>DUDE PRIVATE PROPERTY IS BAD LMAO
Is this really the idol of /g/?
>your computer isn't your property, but Microsoft's property
Gee, I dunno, OP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBRxM5yq2NU
>>54572497
>DUDE PRIVATE FILES ARE BAD LMAO
Is this really what /v/ thinks?
>>54572497
>private property is good
Get a load of this facist.
>>54572497
He is a literal communist
>>54572497
You pay for a computer but don't have full control over it. Stay cucked you faggot.
>>54572497
Yeah I used to think he was pretty cool but I grew up a little and he is just another retarded "I fucking love communism XDXDXD!!!!"
>>54572497
Private property is great until you can't go anywhere without trespassing on someone else's.
Capitalists can't seem to grasp the fact that the earth is finite in size.
>tfw you don't actually own your proprietary software.
>>54573268
Exactly.
>>54572497
He's against locking people up for copying information. This gives you more control over your private property.
>>54572637
No wonder he supports Bernie. Birds of a feather flock together.
>>54572497
>Your house looks cool
>I'm going to build myself exactly the same house next city over
>Law suit for copying others property
Private property sure is cool.
>>54572637
and you're a literal retard
Of course, all of /g/ is unemployed so they have no chance of ever paying for property.
Stallman is pushing for more respect of private property.
At the moment, proprietards are restricting your freedom to use your computer the way you like. Their artificial 'intellectual property rights' trump your actual tangeble physical property rights.
Want to make a computer you bought with your own money do what you want?
Stallman says you should be able to.
Proprietards say you shouldn't be able to.
Most people think he is about open source and treat him like an open source mascot, and of course he plays up to the idea of being the open source santa claus
People who like him just blindly parrot his slogans thinking it is just about open source software and dont really understand that he is anti-capitalist.
Retards on the right see everything as black and white.
>Its either private property (mine) or someone will come and beat me up and take it from me
Private property doesn't mean there's no personal property and property through use. i.e. if you're a farmer working 2-3 acrea of land that land is "yours" until you stop working it. You can't move 1000miles away, let the land rot and still "own" it. Abstract possession is a ridiculous concept. Like how there's five empty houses for every homeless person in the US, that's not fair or just.
The place you live in, the car that you drive, the shoes you wear, etc. they would all be "yours" in a communist/socialist/anarchist society, you just couldn't sell them or leave them for someone else after you die or abandon them etc.
>>54576326
>Their artificial 'intellectual property rights' trump your actual tangeble physical property rights.
"its running on my computer so I own it", software pirates use the same rationalization
>>54572497
He started as meme but newfags flocked to him like shit, irl nobody really gives a fuck about him or his ideas more than duration of his speech
>>54572700
>Buy computer with full control over it
>Spend 10 years learning how to open a program
>It's still shit
>>54576358
Because it is pretty simple logic.
I don't genuinely see what any proprietards can complain about with regards to Stallman, either.
He respects their psuedo 'rights', but intends to provide and promote the making of software that respects your genuine rights.
If you don't like the GPL, you don't need to use GPL'd software. It's that fucking simple.
Stallman isn't holding a gun to your head or anything.
>>54576347
>People who like him just blindly parrot his slogans thinking it is just about open source software and dont really understand that he is anti-capitalist.
Because capitalism is a shit system from the 18th century. Why don't you use technology from the 18th century? Why don't you go to a doctor that uses methods from the 18th century? Capitalism doesn't take into account the industrial revolution, or the modern day technological revolution. Robots nowadays could perform a lot of human tasks, but they don't because for capitalism to work humans need to be wage slaves.
>>54576358
>"its running on my computer so I own it", >software pirates use the same rationalization
Yeah, software, music, movie (digital) pirating is good. Why? Because once something is created digitally it takes literally seconds to copy it, and you can copy it an infinite amount of times. Once someone records an mp3 file you can give a copy of it to every person on Earth, for free.
>oh but muh salaries and wages, how are the creators going to get paid?
Sounds like we need a new economic model and not make people pay for free shit.
