I like open source because I see it as a free market question (or rather, a free market solution to a free market problem [monopolized software and the relevant lack of innovation]). People in my camp often like open source more than Free Software, and people outside my camp prefer Free Software.

Only in so far as it relates to the statements by Bill Gates that open source is tantamount to Communism, there is little doubt that Mr. Gates sees the distinct difference between Communism and open source. There is no doubt he understands that more malleable intellectual property rights do not create an unchangeable economic trajectory toward “collective ownership” and the overthrow of capitalism.

More importantly, it would be foolhardy to think that Mr. Gates is somehow unaware of the hysterical connotations the American Public associates with claims that something is tilting us toward Communism.

My point all along is not that “red staters” are stupid, my point is that Gates is not stupid. He isn�t misunderstanding what open source is about. He isn�t presenting a countervailing world view with a different set of underpinnings aimed at creating a better society.

He is, albeit shrewdly, seeking to frame the question in such a manner so as to preclude the kind of debate that serious people with differing views ought to engage in with regard to intellectual property rights.

Those who brush off his comments are no better than those who take them to be some kind of altruistic attempt to reach a better end result. He is, as his track record clearly demonstrates, only seeking to smear and pigeon-hole those who have views that would erode his personal wealth and powerbase.

It is our job to elevate the discussion, to strip away the idiotic labels of communism and of greed that both sides wrongly seek to employ. Had Lessig stated anyone against open source is just being greedy id have been just as agitated as I am by Gates comments that anyone who is pro-open source is some kind of communist.

Gates ought to be ashamed, not for his views or for defending his fortune, but for sublimating his views and seeking to defend his fortune with disingenuous labels he himself knows to be both false and unduly inflammatory.

First to Alex:

Getting drugs from Canada is not about buying Canadian-made drugs. The Canadian government buys drugs to resell through its medical care system (or it puts a price cap on drug prices, I’m not sure which, but in the end the difference doesn’t matter). Canada also buys drugs from countries and companies not approved by the US FDA. The proposals to buy US-made drugs from Canada are simply an attempt to free-ride on the system. Drug companies would likely respond by limiting drugs sold to Canada, or raising prices on drugs sold to Canada. So it’s no surprise that Canada doesn’t want this on a large scale. I don’t know what Canada could do if the US went ahead — I’m not sure if the WTO would handle this.

If the US system is broken, it should be fixed in the US. I am not opposed to fixes, so long as repurcussions are looked at. Fewer new drugs may not be such a problem, because many new drugs aren’t as effective as old ones. The problem, of course, is that it’s impossible to determine how effective a drug will be before spending lots of money on research.

***
I figured you were referring to the Iraq war, and I can’t argue that the war hasn’t had an effect on the safety of the soldiers involved, but all wars do.

/* I think its easy to say with the torture, the bombing and killing of civilians, the privatization of the whole country, that the average Iraqi is happy to make us pay if they have the chance.
*/

Perhaps it is easy to say, but I don’t think that has any effect on my safety. There may be a case that the military is overextended, but the countries with the ability to attack have no motive, and the countries with a motive don’t have the ability. North Korea may not be able to attack the US, but it can attack South Korea or Japan. However, South Korea and Japan both have sufficient forces to handle any attack on their own unless China gets involved. Since China has stopped shipping oil to North Korea for a few days as a way of pressuring it to negotiate with the US, I don’t think that’s likely.

There may be more terrorists in the world today, but that is hard to really know without attacks. It’s a he-said/she-said problem.

/* I don’t know if you can tie Palestinian bombings to Iraq. I have never seen evidence of this.
*/

Well, Iraq isn’t the only possible factor. The IDF has built large portions of the wall it’s working on, and that has definitely had an effect. However the incentive to attack because Saddam would send a fat check to your survivors has disappeared.

/* I don’t know how to feel about Libya, I guess its a good thing. Although I don’t think Iraq had anything to do with it.
*/

Given that Ghadaffi he was afraid of the US before actually surrendering to the US, and handing over his WMD operations (which the US now has), I think there’s a connection.

***

/* [On the war on drugs:] “Will increasing supply of drugs make you more safe?” Yes, by lowering the prices, there will no longer be the mass amount of violence over drugs. (It sounds like you agree with me here too from your point about Vioxx, etc, but I’m not sure).
*/

There isn’t as much profit in illegal drugs as there once was, but violence hasn’t gone down. The days of $5,000/once crack are over, but that didn’t lead to less drug-related violence. When I was in high school ten years ago, most students bought pot $5 at a time. I don’t think the dealers ever made much profit off that. Since high school students today have roughly the same amount of spending money, I doubt that dealers are making any more than they used to. Sure, they spend it on flashy items, but I don’t think all that much money is there.

