
The freedom to drink coffee - llambda
http://raganwald.posterous.com/the-freedom-to-drink-coffee
======
babarock
I really like that coffee analogy! I also like the idea that nobody's a loser.
And the customer's happier.

I'll go a bit further saying that, while nobody's a loser, I also understand
the hippie's cry for a change: Everyone around him is buying espresso machines
with pre-formated coffee capsules. The hippie gives away his capsules as whole
grains; theoretically, it's the best way of distributing it. However nobody
knows what to do with whole grains anymore. People chose the convenience of
the capsule, and nobody cares to even try to appreciate this hand-made, fine
grained, home grown coffee the Hippie wants to give away for free.

~~~
camiller
The coffee analogy breaks down though because there are plenty of options for
refillable pods for the "senseo" style pod machines. And Kurig (and others)
sell a refillable K-cup for those style machines. Where there is a demand for
something, someone will fill it.

~~~
icebraining
Well, that still as an analogue: jailbreaking.

------
puppybeard
Argument which apparently led to the post:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2082965>

I love how oslic describes a dev who maintains their right to say how their
work is used as a "protestor". Surely putting in the hard work, and being
entitled to do with it as you please, is a cornerstone of free enterprise?

In a funny way, the Open Source and related movements are rocket fuel for
idealised capitalism.

The first money I made on the web after college was made using Notepad++ to
build sites on a LAMP stack. I'd guess most of us have similar stories. I'm
happy to give away my knowledge for free, because it's not 1% of what I've
received. And it doesn't mean I do everything for free either.

I don't think anyone can seriously claim that people making free software
haven't changed EVERYTHING in software, especially on the web.

------
joeyh
Let's take the coffee analogy a little further. Not only is some hippie giving
away coffee with a "do no evil" license, but just down the road there is a
large market, where many people have come together to give away their own
special variants of coffee.

Over time, the many and diverse people in the market (which some might call a
hippie commune, but the MBAs in the crowd would probably disagee) have agreed
on some common best practices for licensing their coffee, which allow it to be
mixed to form special blends etc. Some of the best practices are outright
subversive, and have led, through network effects, to some of the coffee from
this market appearing in many Starbucks coffees -- which are marketed as "fair
trade". Although many of the people who buy them aren't aware of the details
of how this obscure market has made the world a better place.

Now back to our hippie and his coffee, which doesn't meet the norms of the
market, so cannot be included in its blends, and cannot contribute to the
ongoing network effect. Is the hippie actually going to leave the world better
than it was before?

~~~
uiri
The market down the street and Starbucks will decry the hippie for trying to
prevent them from using his beans. But they _are_ his beans and he has every
right to set terms and conditions of sale. His goal is that those who do
receive his beans and make special blends, etc. will give the same freedom to
those who end up drinking the coffee as they have with his coffee beans. If
the hippie's goal is coffee drinker freedom, he is likely going to leave the
world a better place. If his goal is spreading his beans far and wide
regardless of the restrictions on the coffee drinker at the end, he won't
reach his goal.

(Or am I imagining a GPL vs BSD analogy?)

~~~
telent
I thought it was a jsmin "do no evil" analogy. Even Apple ships GPL code

------
lukejacksonn
Socialist or Libertarian we should just look at the point being made..

Developers don't HAVE to develop for any specific platform. Corporations don't
HAVE to distribute software they don't want.

If you want your applications to be truly 'open' then develop them for the web
and don't append a licence.

The reason people are developing for platforms like iOS, is because companies
like Apple provide an easy entrance to a massive market. If you want to tread
on their turf, you have to play by their rules. And that is fair enough.

If the big corporations are really getting it wrong, then users and developers
alike will eventually abandon their platforms for a better one; and life goes
on.

If we want to make a change.. then manufacture better espresso machines,
design more appealing pods or grow better beans.

------
toddkaufmann
I think this is a good piece for what it addresses. However, market capitalism
(or whatever it is we have) is more complex.

This does not address the issue of monopsony: I may like my corner store, and
spend my money there, but long-term they are going to fall to Wal-Mart because
everyone ends up shopping there, because Wal-Mart has the power to dictate to
its suppliers what the price to them will be. I guess the software equivalent
is App-Mart.