North Korea uses GNU/Linux. Stallman advocates for GNU/Linux. Therefore Stallman supports North Korea.
>>54576420
Wtf am I reading? Of course capitalism takes into account the industrial revolution. Perhaps capitalism was at its best during the post war era when your average Joe could support a family with a high school degree. Although that might just be some romanticization. If anything, capitalism has problems with POST-industrial societies.
>>54576420
This is 'classic communism', the kind of tripe that Chairman Mao spouted about the 'shining new path of freedom' that would free the workers from capitalism. Communism was born out of the industrial revolution to give the idea that 'workers' can overthrow capitalists and live in a workers paradise. Richard is still trying to make this 'freedom' sound good to people dumb enough to take this as a serious ideology
>>54576437
>Wtf am I reading? Of course capitalism takes into account the industrial revolution.
How can it take into account something that happened in the future?
>Perhaps capitalism was at its best during the post war era when your average Joe could support a family with a high school degree.
Oh you mean when the top income tax rate was 90%? I think Americans call that "socialism".
>If anything, capitalism has problems with POST-industrial societies.
So we agree, capitalism is outdated and should be replaced with something better.
>>54576462
>This is 'classic communism', the kind of tripe that Chairman Mao spouted about the 'shining new path of freedom' that would free the workers from capitalism. Communism was born out of the industrial revolution to give the idea that 'workers' can overthrow capitalists and live in a workers paradise. Richard is still trying to make this 'freedom' sound good to people dumb enough to take this as a serious ideology
You're right, a system where the 68 (sixty-eight) richest people can own as much wealth as the poorest 3,500,000,000 (three and a half Billion) people is perfect.
>>54576498
ok Richard, Im sure the poorest 3,500,000,000 are really going to take your fat greasy jew ass seriously when you say you are going to 'free' them from capitalism and put them in your commie paradise
>>54576387
>this picture
Must be a troll. Can't be that someone doesn't know Musk released the car designs and basically open sourced them.
>>54576482
You could easily make the same criticism of socialism/communism. Both socialism and capitalism are well over a hundred years old and have constantly evolved with the times. The capitalism that exists today is nothing like the capitalism that existed in the 1840s when Marx wrote the communist mannifesto.
>>54576551
>The capitalism that exists today is nothing like the capitalism that existed in the 1840s when Marx wrote the communist mannifesto.
Kek. Please support your statement with some sources. Or maybe you could write a work similar to the Capital?
Who are we kidding, we both know you're just making empty statements with no basis in fact or original research.
>bunch of retarded children talking about retarded ideologies that will never have a proper implementation because Human individualism fucks them up, the thread
>>54576570
>1989: over 50% of the worlds countries are communist
>2016: 2 countries in the world are communist
youre right, people just havent done their homework, if they would read a book once in a while they would see how well communism has done in history
>>54576570
I've actually read volume 1 of Capital.
The fact of the matter is that economic production is exponentially more complex than it was in the 1800s, the only reason socialists still exist is because their ideology has adapted to the increasing complexity of the world just as much as capitalism has adapted to the changing world.
>>54572700
What do you mean by "full control"? A computer with non free software isn't going to control itself. It's not stopping you from doing what you need the computer for. The computer won't control the mouse and type for you is it?
>>54576589
>>Human individualism fucks them up, the thread
Present day research done on babIes and small children seems to show humans are inherently altrustic. Furthermore, we got where we are not because everyone worked on their own, but because everyone worked together. You probably don't have polio because Salke decided not to patent it and gave the recipe for free, when he could have made billions.
>>54576607
>The fact of the matter is that economic production is exponentially more complex than it was in the 1800s
And yet the system of wages and salaries stayed the same.
>the only reason socialists still exist is because their ideology has adapted to the increasing complexity of the world just as much as capitalism has adapted to the changing world.
I'd argue that the changing world adapted to capitalism and its form of ownership of the means of production. Our laws have been largely shaped by rich people, captains of industry and owners of large corporations.
he's right tho
>>54576664
The system of wages under socialism has stayed the same for the past ~150 years as well.
