On the Debian User forums at
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=44052
there is a thread on the interview with Michel Bauwens, founder of the Peer to Peer Foundation. He is one of those who believe in open spaces and creation without incentive. In this interview he talks about the Free Software and Wikipedia movements as pointers to a genuine change in the way we think, create and distribute goods. He believes that we have never before had such real-time possibilities for human cooperation and collective intelligence on a global scale. The link is here:
http://infochangeindia.org/200907137829/Technology/Features/Dreaming-of-a-peer-to-peer-world.html
In the Debian User forum thread, there are plenty of economically coherent arguments, but perhaps it would be even better if one of the von Mises staff would be able to present an analysis and critique that would be something those of us who both value open source software & free economic systems can grasp at when we try to make sense of the arguments around licensing and economic activity promoted by activists in the software community, much of which is not economically sound yet the authority of those people is hard to question given their influence. A more distanced argument from the von Mises Institute I think would be absolutely fantastic!
Best regards, Gernot Hassenpflug
These "open source" fanatics are generally hippie pinkos. That's where their arguments come from. It's just a part of the "everything should be free" and "the people are one" mantra. That's how I would look at it to start with. I might look into it more later.
They don't seem to ever consider opportunity cost. That is, unless they consider ignoring prices better than being profitable.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Gernot Hassenpflug:perhaps it would be even better if one of the von Mises staff would be able to present an analysis and critique that would be something those of us who both value open source software & free economic systems can grasp at when we try to make sense of the arguments around licensing and economic activity promoted by activists in the software community
Staff proper don't generally read these forums. We have community staff, which are mostly laymen volunteers drawn from community staff.
If you start by posting some new threads, with short arguments from the authorities, the errors or shortcomings will be picked over by people here. But to expect LvMI to divert resources to every individual area of economic contention or personal interest probably isn't feasible. You will have to become a part of spreading economic literacy to your friends and peers.
Yes, no doubt what you write is true. The open source / free software communities are as rife with misinformation and socialist thought as any other area of human activity. What prompted me to ask is that I thought it would be easier for someone not personally involved to make an economic analysis. However, in the absence of such, as you say, each of us has to take on the task ourselves and do it in a fashion that does not come across as brash & condescending, so as to attract interest & make people start to think by reason even though their beliefs and faiths may be the opposite. Interpersonal skills not being my strong point even after some years out of pure research LOL, it is a good classroom.
Thank you for your insight and encouragement.
Gernot
My critique:
I hope he is successful. I am always interested in getting free stuff but have found through experience that very few things are free and truely open.
From an Austrian point of view:
He does not seem to be for forcing people to give up or share rights to private property so his concepts are consistent with Austrian principals on this end. He seems to be for people working under Open Source or Free Software contracts and extending those concepts to the economy at large and that is fine as long as he does not use force to violate the private property rights of others. He is against patents and that is consistent with Austrian principals.
I disagree with his view of history: 1. The internet did not end with the crash in 2001. That was a typical boom followed by a bust. 2. The internet was not saved by the Open Source community. Google for example does not share its technology with anyone I know. 3. Patents and copyrights (Copyright contracts between suppliers and users are a separate issue.) are NOT the product of a capitalist society but are the product of force on society.
My opinion is that the Open Source or Free Software concepts will never be realized to the degree he would like in the economy at large. Software does not normally require a lot of fixed cost to create nor does it take much effort to distribute. This is not true of most other goods and services which require large amounts of both fixed costs and distribution costs. Furthermore, most products require large amount of money for marketing and advertising as well. So a supplier of most any other good will have to come up with lots of money up front. The lenders or equity owners will want that entity to make a profit so they can get their investment plus return back. For example: I am a dentist out of school. Say I hook up with some other established dentists so I can get their property, labor and marketing at a reduced price. I still have insurance, tuition, my own equipment and my money for living. If I use their model of not wanting to charge patients then how will I make money? I can not see this paradigm being used in too may places outside of its current community.