I believe most prohibited drugs are too dangerous to not ban; just as silicone breast implants are banned decause of the health risks. However, instead of quibbling over which drugs aren’t as dangerous, I chose to use FDA regulation as practical evidence that legalizing (and regulating) drugs won’t help.

Illegal drugs are currently regulated as drugs, and are illegal because the health risks don’t outweigh the health benefits. Legalizing drugs would involve regulating them as food (like herbal supplements are). That regulaation has many safety problems, and the FDA continually states that it doesn’t have the money to enforce the regulations that do exist. Since regulation is defined as requirements that people wouldn’t follow otherwise, legal drug prices would increase over black market drugs, and we’d be back to square one.

If drug purity sounds like a red herring, let me assure you that I used to work with an ex-convict who would raise pocket money by selling a flour mixture that looked like crack. No, he didn’t have repeat buyers, but yes he did exist.

But the corporate tax cuts had a specific purpose: to free up money so that corporations could produce more. Some corporations did that through hiring, many did that through technology upgrades. However increased supply (with constant demand) leads to lower prices (and, yes, increased profits, but still with lower prices). Lower prices are in my economic self interest.

Also, some (many?) corporations used their newly “freed-up” tax money to give out huge bonuses to their upper management. Don’t forget them…and aside from the corporate tax cuts, how about the non-corporate tax cuts? Yes everyone got a tax cut; but the richest people got more of a tax cut in total dollars than those less fortunate (in many cases, their tax cut was more than my total salary). Where did that money go? Not to defense or law enforcement or health care or scientific research, all things the government provides. So while tax cuts may appear to be in my parochial economic self-interest, the resultant loss of services is almost assuredly not. Not a problem, the administration didn’t cut services much; instead, they simply let the deficit balloon out of all comprehension, told us “deficits don’t matter” and pretended we could have our cake and eat it too. Those chickens will start coming home to roost (how many metaphors can Rob squeeze into one post) when foreign governments decide to cease propping up our economy by financing our monstrous debt. At that point we’ll be in for a rude awakening.

It is well-known that Social Security will need major cuts by the 2040s

Oh, so? Certainly it’s a well-known assertion. But is it true?

Bush wants to make it possible for me to invest some of my money so that I can pay for my own retirement as well. That sounds like something in my economic self interest.

Sure, if you’re a Wall Street investment guru (or you know one). Regular schmucks like me who don’t know beans about stocks are going to lose our shirts; what’s Bush’s answer for us? And in the meantime, we’re diverting a significant chunk out of the SS system which will bring its insolvency date much closer; is that what we want to be doing? It’s like strapping on a parachute (how about a simile this time) and jumping out of a plane that is gliding along towards an emergency landing; if the parachute works, great, if it doesn’t, you’re in for a nasty smack you could have avoided by staying on the plane. Much better I think to stay on the plane and try to glide it in safely, especially if the plane is otherwise sound and has a decent pilot aboard.

I think we are in agreement on the tax breaks. I find it very curious how the right tends to attack the left by calling them communists (hi Bill Gates). Meanwhile, the right is happy to do un-capitalistic things like give huge subsidies for inefficient corporations.

I was implying the Iraq war in particular. The main part of my point was that the war does nothing for US citizens. And that if it does anything, it makes us less safe. I think its easy to say with the torture, the bombing and killing of civilians, the privatization of the whole country, that the average Iraqi is happy to make us pay if they have the chance. In the meantime, what does Joe and Jane American get out of it? Just a huge bill. I don’t know if you can tie Palestinian bombings to Iraq. I have never seen evidence of this. I don’t know how to feel about Libya, I guess its a good thing. Although I don’t think Iraq had anything to do with it. The war on drugs doesn’t have to be a war. Its like the war on terrorism to me. There will never be an end to either of them, by definition. We have to be smart about this, and war is the least tactful way of going about it. “Will increasing supply of drugs make you more safe?” Yes, by lowering the prices, there will no longer be the mass amount of violence over drugs. (It sounds like you agree with me here too from your point about Vioxx, etc, but I’m not sure)