Stallman’s Law

Huh, do you think all the status-quo-preserving douchebags will want to live by themselves? That's no fun, is it? Then again, the internet is young. Maybe such segregation would work, but I'm not a fan of the idea. I'd rather try getting everybody on the intellectual boat, mostly to avoid segregation but also because smart asshats exist (my hope being that the beauty of responsible society swings them over).

There's the rub :) I feel a lot of the frustration you're expressing as well. I really don't like contemplating refreshing the tree of liberty with iron-rich, crimson, liquid manure.[-1]

I don't have a history of political activism, and haven't done a lot of reading on it, either, so anyone can rightly accuse me of some level of earnest, well-meaning naïvieté. I'm also not much of a politician, so that naïvieté counts double.

Any suggestions I'm putting forward are suggestions and ideas for me, first.

- Continue to honestly and charitably engage as much as possible with people that may not agree with me. Refrain from speaking from emotion, taking extra time to word things as best as I can. The goal should always be to reach understanding, if not agreement. And not agreeing is okay. Remember that if I don't have an open mind to understand their point of view, it's very unlikely they'll be open to understanding mine. Keep in mind Rapoport's Rules[0] as much as possible, as well as understand how others can come to different political positions (Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" is a great resource for this.)

- Push back when possible against the idea that government is a business. There are definitely areas of overlap and skills that can be useful in both domains, but the two are not, nor should they be, the same.

- Work to increase election security. It's largely non-partisan and in everyone's best interest. verifiedvoting.org looks like a great place to start. In particular, push to remove direct recording electronic voting machines.

- Work to increase transparency into government. Support work like that of the Sunlight Foundation[1] (which unfortunately looks like it's shutting down[2]), and other open government organizations, both monetarily and letting people know that this type of information is available.

- Actually contact my representatives to express my views on issues that are important to me.

- With respect to corruption directly, recognize that this is also a largely non-partisan issue. Different types of corruption are important to different people, and that's okay. Be especially open to accusations of corruption of those you support. Learn as much as you can about the situation. If they're groundless, lay out that evidence civilly and calmly. If there is some support for them, be up front about it. After all, you want the people you support to be open and forthright, and with integrity. If they're seriously corrupt, do you really want them to represent you or support you, even if they agree with you on a lot of issues? And accept across the board that things aren't likely to change overnight, that sometimes compromises need to be made.

- Learn more about how comparable issues have been resolved in the past. The first that comes to mind wrt corruption is Tammany Hall[3].

- Don't try to solve all the problems. Pick one that's important to you so you don't spread yourself too thin. Remember that for most there's more to life than just politics.

Looking over this list, it does look hand-wavy. That said, the current polarization is one of the most troublesome issues we're facing. It prevents us from working together on the things we agree on. So while "listen more, understand those you disagree with" may sound Pollyannaish, I honestly think it's crucial.

[0]: https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...

[1]: https://sunlightfoundation.com

[2]: https://govpredict.com/blog/sunlight-foundation-gone-who-wil...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall

Edit to add: [-1]: Figure out for yourself beforehand what the tipping point is for increased political action. I found Dan Carlin's most recent "Common Sense" podcast episode "Trumped" useful in thinking about this particular topic.

> "Open source" was meant to be a way to frame the discussion in different terms.

Yes, and the free software movement's main "terms" are user freedom. So by your own admission, "open source" was coined to de-emphasising user freedom (or rather, framing the discussion around "terms" different than user freedom). It's a matter of public record where the term "Open Source" came from.

"De-emphasizing user freedom" makes it sound like there's an actively freedom-hating agenda at work. That's the connotation it carries. And that's the problem. I could just as easily find ways to imply sinister motives in "free software" -- actively de-emphasizing the ability of programmers to make a living, for example -- but I prefer not to argue that way, y'know?

"Open source", as a term, is about emphasizing a different set of benefits that come from license terms that let anyone run, modify and distribute code for any purpose they choose. The careful way you word your comments to highlight negatives and avoid positives makes it seem obvious that you don't like that and want to make it sound sinister when it isn't. My advice to you would be, if you're going to lie, at least be honest about it!

Very nice. I don't know what my tipping point is, but I suspect we have long since overshot it. The only reason everything's so relatively peaceful is because of the lack of transparency. We only ever hear what's going wrong if it leaks, which I postulate to be only a small fraction of total shitty goings-on.

I've been thinking about (2) recently, and a separation of Bank and State akin to the separation of Church and State came to mind.

For one, completely disallow gov. officials to get on a private lobbying payroll and vice-versa. Infringement by not naming the position "lobbyist" but "turd sandwich" provokes harshest penalties and analysis of the person's work during their time in Congress or wherever in order to find dishonest activity (which ideally would then be rolled back. Easier said than done).

Secondly, make bail-outs impossible. When a private company fucks up, that's by definition a private problem, not a public one. The public cannot be forced to account for a private entity's stupidity or evilness.

Couldn't agree more with (4). Without having explored the question far and wide, I'd say

- Public entities have no right to obscurity except in very specific cases like access to and storage of peoples' private data. That implies that certain data is stored in a way it can only be decrypted by the owner or an authorized third party (owner issues a key to th.p.), while other data is completely open.

- Private entities, on the other hand, have complete protection (freedom of speech|thought|religion, yadda yadda).

- Private-public entities like multinational corporations (the tiny general store 'round the corner is private, not sure where to draw the line; when there's more than one branch/subsidiary?) have a mix of those rights, i.e. perfect, undiscriminating accountability and transparency has to be possible should enough doubt crop up about the company's honesty.

(1)(5)(6)(7) Yes. Better communication, more honesty and personal responsibility certainly go a long way to improving the situation and empowering the people.

(8) Very important. Personally, I don't engage much in my local politics other than reading the paper and voting. The only demos I've ever been on where against TTIP, which is as much an economic issue as it is a political one. I like to say "Do you part and hope for the best", and my part is in software. In the mean time, let's hope nothing craps out.

"Listen more, understand those you disagree with" is crucial. There is disagreement, so obviously there's a problem somewhere that the other side doesn't know about. Understanding the other side means understanding other peoples' problems, means having a broader view of the situation, means having better tools to do something about it. Good communication is key, but honesty is crucial. To quote Wilde: "Anybody can say charming things and try to please and to flatter, but a true friend always says unpleasant things, and does not mind giving pain. Indeed, if he is a really true friend he prefers it, for he knows that then he is doing good."