Similarly, if I have a cool new device, but major platform wants big bucks for
me to get "certified" as interoperable or to include my driver, this could be
a stumbling block. (However it seems like standards have really been adopted,
and the internet is widespread enough that this might no longer be an issue.)

Overall, I think the playing field is really being leveled now, with
widespread network access and clouds and stuff. I (we) might be too exposed to
the free and open possibilities, but it does seem like there is (has been?) a
revolution.

Is software political? After internet access being a basic human right, should
the right to choose ones software be one as well?

------
prestia
Regarding the coffee analogy:

Nothing would stop an individual from purchasing a large amount of coffee from
the hippie, processing it into pods, and selling those pods through the big
chains. Sure, the hippie could refuse to sell you more coffee, but then he is
no longer giving "other people the freedom to make [a] choice compatible with
their personal beliefs." While I like the initial premise, I just don't think
this comparison completely fits.

~~~
pessimizer
The hippie isn't selling coffee, he's giving it away with terms, but you can
clearly lie to the hippie and use the fruits of his labor in a way in which
he's specifically asked for them not to be used.

I think your second sentence is the thesis that the metaphor is trying to
refute, though. Refusing to give you something under terms that you would like
is not removing your freedom any more than any other copyright, it's offering
you an option other than growing your own.

~~~
kylec
Um, the analogy clearly states that the hippie is selling the beans:

    
    
        A better comparison would be that someone writing free software is like a hippie
        who grows his own coffee beans and sells them at the side of the road by his farm

~~~
pessimizer
Wow, I remember actually going back to check that and I still got it wrong.
Must have been distracted by something shiny. Criticism still applies, though.
Part of the cost of buying the coffee is his terms. He's giving you an option
that you didn't have before, but if the cost is too high, there's always
Starbucks.

~~~
raganwald
This is why I used the term “selling.” There’s always an “exchange of
consideration” with software that is not placed in the public domain.

------
jfischer
Thank you. I think the coffee analogy is a good one and I believe that it is
important that we, as technologists, express our personal values through our
work. Also, I don't get this "open source is socialism thing". Although some
(e.g. Stallman) may wish to see a socialist coders' paradise, 1) he's
certainly entitled to that objective, and 2) the open source movement is much
larger than that. These days, picking a license is often just part of
selecting a business model. Companies life or die based on the ecosystem they
create around their software.

~~~
raganwald
I think I agree with you, as I said, writing free software is more like going
into competition with “The Company” than it is like organizing a union. Why
not expand your ideas into a blog post? Could be excellent material...

~~~
demallien
Well, just to be a contrarian, I _don't_ agree with your analogy. The analogy
is more like the hippie selling people beans, but then putting a condition on
the sale so that people couldn't then put the beans into a pod compatible with
their favourite coffee machine. This annoys people for the same reason that
DRM annoys people - deep down inside, we feel that when someone gives us
something, it is now ours to do with as we like. GPL-style licenses break this
unstated assumption, as does DRM stopping you from watching your favourite TV
show on your media player of choice.

In fact in the case of the coffee-growing hippy, it's worse than that. He
doesn't mind if _you_ personally take your beans and put them in a pod, but
this operation is time consuming and requires a not-insignificant investment
in plant to make the pods. It would be wonderful if someone else could start a
business doing this stuff for you and everyone else, but they can't, because
the hippy wants everyone to buy into _their_ value system, using the oh-so-
good coffee beans as a trojan horse.

