Surely his creations of GNU and Emacs among others. If we strip away money, promotion, and praise, we are left with the underlying force behind creation--self-actualization. Once an individual has achieved self-actualization: morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, lack of prejudice...they are then able to accomplish great feats with great understanding of the world surrounding them and the effects that their creation will bring about. Take, for example, the Linux open-source developer community. They are a group of self-actualizing engineers that recognize the problem surrounding proprietary operating systems, and have created and distributed a “developer friendly” O/S that can be customized to better-suit individuals’ needs. This understanding of their needs as well as the needs of similar people has brought about a fantastic example of the “one for all” mentality. By collaborating, sharing, and practicing technical evangelism, we can overcome big business and its’ money-hungry environment. Part 4: Since the beginning of the human race, people have been incentivized to create. The neanderthals created the first tools once they recognized that it would increase their survival rate. Classical composers were incentivized by royalty to create music, for fear of exile or death. Digital communication networks were created by the US military to gain advantage over their enemies. Without incentive, where would we be? What would push us to create? Our adversaries creating? Another incentive. The world population's’ desire for racial and economic equality has been magnetized 10-fold due to the creation of the internet. We are able to experience social injustices through photos and videos and have the ability to freely express our opinion across multiple social networks. This sense of entitlement has changed our perception of “knowledge is power”. Yes, being informed on world issues is extremely important. Yes, having a wide swath of resources is generally a good thing. But sitting behind a computer screen and having the world at our fingertips has taken away our appreciation for the creators and engineers that have broken the bounds of global communication. Let’s pay homage to those who lie on the bleeding edge of computing. When Bach composed his first major works, Piano Concerto No. 0, no one could’ve imagined the genius behind it. Similarly, when Google first came to be in 1998, it was an unfathomable algorithm. It is only by studying the service and creative analysis that alternative services have been created, in the spirit of competition, advancement, and ultimately, profitability. I entered the software engineering industry because I knew it was an extremely challenging thing to do, that I strive to get better at everyday. I am a creator. I am an innovator. I am doing something that not everyone has the ability to do. Therein lies my ethereal definition of Utilitarianism. I am acting in self-interest to better myself and my education first, and my community second. “The best way to encourage productive labour is to make it a rule that whatever people produce is their own property, to use exclusively or share or exchange as they like,” (Kilcullen). If we look at the individual self-interest of a person, and we look at the self-interest of a corporation harboring proprietary software, we can find many parallels between the two. I, myself, want to create something revolutionary. In the same vein, I, and the corporation I work for, want to create something revolutionary. Given the proper time, effort, and means to create a revolutionary product, we all aim to achieve the same thing: a radical effect that I can say I had a part in. BIBLIOGRAPHY KilCullen, John. "The Free Enterprise Philosophy: For and Against." The Free Enterprise Philosophy: For and Against -. Macquarie University, 2006. Web. Stallman, Richard. "Why Software Should Be Free". Gnu.org. April 24, 1992.
At this time, Vanderbilt had emerged as a top leader in the railroad industry during the 19th century and eventually became the richest man in America. Vanderbilt is making it abundantly clear to Americans that his only objective is to acquire as much wealth as possible even if it is at the expense of every day citizens. Another man who echoed such sentiments is Andrew Carnegie. In an excerpt from the North American Review, Carnegie takes Vanderbilt’s ideas even further and advocates for the concentration of business and wealth into the hands of a few (Document 3). Carnegie suggests that such a separation between the rich and the poor “insures survival of the fittest in every department” and encourages competition, thus, benefiting society as a whole. Carnegie, a steel tycoon and one of the wealthiest businessmen to date, continuously voiced his approval of an ideology known as Social Darwinism which essentially models the “survival of the fittest” sentiment expressed by Carnegie and others. In essence, he believed in widening inequalities in society for the sole purpose of placing power in the hands of only the most wealthy and most
However, they also had a much wider reaching idea of democratic control over the economy . This is where I tend to disagree with Sinclair and socialism. He mentions corruption in the system at the time and implies that socialism may be a system without corruption. I don’t feel that a political and economic system ran by the people is any less susceptible to corruption than capitalism is. After all, it is still just people and people will do dishonest things for power. America was built on capitalism and it definitely has its flaws, but I feel that it promotes prosperity best when paired with democracy. The socialist movement played a great role in reshaping the US capitalist system. It definitely needed tweaking in the early 20th century, and still does, but the socialist ideas help push us in the right
In Socialism Coincides with American Values, Jedediah Purdy produces an interesting insight and argument about the theory of socialism. He believes that socialism can be incredibly beneficial to the United States political and economic systems but are swept aside due to harsh misconceptions of the idealism. He states, “There are essential insights that we lose track of when we let ‘socialism’ be turned into a slur.” Purdy then argues socialism is more American than most Americans want to believe.