Making sure that you're in control of your own computer is the very definition of private property.
Now go get spied on by Windows 10 or whatever it is you proprietary cucks have a fetish for.
>>54576664
>we got where we are not because everyone worked on their own, but because everyone worked together.
A bunch of retarded people who never worked alone to improve themselves first on an individual level, can't create shit or do shit no matter how many of such useless retards you pit together to make the illusion that "everyone can do anything together XDXDXD".
If military armies worked on the basis of "with everyone's strength we can do anything XDXDXD", and not on the basis of forcing INDIVIDUAL SOLDIERS to get their shit together and improve themselves for war purposes as much as possible in order to be of some use in a group,
there wouldn't be a nation left which run such an army.
Get your head out of your ass.
Sure it makes sense to control your OS but IDGAF about control for other software like editing.
>>54572574
This
>>54576664
>Present day research done on babIes and small children seems to show humans with equal mental development are inherently altrustic.
Fixed that for you.
A Human's true nature only reveals itself in one situation and one situation only: When livelihood is in danger, or when family is in danger.
Your altruism goes out the window when someone decides they'd rather see you thrown to the sharks if it saves their own family, no matter how many of stupid faggots like you exist, for one example.
Also, your sentence has nothing to do with individualism creating people who fuck with every system in various ways and destroy its implementation.
rms leads such a good example of how to be a dirty poor pompous bumb, I cant understand why everyone is not quitting their jobs so they can figure out how to make money giving away free products
>>54576206
>>54576744
>If military armies worked on the basis of "with everyone's strength we can do anything XDXDXD", and not on the basis of forcing INDIVIDUAL SOLDIERS to get their shit together and improve themselves for war purposes as much as possible in order to be of some use in a group,
>there wouldn't be a nation left which run such an army.
You're using the army as an example of individualism? How fucking dumb are you?
The army specifically trains you to work together, as a unit/platoon, to accomplish tasks. Why do you think everyone sleeps together, eats together, works together, fights together? Why do you think historically quasi-communist countries like China and the USSR were so militarized? Not to mention that in the army and specifically combat situations soldiers have the mentality of sacrificing themselves for others.
>>54576718
>The system of wages under socialism has stayed the same for the past ~150 years as well.
There is no socialism today. And besides, socialist countries in the past had to be compatible with capitalism and international trade somehow to tey and survive in a mostly-capitalist world. Socialism in one country doesn't work. The symbol is a five-pointed star to signify socialism on all five continents. Communism can only work as a global system.
>>54576956
>>You're using the army as an example of individualism? How fucking dumb are you?
You should ask yourself that question, given you are a dumb fuck who has never been in the army.
1. The army trains individuals and self-responsibility first, before group training.
That's one of the reasons many solders get kicked into guard duty, paperwork duty, logistics transportation, or to some remote base away from war, because they fail on an individual basis to be of any use in a group.
2. The history of the army has soldiers sacrificing themselves as much as soldiers turning against officers and fellow soldiers, or other allied units.
You are misinterpreting the nature of people who help a select few they like as opposed to those they don't like, with altruism, because those sacrificing for their friends whereas they wouldn't for another platoon or an officer the hate is more apparent.
You have to be really narrow-minded to talk the retarded shit you do. Go re-read some basic psychology before you read sociology. Sociology is a mass implementation of psychology, which can only be properly utilized without fucking up like you do, if psychology is first learned (focus on the individual before applying to the mass).
>>54576211
I copied my builders house.
suing did not ensue.
Only in america.
>he doesn't understand what freedom means
>he thinks freedom is communism
>>54577012
>you are a dumb fuck who has never been in the army.
And you have?
If you have then you're dumber than I thought.
Private property is a spook
>>54576387
>>54576523
Maybe we're supposed to pretend it makes sense so they keep posting it and looking like morons they are.
>>54572497
Who the fuck this guy even is? Has he ever done anything important?
Linus Torvalds is god tier, he has contributed a fuck ton of stuff but never complains about "proprietary" shit. He knows how the world works, unlike this bearded old fat communist.
