

Richard Stallman on his experience in Cuba - mapleoin
http://blogs.computerworld.com/stallman_on_cuba

======
wallflower
"One of the things we see when businesses have too much power is that they
corrupt those watchdogs, and we see this in the U.S. all the time. The U.S.
government has ceased to effectively monitor the market to make sure it works
well. Instead, it is a tool in the hands of big business."

I think Stallman's views tend towards the extreme but I have to agree with
this one.

~~~
tjic
> when businesses have too much power is that they corrupt those watchdogs

It's called Regulatory Capture:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture>

It happens all the time. The vast majority of regulation ends up doing nothing
more than giving the existing large competitors in a space a tool to keep out
new entrants and smaller, scrappier competitors.

One of the reasons that the software industry is do dynamic is because it's
not regulated.

~~~
electromagnetic
An illustration of this point is that in the UK the regulations for
electricians, and building contractors in general, actually promotes small
companies. They're usually either a two-man team or a father-son op. In fact
the largest I ever saw was a three man team, which was a two-man team with one
of their sons.

The point is, is that the regulations actually keep the income evenly
disbursed. Essentially everyone is earning between £60,000 and £100,000 a year
depending on what you do and how well you do it. However, when you work for a
company (companies seem to exclusively do large businesses like factories and
the few that don't have very bad reps) you earn much less, some get paid
between £40,000 and £60,000. You, of course, get you tools paid for but
they're a one time purchase, I mean our most expensive piece of equipment was
a £1,000 tester and it has a 10 year warranty on it, so there is literally no
incentive to go with one of those companies.

The companies actually run a scam, they hire people who aren't certified
electricians, which is perfectly acceptable and legal. However they'll never
train them to be certified, they just use already-certified electricians to
certify everyone's work is done correctly. Again this is unfair on the
certified electricians because if anyone screws up and he doesn't catch it,
_he's_ liable and that can include a prison sentence if someone dies from
shoddy work.

My point is that regulation can be used in many ways. Big business takes over
the regulators, but when used effectively a regulator can actually promote
smaller business and stop economic pyramid schemes forming (AKA big business,
people work for minimum wage so that the people at the top can earn over a
million a year).

The fact that software isn't regulated is a good thing right now. There's lots
of competition and there's self-regulation going on. There's lots of virus'
out there, but if you stick to the sites certified by Microsoft and don't go
on any sites that google suggests may be harmful to your computer, then you're
largely to be fine. However, if companies like Google and Microsoft weren't
providing some form of assistance to users, then I believe the software
industry would need regulation, which would probably kill millions of blogs
and social websites.

~~~
anamax
> The companies actually run a scam, they hire people who aren't certified
> electricians, which is perfectly acceptable and legal. However they'll never
> train them to be certified, they just use already-certified electricians to
> certify everyone's work is done correctly. Again this is unfair on the
> certified electricians because if anyone screws up and he doesn't catch it,
> he's liable and that can include a prison sentence if someone dies from
> shoddy work.

You may not like the choice that those certified electricians are making, but
they clearly prefer it to their alternatives (such as running a two person
shop).

Me - I see a significant cost savings. I don't care about certificates. I care
about output and cost.

Note that regulatory capture actually isn't specific to big biz. It's often
implemented by mobs of small biz trying to reduce competition. In the US you
can see this in hair cutting and interior design. It sounds like electricians
have done the same in the UK.

~~~
electromagnetic
Certainly possible, but the difference is is that regulatory capture by small
biz creates an even playing field and can prevent dominance, however when big
biz does it you end up with few choices and extreme difficulty.

I mean this is quite an ironic example of regulation in big business. I mean
look at the Big Three in automobile manufacturing:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Three_(automobile_manufactu...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Three_\(automobile_manufacturers\)).
Now _which one_ did I mean?

Look at what happened in the UK, the companies were making an inferior product
(not many British car enthusiasts would agree, but I've managed to have a look
in a few of the old cars and motorbikes and they're shoddy. Some old British
bikes had the serious problem that they'd drip oil in front of the driving
wheel). What happened? Well all three became one, that one became
nationalized, that one ended up getting handed between multiple companies
before being renamed to the Rover brand and ultimately ended up as part of
Ford. Who won out in the UK for vehicles? All the more efficient foreign ones.

What's happening in the US? Well Ford seems pretty stable despite the crisis.
Chrysler says they seriously doubted they'd make it past 2009 without outside
help. GM was planning to merge with Chrysler, however now GM is up shit creek
without a paddle and are hoping subsidies will help them survive. If Chrysler
and GM get significantly weakened, well Ford will likely buy them out. Can
anyone see where this could potentially go?