Another element of socialism in American society is the minimum wage law, as well as overtime laws. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Welfare are all socialist ideals that have infiltrated our capitalist society. Our uneven tax scale and universal healthcare for children are other examples. With this blend of capitalism with socialist ideals, the working class can be taken care of, but not at the expense of losing America's capitalist identity.
The minority of the economy during the early 1900’s was the wealthy Capitalist class while the majority of America’s population was the poor working class (Bakthawar 2). Socialism is a political movement with the goal of changing the Capitalist economy, so that it no longer exists. Socialists want a society where industries are regulated by the government (Merriam-Webster). Socialism works towards ending the misery of those in poverty by increasing wages, decreasing working hours, and improving working conditions. “[Jurgis] would no longer be the sport of circumstances, he would be a man, with a will and a purpose; he would have something to fight for, something to die for, if need be!
middle of paper ... ... ght watchman’ and social democrats think it should be used to counterbalance the inequalities in society, ‘third way’ socialists support a ‘competition state’, whose main goal should be to ensure national prosperity. It should improve the country’s infrastructure and concentrate on improving skills and knowledge - education rather than welfare should be the priority. In conclusion, I would agree that there has been a lot of disagreement within socialism, on whether it should be achieved through revolution or should gradually evolve through democracy, and also on how extreme or how moderate socialism should be.
Socialism is a word that has obtained a bad connotation in American society. Politicians are loath to lay claim to it, and often using it to lambast their political opponents with it. Yes in many ways America has seemed to embrace the economic benefits of Capitalism so whole heartedly, thoughts of a tangled bureaucratic mess of welfare and wealth distribution that is so contrary to the American idea of individualism are conjured up at the mere thought of Socialism. In fact many still equate Socialism with Communism and are given to thoughts of the Cold War, and the battle of ideologies that it entailed. Many Americans would perhaps be quite surprised to learn that Socialism had found a place in American society at one time, and that it held a considerable amount of influence over the direction the country would take.
That the president and his administration have taken away the car companies and the banks as well as other institutions and the healthcare system then that is socialism. Most of the opponents of the healthcare policy reforms that have happened in the recent years are basing their reasons on the myths that are being spread by the minority of the society members who can finance their health needs out of hands.
Gates believes in earning what you work for, and that's usually what you get with a free enterprise system. He also believes that if you are intelligent and know how to use your intelligence, you can reach your goals and targets. People that are against the free enterprise system argue that it can be unfair, but if you have the initiative to do better than your competitors, you will do just fine. Although this type of economy relies mostly on its citizens to run, the government has enforced regulations and laws on businesses and entrepreneurs to ensure all consumers safety and best
“When people in the United States are introduced to the concept of socialism - whether in the popular media or in a high school class - they are presented with a simple equation: socialism = a crippled economy that fails to meet people's basic needs + a totalitarian government” (Robertson). Robertson proves a good point in saying this, because generally children in the United States grow up either being taught that socialism is bad or evil, which is completely wrong, or they end up being taught nothing of socialism at all. It is until these children are exposed to a socialist government, through education or experience (which few usually have the privilege of doing) t...
Socialism is a social and economic system where the means of productions are shared indivisibly throughout the community or enterprise rather than in the names of a few individuals. Or more simply put Socialists believe that the Chief Executives of a corporation are not the ones who deserve the big pay check. They believe that the working men and women deserve more money because they are they ones out in the field doing the work. The main goal of socialism is to more evenly distribute the wealth. They care more about having more people living comfortably than just a few individuals getting wealthy. Socialist ideas in todays politics are what they believe will make it easier for Americans to live in America.
When considering the well being of all citizens, socialism is the best economic system. Command economies do not work, market economies only provide for the needs of a small elite group of people, and traditional economies are impossible in a world of this size. While there are certainly arguments against socialism, the arguments for it outweigh. Socialism is better because it allows for the government to provide for the basic needs of all citizens—this is impossible in a market economy, and outweighed by the negative aspects of a command economy. In time of great national economic and political turmoil, it is important that a consensus be made as to the best economic system for the U.S. and the rest of the world. In my opinion, this best system is socialism.
G.A Cohen aims to provide a concise argument for the desirability and feasibility of socialism. To accomplish this task, Cohen first describes a situation in which applied socialistic principles appear to be universally preferred to capitalistic principles. He then builds off of this model in order to demonstrate the desirability of socialism. Cohen acknowledges that desirability alone is insufficient to pursue socialism, thus beginning his discussion on the feasibility of this ideology. His primary argument in favor of the feasibility of socialism is that, although past efforts to create societies based on socialist principles have failed, it has not yet been proven that these attempts will always fail.
Tavani, H. T. (2007). Ethics and technology. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc. (Ethical theories in the introduction)