>>54577578
>Implying you could make the second car
>>54577658
>implying
>>54577579
>He knows how the world works
>Stallman delusionally believes the world works differently
>we should accept the way things are and never try to improve
>>54576810
Sounds like a perfect day to day example of normal human interaction, that has absolutely nothing to to with primitive survival instincts.
When did you guys stop hating capitalism and realized communism and its special snowflake branches like socialism are plain retarded?
It was around the same time I stopped listening to metal for me, which was around 16. I was kinda late and feel ashamed desu
>>54572497
>not knowing the difference between private and personal property
Also, he's no ones hero, or role model. He is a meme.
Uhh when did the "he's against private property" or he's a communist memes come about?
He's simply saying SOMETHING THAT YOU PAID MONEY FOR AND NOW OWN, SHOULD BELONG TO YOU AND NOT SPY ON YOU OR LIMIT YOUR USAGE OF IT.
You can still be a die-hard Libertarian and support free software.
>>54572700
When you pay for a pint at the pub you don't own the glass you are drinking the beer off, yet you still use it.
>>54572497
OP, I get your joke! It's funny, because RMS is actually an enemy of DRM and removing personal freedoms from computing!
>>54576183
But at same time supports giving more power to government.
He is a man of contradicting beliefs.
He is a complete paranoid but also supports candidates who will bring more government, thanks to their policies.
>>54576623
Whoever controls non-free software will control your computer assuming you install their software on your computer. Since users are forbidden access to see the source code of non-free software, it's pretty much impossible to control non-free software. People who choose non-free software are choosing to let other people control their own computers.
>>54578133
>this always happen in a macheist manner
Freetards, thinking in two bits since 1983
>>54578209
Who are you quoting?
>>54577750
>implying that you are older than 14
Liars make baby Jesus cry, and they go to Hell, anon.
>>54578209
>two bits
You're retarded
>>54576206
they are also both kikes
>>54577783
Read the license he is shilling. He is litteraly advocating for piracy
>>54576664
>humans are inherently altrustic.
ahaahahahahaha
>>54572637
Install BSD
>>54572574
>everyone can have private property, except for Microsoft
Why are you so jealous of other people's success, you gommie?
>>54572574
OP got so blown away by this post that he couldn't even formulate a reply
Why does Stallman think he's the patron saint of free software when his shitty license isn't even free like MIT, Apache, BSD, etc.?
I'm a simple man. If I made a thing. I made a thing. And no one else but me can use it without my permission.
>>54573268
fuck off commie kike get off my land you have no right to it
>>54582127
Your land that was most likely stolen from others at some point.
oh no niggers lost their land I'm crying for them.
>>54582157
Not that guy but it literally doesnt matter. Might makes right, and all authority/lawfulness/rights actually come from violence.
The only real, objective, measurable, just 'judge' of what is good and what is evil, is the universe itself. If your actions are justified by the laws of the universe, your actions are justified.
So let's say I just went and genocided 7 billion people right now and claimed all of their shit for myself and no one can do a thing about it, what I did is perfectly 'good'.
I'll *tip myself out.
>>54572574
My computer is mine even if its running windows 10, what are you talking about
>>54578027
Better to have a government that allows itself to be overthrown when necessary rather than corporate overlords that force us to suck on their tit.
>>54582204
The reason we have society is because we want to avoid violence, individuals in general do not profit from war and destruction.
>>54582400
Aight but can you look a person in the eye and present any kind of proof or evidence for what you are saying? For example, in math (and all hard sciences as well), a hypothesis or whatever, is disproved, when you find a single example where the opposite has happened.
I can find a mountain of evidence when an individual or even entire societies have benefited from war and destruction of others. So there is that.
I obviously dont want my neighborhood to turn into a wild west tomorrow, but just saying, if someone out there did want, and he had.. I dont know, drones and soldiers and tanks and whatever, what I want or dont want wouldnt really matter, would it?