Yes, I know, you're probably screaming something about entitlement right now.
But let's bring it back to software. Most people in this world are not capable
of writing software, so they're thrilled when someone comes out with an app
that meets their need just right. But then that app gets pulled from the app
store because the author included some GPLed code. This is the equivalent of
the kid with the bat losing at a match of cricket, so he leaves, and now the
other kids can't play. They generally aren't impressed. Note that if the kid
had to leave because it was dinner time, or his parents were calling him, or
he just broke his arm, the wouldn't be any drama. I suspect that many people
feel that someone pulling code from an app store for ideological reasons is
more like sulking than leaving because it was dinner time.

~~~
prakashk
> This is the equivalent of the kid with the bat losing at a match of cricket,
> so he leaves, and now the other kids can't play. They generally aren't
> impressed. Note that if the kid had to leave because it was dinner time, or
> his parents were calling him, or he just broke his arm, the wouldn't be any
> drama. I suspect that many people feel that someone pulling code from an app
> store for ideological reasons is more like sulking than leaving because it
> was dinner time.

What if the kid leaving with the bat found out that the people who control the
playground had imposed some rules that are not agreeable to him, and in his
opinion are not favorable to the other kids at large?

------
smsm42
I'm not sure the comparison to unions is proper. Let's see. Unions are about
limiting freedom - limiting freedom of employees to work where the want and do
what they want with they money (with unions, they can't work unless they join
the union, they have to pay union duties and they have to abide by unions
rules), and limiting the freedom on employers to hire (or cease to hire)
anybody they want on conditions that are freely negotiated between them. Now,
some may consider this limiting of freedoms beneficial and desirable, but it's
limiting anyway.

Now, most of the people in free software movement are the exact opposite of
that - they want to expand other people's choices and let them do more stuff,
not less. However, some fraction of the movement (and I'm not going to name
names, anybody is free to guess who they are) does want to limit choices of
others in order to make them behave in ways they approve. They believe it is
for the better of all, but however you take on that question is, you must
recognize there's this agenda and the goal of it is to limit choices of other
people in order to make them behave in a certain way. Of course, they do not
go nearly as far as unions do - while unions may very well be able to deny you
the use of your own property and work, these people would only at the worst
deny you the use of the fruits of their work, not yours, which is completely
different league.

So while for the most of the software movement comparison to unions is
completely off base, there's some semblance of analogy between some parts of
it and unions, but even there it's only hint of resemblance, far short of
being in the same ballpark.

~~~
twelvechairs
This is ridiculous - your view of unionism is way off reality. Some points
just on the first paragraph:

> with unions, they can't work unless they join the union

Er. No. This is a 'closed shop' (compulsory unionism), illegal in most of the
Western World, and not advocated by the great majority of unions either.

> limiting freedom of employees to work where the want and do what they want
> with they money

Errr. Unions don't stop employees from changing jobs or spending their money
how they want. I don't understand where you get this from at all.

> limiting the freedom on employers to hire (or cease to hire) anybody they
> want on conditions that are freely negotiated between them

Part of the freedom to negotiate conditions is the freedom (non-compulsory) to
allow a union to negotiate on your behalf. Although this doesn't always work
out well for either party, I don't see how you can say that allowing a worker
to appoint a union in this way is reducing anyone's freedom.

~~~
smsm42
Closed shops are perfectly legal in the US. Only 23 states in the US have
right-to-work laws.

"Errr. Unions don't stop employees from changing jobs or spending their money
how they want. I don't understand where you get this from at all."

Unions demand (in closed shops) from employees to give them part of the money
as dues, and compel them to participate in union activities (such as strikes,
etc.). It is true they do not limit how they rest of the money is spent - but
I never claimed they take all the freedoms away. I claimed they limit them -
by requiring payments and forcing to take part in their actions.

"Part of the freedom to negotiate conditions is the freedom (non-compulsory)
to allow a union to negotiate on your behalf"

This is true, however in many union shops you do not have this choice. You
either accept collectively bargaining conditions or you can not be hired. You
can not just come to your employer and negotiate separately. Appointing
somebody to negotiate on your behalf does not limit freedom, giving him
exclusive right to negotiate - and that's how many unions are working in the
US - does.

------
itmag
Personally, I think all ism-proponents are missing the point. De facto, lots
of systems work and have worked.

My own ideal system would be some kind of wacky mix of libertarianism,
scandinavian-style safety nets, green politics, minimum guaranteed income,
heavy state support for startups, etc. But I don't pretend that this is The
Way.

I'm much more interested in what you might call a taoist approach. To change
the macrocosm, first change the microcosm. The key to everything is personal
development.

I think we as hackers can make a difference by influencing personal
development on a wide scale. Case in point: e-learning sites like Khan
Academy.

------
thechut
Since when does a post about free software turn into a political discussion on
HN?

------
augustl
For me, free software is about practical concerns, not activism: I don't want
to depend on one company or entity, especially if I don't pay them. But even
if I do pay them, I'll have troubles in using their binary blob if they go
bankrupt.

So, it's about ensuring I have the ability to maintain control over the
software I use in case the current maintainer stops maintaining it.

------
Confusion
I like this post and most of your posts. You have full freedom to spend your
time in whatever way you want. That being said: I don't understand why you
feel the need to respond to a silly analogy that someone wrote 429 days ago in
a comment responding to a comment of yours. I doubt you are reaching anyone
that would agree with this analogy and if you were, I doubt you would convince
them of their silliness. The analogy makes no sense whatsoever (at least, it
is completely incomprehensible to me and I don't understand how anyone could
come up with it) and the clueless are usually so unconsciously incompetent
they wouldn't understand your retort if it was covered in chocolate sprinkles.
I feel I've been cheated out of a more insightful post by this 'oslic'.

