Webster's dictionary defines liberal as "Holding, expressing, or
following views or policies that support the freedom of individuals to
act or express themselves as they choose." Liberal has essentially the
same meaning as the related words, "liberty" and "to liberate". Do
conservatives really oppose this?
There is a rub, however. Liberalism generally represents a collective
freedom, where individual freedoms may be limited to maintain a greater
freedom for the People as a whole. Again, do conservatives really
oppose this? When encountering a traffic signal, we generally abide by
its idiotic and tyrannical dictates. It affords us the greater freedom
from accidents and keeps traffic moving smoothly (on average).
In principle, it is hard to argue against liberalism. On specific
points there are often good arguments for both sides. For instance gun
control. Clearly an infringement of personal freedom, and clearly an
enabler of a greater community freedom. But can we really measure each
to determine which offered the best benefit? Under what conditions?
And is this really relevant in a democracy, where we determine things by
personal preference?
It is difficult to view AOL/Time Warner as an agent of personal freedom.
(http://www.aol.com/copyright.html) The press should be liberal -- its
function should be to enhance the freedoms of society. But most whining
about the "liberal press" that I have heard, comes from the press
itself. Ironic. As used in the media, "liberal" means something like
"evil incarnate". It is used for bad things that are clearly not
liberal.
I am a liberal (as defined by Webster). And I have taken it as my
personal mission to use "liberal" in its dictionary meaning and to
educate the people that I encounter about liberalism. If we forget what
it means to be liberal, we may forget the concepts of freedom, and with
less freedom I believe the world will be worse off.
In Through the Looking Glass, Humpty Dumpty says, "When I use a word, it
means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less. The
question is, which is to be master -- that's all" (Through the Looking
Glass:
http://promo.net/cgi-promo/pg/cat.cgi?&label=ID&ftpsite=ftp://ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/&alpha=13)
Humpty is correct, in that we define our own words, Webster
notwithstanding. I know I can't personally force the meaning of words.
In good liberal fashion, the ultimate meaning comes from what people
collectively choose for a word's meaning. But I am part of that
collective, so I make my attempt to nudge the language in the direction
that I think is right. If I allow my adversary to choose the meanings
of my words, I may lose my argument, not on its merits, but through
obfuscation. I believe that "liberal" is suffering from this
doublespeak, and I intend to not let it go without a fight.
"Not!" would be a good Humpty Dumpty expression.
This is similar to Richard Stallman's uphill fight for "free" software
(as in speech, not as in beer). I might prefer "freedom software" to
emphasize the as-in-speech quality.
When Stallman began working with the Unix team, software was not
intellectual property. It could not be owned. If you wrote a program,
nobody could tell you who you can't share it with. If someone else
wrote a program, nobody could tell you who you can't share it with.
Unix was the ultimate sharable.
When it was decided that software was copyrightable, Bell Labs changed
their policy with regard to how Unix was being developed, and before too
long Stallman was out of a job and no longer authorized to use Unix,
including software that he had personally written while at Bell Labs.
That's how it is with intellectual property. It is possible that his
motivation was to ensure that he would not be cut out again, but his
idea of copyleft was ingenious and (ahem) liberal. He set out to
rewrite Unix from scratch, under a copyleft that ensured that nobody
could tell you who you can't share it with. Including yourself.
Stallman's Unix utilities eventually found their way to Linus Torvalds
who provided the final pieces to create Linux (in a manner not entirely
to Stallman's liking).
I do hear free-beer arguments at EUGLUG more frequently than free-speech
discussions, but I am not surprised. Computer people tend to be much
more conservative than the population as a whole. Computers are
expensive and they tend to service the more conservative agencies more
ably than the liberal ones. Liberals' needs often require a more
flexible approach than computers can provide.
Linux is one of the more liberal developments to ever happen to
computers. By the dictionary definition. It helps promote the freedom
of communities of software users, rather than single people at the
expense of the community. I think it should be applauded for what it
is. I think the freedom of the software is important. Especially in
this DMCA and UCITA world.
Stallman solved the copyright problem for those who want to share
liberally. It will be interesting to see to what extent this continues
to be relevant, now that software is patentable.
One further philosophical thought. Professionally, I am a programmer
for Linn County Government. I do bread-and-butter database stuff that
nobody at EUGLUG will think is cool. Much of it in COBOL. None of it
in Unix.
One of my applications is the voter registration system. In Linn
County, we use punched ballot cards (IBM-type cards) just as are used
here in Lane County. They are somewhat user-unfriendly, but they read
through the computer efficiently and consistently and inexpensively.
The tabulation software is a home-grown program. I am the current
maintainer of the code.
Because of the bad publicity following the Florida election, the State
of Oregon may require Linn County to join the preponderance of other
Oregon Counties who use some form of optical-scan ballots, where the
candidate names are printed on a large paper tabloid, and the voter
bubbles in the appropriate spots with a pen or pencil.
Philosophical problem: Because of a number of mergers over the last two
decades, there are only two manufacturers of these optical-scan systems,
and both use proprietary software exclusively. If the ballot-counting
software is a trade secret of a private company, has democracy been
compromised??
---- Carl Cole