So there arent any kind of objective and measurable good and evil, there's just force/might (my English isnt the best), there are no magical universal fundamental human rights, just cops willing to help you out, etc.
>>54582220
Except for the 1s and 0s on your harddrive that have been licensed to you by M$.
>>54576523
Im a Musk fan but i couldn't find the open source that has been "released". Does anybody know where I can find it?
I think they might of only released them for other car companies and not persons.
>>54572497
>that wall
many pornos have been filmed in that room
>>54577750
Socialism; everybody gets treated equally (including your clinically depressed ass).
Capitalism; fuck everybody this is my castle.
too cuck? eh go fuck yourself cuz im too busy getting blasted in the ass by capitalism
>>54582969
>n-no abstractions pls!
>real programmers code in l-lisp
>>54582969
Yes, and? Do you not understand the concept of liscensing.
>>54583718
Do you license books and movies too, you proprietary shill?
>>54582526
Fuck off back to /pol/, Nietzsche
>>54581861
>Buy a product
>Buy a MS license to use their software
>Somehow it's not my computer anymore
>MS has complete control over it.
Dankest cuckold.
Capitallism is really great untill you get anti-competitive practices everywhere, turning whole economic areas into monopolies, it get's worse than communism at this point since you simply accept what you are offered, no alternative and no compettiive market.
Only real cuckold can support such jewish bullshit.
>>54577111
>the state
>communism
>>54572497
All property is theft
>>54572497
Stallman has never said that, OP. If anything, free software is the most libertarian, whereas proprietary software relies on the state to enforce its monopolies.
>>54583885
There has never been a stateless communist country. Yes, Marx said that the end point was a stateless society, but Marx also didn't believe in Marxism and was more about theory than actual implementation.
>>54583836
Yes. The fact is that any extreme, either unlimited government or unlimited corporations, is going to cuck the average person, and as such any person who supports these extremes is a cuck. Supporting one's own oppression is simply cuck behavior whether you're a commie or a Republican.
"Intellectual property" != property. Saying that people canot own information is not the same as saying they cannot own anything.
>>54584137
Not all commies support a powerful government. In fact, "real" communism is anarchic.
Some leftists like a strong government. Not all do.
>>54583836
>it get's worse than communism at this point
t. never lived in an actual communist country
>>54572497
Free software does not mean "no private property". The idea of free software is, that nobody tries to reinvent the wheel. Many companies have similar use cases, so it is actually a good approach to share common solutions for these. This increases quality, reusability, maintainability, scalability and efficiency. Proprietary software is like every car would require another fuel and each device had another plug.
>>54584281
>The idea of free software is, that nobody tries to reinvent the wheel.
Why are free software wheels always flat?
>>54584281
https://youtu.be/radmjL5OIaA?t=3630
Listen to the fat deluded fuck first.
>>54584281
Not true at all.
>Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
>>54576498
He didn't even call it perfect
>>54584396
Open source get's the job done though.
Freetards cry about muh evil corporations instead.
>>54584445
Whatever. They aren't the same thing.
>>54584101
the fact that something has never succeed does not redefine it
>>54584387
Underrated post
>i-if you use commercial software you are le cuck
when communists start to use /pol/ lang to justify their stupidity, everybody.
Stallman talks about freedom but he wants to eliminate proprietary software, prohibit developers from making them. And how is he supposed to accomplish that without force? How is he gonna impose devs the duty of releasing the source code instead of just selling the executable, without his KGB-like agents hunting them down? RMS hates freedom, he hates the fact that people freely and voluntarily choose closed-source software over his Unix clone. What a sad and bitter man.
>>54584445
Open source is not equal to free software. SAP or Dynamics AX are open source, because when you buy them, you may see and modify the source. You may not sell or redistribute the original code, so it is not free software.
Is Richard Stalin a commie?
>>54584681
>Stallman talks about freedom but he wants to eliminate proprietary software
Agreed, he was basically touched by Apple as a kid
>>54584708
That's why i said, Open Source is a development model that works, Freetard shit doesn't care about quality or functionality, it all about ideology.
