So what’s that make Oss-ex? An island utopia where everyone lounges on the beach and has mini-battles to see who can be the most pretentious?

I like your analogy, it makes sense.

I may not use Linux (who needs linux when you have OSX?), but I get it, and it makes perfect sense!

I get it, but that’s only b/c I’m married to Eric.

OS X is the bourgeois class.

on our handy chart . . . we would be the ones at the top with our iPhone in hand.

and the chart being here

http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/capitalism.jpg

hey josh,

i’ve been reading all of your posts lately and i’m wish ‘ya 100%. I also want to suggest a few books to you that really summarize all of this topic very well. Oswald Spengler “Decline of the West,” Rene Guenon “The crisis of the modern world,” and Rene Guenon “east and west.” I think both authors are profound. Spengler is a classic, even though somewhat controversial. Please check them out. I think Rene Guenon at least would inspire you. He was a french philosopher I think. Remarkable stuff.

I’m just as frustrated as you are. revolt man.

Linux is open-source. Profits are not the goal. But the free and available use for all who are willing. So maybe the goal of capitalism should not be profit but should be open-source freeware.

“Free software,” as it refers to Linux, may be defined differently than you are thinking. Linux was not necessarily designed to be free (as in money), but open. The later reminds me of when a parent has nurtured their children and then releases them (“frees them”) to the world to be changed and engaged. The parent says, “World, shape my child, but allow them to be free and changed at any time, by anyone.”

Consider this quote:

To help distinguish libre (freedom) software from gratis (zero price) software, Richard Stallman, founder of the free software movement, developed the following explanation: “Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ‘free’ as in ‘free speech’, not as in ‘free beer’”. More specifically, free software means that computer users have the freedom to cooperate with whom they choose, and to control the software they use.

An example of a successful commercial version of a Linux is Linspire (or Red Hat). Profits may or may not be the goal, it depends on which version of Linux you are referring to it.

I’m gonna mention anarchy again, because I think it’s a system that could work within our democratic capitalistic society.

anarchy is flawed too though in my opinion. without rules or boundaries or a common order you have chaos with those who are able to consolidate power the most (money, guns) will still rule over the weak. to me, anarchy is what happens when capitalism loses the politics at the top. it’s still the same system. but instead of thugs in ties you have thugs with guns.

Property rights are an inherent part of capitalsim. Without any sense of security, capitalism simply isn’t possible. In an anarchy, your ownership of any property is only valid as long as you can personally protect it.

And overall, Josh, I’d say that capitalism is more like open-source anyway – at least, as long as the capitalism has anti-monopoly provisions. In a free-market, two parties are able to define the contents of their transactions to their mutual benefit. That’s kind of like open-source – you get to choose the terms upon which you participate, and therefore you continually customize the system.

I don’t know why, but a comment I made is not getting posted.

sorry joe. somehow it went to spam. i changed the filter on it. you’re good to go.

Read Rene Guenon “The Crisis of the Modern World” and “east and west.” profound!