I think the serious problem with big biz, is that when there's problems an
entire industry can move to a different country. The only US owned car
manufacturer in 10-20 years could be Tesla motors probably only because a
bunch of silicone valley guys understand the importance of competition.

~~~
anamax
> Certainly possible, but the difference is is that regulatory capture by
> small biz creates an even playing field and can prevent dominance

Except in practice this form merely creates inefficiency that the rest of us
get to pay for.

Regulatory capture works to the advantage of the incumbents vs the rest of us,
independent of the characteristics of the incumbents.

Me - I don't care about the incumbents, big or small. I see no reason why they
should get govt's thumb on the scale.

------
hendler
Good article. RMS has an honest take on Cuba. Open source can lead to other
freedoms - some good discussion of software freedom.

"DT: I've editorialized that U.S. companies should be allowed to compete in
Cuba. What's your position on that?

RMS: I really don't care. From my point of view, business issues are minor in
comparison with issues of human rights and general well-being. "

~~~
jacoblyles
Business freedoms lead to human rights and general well-being. Having a
thriving private economy gives people choice over their profession. Increased
wealth means people have more choice over their lives. Cuba legalized the
private purchase of cell phones and computers in 2008, but most people are far
too poor to buy one. If that were to change, it would be a clear improvement
in Cubans' lives.

Let us not forget the legions of Cubans who have risked their lives on
makeshift rafts to find a better life in the United States.

~~~
kragen
While it is true that increased wealth means that people have more choice in
their lives, it does not necessarily follow that business freedoms lead to
general well-being or to what is normally understood as human rights. As a
matter of history, there have been very many places and times where business
was relatively unrestricted, while labor and political activity were tightly
regulated, and where the wealth from business failed to improve the lots of
most of the population.

Current examples of some of these tendencies might include Dubai, Singapore,
and some parts of mainland China. Examples in the past include Chile under
Pinochet, Nazi Germany, and at times, ancient Rome. Places at risk include
London.

~~~
jacoblyles
If you wanted to pick a warning example, you could have done much better than
Singapore.

Singapore was a third-world country when the current ruling party took over in
the mid-60s. Today, it has a higher per capita GDP than the United States, and
three times that of neighboring Malaysia.

In the dark days of the 60s, Singapore was threatened by the communist plague
sweeping over Southeast Asia, racial tensions and riots, and hostile neighbor
states. The fact that it survives and thrives today is remarkable.

Yes, its government violated "human rights" along the way. In the 60s it
aggressively persecuted communists, forbid their literature, and drove
communist labor movements out of the country. This offends our Western
sensibilities, but it did allow Singapore to avoid the fate of Vietnam and
Cambodia. Was it worth it? I think the citizens of Singapore, both then and
now, would say "yes".

In most circumstances I am a Western liberal. But I refuse to follow any
ideology blindly to the point that it leads me to advocating catastrophe.

Today, Singapore is one of the richest countries in the world. It is regularly
ranked by international organizations as one of the 10 least corrupt, often
beating the United States. Maybe its people are lacking "human rights", but
their quality of life is matched by few peoples of the world, and none in
Southeast Asia. The fact that it appears to be an example for the China
"communists" gives me hope for the future of that country.

~~~
kragen
From the quotes you put around the phrase "human rights", am I to understand
that you don't think human rights really exist, or that they aren't rights, or
something?

Have you moved to Singapore yet? You seem to be pretty enthusiastic about it.
I did not mean to say that it is an example of all of the bad things that can
coexist with business freedom, just some of them.

As far as per-capita GDP goes, Singapore has the major advantage that it's
100% urban. I suspect that Malaysia's per-capita GDP would be a lot closer to
Singapore's if you only considered downtown Kuala Lumpur.

I think the major problem in Vietnam and Cambodia was that they had a civil
war, and as usual, the people who had power after the war were military
leaders. In Vietnam things got a lot better after the war; in Cambodia, things
got a lot worse, as they often do. (In fact, Cambodia is almost uniquely bad
in the history of the world, as far as I know; there are lots of instances of
conquering armies killing 50% or 100% of a conquered people, but I don't know
of any others where they killed more than 50% of _their own population_.)

In both Cambodia and Vietnam, the civil war was made much worse by a US
invasion. Maybe you think the same thing would have happened to Singapore? I
suspect that they had an equal chance of ending up like Thailand, or urban
Malaysia, or other countries in the area; and it's not clear to me that
aggressively persecuting Communists made a civil war less rather than more
likely.

~~~
jacoblyles
>"I suspect that they had an equal chance of ending up like Thailand, or urban
Malaysia, or other countries in the area; and it's not clear to me that
aggressively persecuting Communists made a civil war less rather than more
likely."

The Thais and Maylays were with Singapore in taking aggressive anti-communist
actions in the 1960s. None of the countries that escaped communism approached
the Western liberal ideal of political freedom. They were bare-knuckled
pragmatists. They were all scared of what happened in China and wary of the
imperial ambitions of the Soviets.

However, only Singapore pursued a transparent, capitalistic society with
strong property rights and rule of law. The difference in outcomes is telling.

>"Have you moved to Singapore yet? You seem to be pretty enthusiastic about
it."