>>54584681
He said he would stop people if he could, as i see it he is a failed commie dictator.
>>54584394
>>54584387
There are many quite important free software projects like Linux, Apache httpd, GNU coreutils, MySQL, Hadoop, GTK and many more. And you think, free software has flat wheels?
>>54572497
>this shit again
>windows 10 automatically installing on PCs, because /actual/ botnet
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Stallman isn't a communist.
He's about /you/ owning /your/ computer and the things inside it, to be modified to /your/ will, and your changes /enhanced/ by other people when you share, and you get back /better/ code through this method of turning copyright on its head (hint, the GPL would have no power if copyright didn't exist, so he's not against copyright).
And I sit back and laugh at the stupidity foisted on Windows users and Apple idiots (file syncing on OSX blowing away people's media files, and nobody knows why, because closed source).
You are a consumerist fool, OP. Blow Me.
>>54584779
And they all suck in different ways. Most of the things listed here would not be competitive if they cost money.
>>54584212
see
>>54584101
Most commies/leftists I know ignore the anarchism part and are very much interested in the authoritarian state part.
>>54584612
Well, you implied it was unreasonable to mention the state alongside communism, and I was arguing that given historical knowledge, it really isn't.
>>54584681
>prohibit developers from making them
That's completely false. Just because he wants developers to stop make proprietary software doesn't mean he wants to prohibit it.
>And how is he supposed to accomplish that without force?
By subverting the anti-freedom copyright system so that malicious parties can't take advantage of it the way they normally do. Stallman dislikes the copyright system but since it exists, he has to use it to ensure it isn't used against free software.
>How is he gonna impose devs the duty of releasing the source code instead of just selling the executable, without his KGB-like agents hunting them down?
Freely licensing software isn't coerced, it's a choice. You're just making things up that you think Stallman believes. CIA nigger.
>>54584841
It's pointless, these cucks cannot be reasoned with. Just let them cuck themselves.
>>54572497
>PRIVATE PROPERTY
Nothing wrong with this
We just support open development models and standards
Stay mad op
>>54585132
historically every national socialist country has failed but an element of national socialism isn't failure.
>>54585184
First of all, you have a sample size of one, compared to the multitude of authoritarian communist countries. If you had a larger sample size, and all of them had failed, then it would absolutely be reasonable for someone to conflate Nazism with failure like some people conflated communism with authoritarianism.
>>54585215
That was a terrible example, I will admit that.
The image is implying the very definition of a communist society has state. It is not merely associating with one but saying that a state is inherit to communism. DPRK claimed up until a few years ago to be a communist nation but no one actually respected them as such outside of themselves. Just because a government claimed to be something doesn't make them immediately what they say they are. An evolving language is one thing, but convenient redefinition is another.
>>54585368
Okay, fair enough.
bane?
>>54583740
Yes, yes you do.
Richard Stallman hero worships Emma Goldman who was the only person Im aware of to be expelled from the US for being a communist
Back in the 80s when half the world was communist the jews who ran the USSR had TOTAL control of the economies of all these countries, you can not measure that kind of power in money. Jews thrive in totalitarian governments because they cant lose, there is no competition, they are in total control.
>>54584708
>>54584445
According to the actual Open Source definition of today, from here at least:
https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
Open Source and Free Software licenses are the same. Open Source doesn't contain a copyleft clause like the GPL but you have free free redistribution.
Stallmann even says it on his site:
>Nearly all open source software is free software
So that point of difference is moot. The licenses actually want the same thing. The motivations might be different.
>Open source is not equal to free software. SAP or Dynamics AX are open source, because when you buy them, you may see and modify the source. You may not sell or redistribute the original code, so it is not free software.
Whatever definition you use, it's not from https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
I like Stallman but I don't fully understand the worship around here. He's a fat Jewish neckbeard communist who voted for Bernie Sanders and literally cucked some guy. I thought /pol/ had more influence here.
>>54589889
he just started free software idk, nothing big
>>54576420
Give this man a beer!!
>>54576570
The capitalism that exists today looks alot more like Stallins communism.
