Great post Carl. It's the most promising sign of intelligent life
I've seen on this list since I got here. Do you mind if I forward
it to some folks I know at eVote who are working on GPLed voting
software? http://www.deliberate.com/eVote/eVote.html -Dexter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> rccole
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 23:02
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [EUG-LUG:314] Liberal
>
>
> 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
>