If I were a resident of Southeast Asia, Singapore would be my #1 place to
live. As is, I like the United States just fine.

>"As far as per-capita GDP goes, Singapore has the major advantage that it's
100% urban."

This was a huge disadvantage in the early years. Singapore had no raw
materials, little farmland, and a per capita GDP of about $500. They had to
import everything and often ran into hostility from neighboring countries that
tried to prevent them from using trade routes, or even accessing water
supplies.

A unique combination of shrewd leadership and aggressive capitalism grew their
economy to the point that they had leverage in negotiations with their
neighbors. Their destiny as the business hub of Southeast Asia was never a
given.

>"From the quotes you put around the phrase 'human rights', am I to understand
that you don't think human rights really exist, or that they aren't rights, or
something?"

I put quotes around "human rights" because I don't think they are as easily
defined as some people assume. I also don't think they are the end-all of
politics, as Western liberals often suppose. I would certainly be willing to
trade small infringements on human rights for large increases in the standard
of living.

This is the point where many people would call me a "fascist" and run away.

I would be willing to bet that the average Singaporean is happy that their
government made the choice to restrict press freedoms and prevent a communist
revolution in the early years, considering how things have turned out.

~~~
kragen
> "The Thais and Maylays were with Singapore in taking aggressive anti-
> communist actions in the 1960s. None of the countries that escaped communism
> approached the Western liberal ideal of political freedom."

What do you think about the pre-civil-war human-rights records of Vietnam and
Cambodia? Do you think they were more protective of political freedom before
the wars than Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia?

> "If I were a resident of Southeast Asia, Singapore would be my #1 place to
> live. As is, I like the United States just fine."

I think infringements on human rights are less unpleasant in theory than in
practice; maybe if you spend some time living there, you might have a more
nuanced point of view about it.

> [Urbanity] "was a huge disadvantage in the early years." [economically]

Nearly all of world economic development during the 20th century was urban, if
you measure by GDP. In industrialized countries, cities have been richer than
the country for centuries — as long as there have been industrialized
countries. It's true that cities can't be self-sustaining, but that seems to
be an advantage when it comes to economic development.

> "I would be willing to bet that the average Singaporean is happy that their
> government..."

The average inhabitant of almost any country is happy about almost everything
their government has done, especially a while back, and they would have been
happy about their government doing the opposite if it had done the opposite.

~~~
jacoblyles
One final point in response to your urban thesis: the difference in the
standard of living in downtown Singapore and downtown Havanna.

~~~
kragen
I wasn't trying to claim all urban areas were equal, just that the economic
development that has happened has happened primarily in the cities.

I'm still interested in your answers to my questions.

------
narag
From the article:

 _So I said, "Cuba has an important resource - lots of people who have never
learned to use Windows. And here you are, destroying that resource,
gratuitously. If you are not ready yet to switch these clubs so that they
teach people free software, at least you should shut them down until they
can."_

Does he say this seriously? I've seen people using this kind of hyperbole when
in a partisan environment to have a laughs. But I have no clue from the
article that this is humorous.

~~~
kragen
It's completely serious. Stallman thinks the social harm done by proprietary
software licenses is greater than the good done by the ability to use the
software. Do you think that's an unreasonable or laughable position?

The consequence that it is better to close down the clubs than to let them
encourage proprietary software usage is almost inescapable given the above
premise.

~~~
corentin
Like most of us, I discovered programming using proprietary software (namely
MS-DOS and QBASIC), and if an intolerant idiot tried to prevent me from using
those tools, he would have been hit by a (then) heavy keyboard.

(by the way, the case against using BASIC is certainly stronger than the case
against using proprietary software.)

~~~
kragen
Yeah, I probably would have felt the same way. On the other hand, it's
fortunate that five-year-olds don't generally decide major public policy
issues; I can remember a lot of things I felt similarly passionate about at
the time.

------
Hexstream
"Well, they were probably a bit surprised, because they never thought about
these things in these terms. But now I'm in touch with somebody who has
_converted_ one youth club to use free software, and he's now talking with the
people who run the other youth clubs in his region, trying to _convert_ them.
So something's finally getting done."

Notice the religious terminology. The Church of Emacs, eh.

edit: Is it possible to use bold here?

~~~
blasdel
No, _you no can has bold_.

Italics are allowed because they allow you to annotate emphasis without making
the text stand out more than normal -- you only notice it inline. Allowing
bold would lead to asshats writing like Jeff Atwood.

~~~
Hexstream
I wouldn't mind if there was a limit (maybe as few as 3) on the number of
words you can make bold. Or a percentage of your post, or something. Now that
I think about it the same solution could be used to support blockquote (ex:
max 2 blockquotes in a post + other restrictions). After all the argument
against implementing it was that excessive use of quoting is often bad style.

I think it's pretty ridiculous not to support useful features just because 1%
of people _might_ misuse it.

