Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?

[onpon4]

Freedom isn't natural at all. Most sentient life (putting aside non-sentient  
organisms that can't make decisions at all) is too busy surviving to think  
about freedom; freedom is a luxury to life in general, a result of having  
much more than you need to survive.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for freedom, though. Saying that not  
being free is OK because it's natural would be naturalistic fallacy. We  
should strive for freedom because freedom makes our lives and our  
civilization better and more sustainable overall. Sure, sacrificing freedom  
can give you temporary comfort, but if we keep giving up freedom, our society  
will devolve into a totalitarian society like North Korea, or a primitive  
despotism like what the ancient world had, depending on whether technology is  
preserved. Neither of these are favorable to a free society, and history  
shows that neither of these are sustainable in the long run.