News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Google Question: Is The Hacker Ethic Compatible With ... by coldtea on Sunday March 17, 2013 @01:01PM (#5389954)
>Potentially, but if you're dismissing free markets on account of manipulative, deceitful or otherwise fraudulent behaviour, you ought to at least hope that fraudulent behaviour never occurs or occurs less frequently in the centrally planned economy alternative. There seems to be a surfeit of evidence contrary to this statement throughout the world at the moment, so you'll excuse me if I take that idea with several solar masses of sodium chloride.

And who said anything about a "centrally planned economy"? Certainly not me.

I dismiss "free market" on the premise that it doesn't exist and it never existed (and furthermore: that it can never exist). As soon as you have a government and regulations you don't have a free market. And even if you could have a free market, as soon as some players in the free market can grow big enough to change the market environment to their favor, it ceases to exist again. There is nothing to rebalance it automatically: only power plays.

>I still maintain the only alternative to giving people what they want is forcing them to follow your plan.

How about letting them decide and produce what they want, instead of "giving it" to them?

Re:The Google Question: Is The Hacker Ethic Compatible With ... by astine on Sunday March 17, 2013 @03:27PM (#5390622)
> I dismiss "free market" on the premise that it doesn't exist and it never existed (and furthermore: that it can never exist). As soon as you have a government and regulations you don't have a free market.

That's silly, freedom is a matter of degree. A market with some simple rules governing violence and the enforcement of contracts is certainly more free than a Soviet style planned economy. You can neither have a perfectly free market nor a perfectly controlled market. Even North Korea has a black market. Generally when talking about about the 'freedom' of a market, the measure which matters is not the arbitrary number of regulations which exist but the ability of players (both individuals and firms) to freely and knowingly enter into contracts and transactions. Laws which prohibit coercion, theft, and deception can aid in making the market more free in the ways that matter.

Re:The Google Question: Is The Hacker Ethic Compatible With ... by coldtea on Monday March 18, 2013 @12:24AM (#5392439)
>That's silly, freedom is a matter of degree. A market with some simple rules governing violence and the enforcement of contracts is certainly more free than a Soviet style planned economy. You can neither have a perfectly free market nor a perfectly controlled market.

No -- but the ideology of the free market sidesteps the issues of huge imbalances and influencing and maintains BS about invisible hands and "egoism working for the better" long after they have been proven dead and burried.

Now, if that was only spread by some naive "free market" bloggers and the like that would be ok. But the bullshiting includes most of the souped down political economy that is fed to the masses and to policy makers by "financial experts" and "economy advisors" (and even most university classes on economy).

Re:The Google Question: Is The Hacker Ethic Compatible With ... by firebrand39 on Tuesday March 19, 2013 @05:09AM (#5399714)
Coldtea has a point. 'Too big to fail' banks, coercive patent litigation and so on, indicates to me that 'free markets' are nothing but an ideological cover up for coercive powers in the hand of private actors instead of the state. That's no real freedom either. This is no middle class lefty thought but an observation.
Re:The Google Question: Is The Hacker Ethic Compatible With ... by etherael on Sunday March 17, 2013 @02:26PM (#5390335)
> As soon as you have a government and regulations you don't have a free market.

You have a centrally planned economy with an identity crisis. The supporters of which are loathe to admit it.

(Case in point)