>The fact that there are so many developers who do one of the three things I
mentioned
.......
>most of software is proprietary
Congratulations! Now you finally understand why propaganda of FSF is
ineffective.
>By tricking them, giving them immediate benefits and then enslaving them.
So-called "tricking" isn't only part of domestication. Other part is
selection. Obedient animals have better survival rate than too freedom-loving
(i.e. wild) animals. The same goes for beehives, wolf packs, flocks of sheep
and colonies of phytoplankton. And of course, humans aren't exception. It's
why Stanford prison experiment and Milgram experiment were successful. Humans
are domestic animals. We domesticated by ourselves.
For thousand years human societies had strict hierarchy. Thereafter, era of
capitalism began and hierarchy became more flexible.
But no-one can just throw away thousand years. It's why Third Reich and the
USSR were created. And maybe it's why I have orgasm-like feeling when I
imagine myself as small cogwheel in cruel and heartless the military machine
of Third Reich(or USSR sometimes). Example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtht2QeeZYo
>Slavery is a subset of hierarchy, that doesn't make hierarchy a bad thing.
I'm not an anarchist or even a democrat, so hierarchy is OK for me. I just
wanted to point out your strange definition of hierarchy. Slavery is the most
extreme case of hierarchy. Slavery reduces so-called "freedom" of a slave
very much. Other hierarchies also reduce freedom of individual. Of course,
sometimes you can leave your hierarchy. But if you need/want to stay, then
you must sacrifice your freedom. For example, if you want to use a
forum/chat, then you must follow the rules of one. Otherwise, you will be
banned.
>no single big hierarchical tree with a central root (leadership), but that
doesn't mean there are not a lot of smaller hierarchical trees instead.
My logic is flawless, I just have other definition of anarchy. If so-called
"anarchistic society" has any hierarchical trees, then it's not anarchy in my
opinion. If there isn't any hierarchical trees, then any form of
exploitation of man by man (e.g. slavery) is impossible.
>you aren't make a good long-term decision when you value benefits over
freedom
So-called "freedom" isn't thing-in-itself. Nobody can fight for pure abstract
freedom. In fact, people fight for their needs and desires. Freedom is a
important instrument, but it isn't end in itself. Freedom is like money. If
you don't spend/sacrifice it from time to time, then it's worthless trash.
For example, Joe is a slave. The Master told him: "Joe, you must learn
classical music!". And Joe wants the same thing! He hasn't freedom of choice,
but is OK, because Joe's desire and master's desire coincide. He is a slave,
but he is happy.
Other example: Noah is a inveterate bachelor. He wants to have a sweetheart,
but he doesn't want to sacrifice his freedom.
Thus, he doomed to suffer from loneliness for rest of his life
>He is a perverse person who wants freedom just for himself
Okay, maybe Bill is bad example. But how about other money bags? If freedom
is so important, then why it's not always good for business plan of company?
If you're right, then freedom-loving companies must have huge competitive
advantage. Of course, it can be selfish love, like "I want freedom only for
myself, but not for others".
And by the way, you dodged "slavery or death!" question. What would you
prefer and why?
>freedom is the highest value
User "Magic Banana" thinks "Freedom does not have to be "the highest value"
for a user to only accept free software."(Prooflink:
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/ethic-really-good-argument-floss?page=1#comment-48028).
How can you comment on that?