~~~
raganwald
I wrote the post back then, not today.

------
hessenwolf
Writing free software is not like giving away free coffee. Writing free
software is like design parts for coffee machines and giving them away for
free. Software is the medium, not the content.

------
bsphil
>I do not lose because I cannot run a free program on my iPhone.

That's some peculiar logic.

------
SoftwareMaven
I get the feeling the vast majority of people don't have a clue what socialism
even means. Instead, they parrot the silly definitions that come from sources
using the term as a political cudgel.

~~~
aMoniker
Thankfully, we have you to point this out for us.

------
iamgilesbowkett
Crockford has total license to create any license he wants, of course, but I
absolutely hate that license of his, not just because the lawyers are right --
"evil" is not a term substantiated with definition, and all terms in a legal
document should be defined and specifc -- but also because insofar as he _has_
expressed opinions about what constitutes evil, I disagree with him.

The YUI documentation, and similar JS documentation from Yahoo!, is chock full
of the term "evil" used as if it were an official technical term. At Yahoo!,
it probably __is __. Crockford identifies certain features of JS as "evil" in
his book.

This is a generational divide between modern open source and ancient open
source. In ancient open source, being judgmental and controlling was socially
acceptable; in modern development, if you don't like a feature, you either
don't use it, or you create a meta-language which compiles to your target
language and excludes the undesired feature.

Leaving the features out of "JavaScript: The Good Parts" was enough - if he'd
left it at that, he'd have sent the same message without the weird moral
condemnation.

Technically, it's possible that using eval() in the context of any of
Crockford's open source code is against the law. Even Richard Stallman has
never been that much of a dick.

~~~
raganwald
_In ancient open source, being judgmental and controlling was socially
acceptable;_

This in the middle of a rant that is highly judgmental :-P

The simple fact is, in “modern" software development, you are free to route
around Mr. Crockford’s license if you so desire. Being a “dick” and being
”controlling” would be to do something like patent his thingummy and prevent
anyone else from using it or their own implementation of the same
functionality.

If you’re free to write your own thingummy, he is not controlling or judging
you, he is controlling and judging _himself_ by deliberately choosing a
smaller audience/market for his work, much as the hippie in my story has
deliberately chosen to make less money by not selling to the big chain.

Don’t take it so personally!

~~~
iamgilesbowkett
OK, judgemental yes, fair enough, but not being a dick? Saying "you can't use
my software because your code is evil" is not going to win anybody points for
diplomacy.

Also, the vagueness of it is actually quite passive-aggressive. In functional
terms, putting that in a legal document means "you can use this for anything
you want, unless I decide that I don't like it after the fact." It's not an
important passive-aggressive action to Crockford, I'm sure, because for him
it's just a formality he's turned into a joke, but it does actually set him up
with ridiculous power to disrupt a business's operations should he so choose.

~~~
raganwald
Even if you’re being judgmental you may yet have a point (Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
fallacy on me)...

 _Saying "you can't use my software because your code is evil" is not going to
win anybody points for diplomacy._

Could would not say the same thing about GPL or any other license that is not
completely free?

 _Saying "you can't use my software because you don’t give YOUR code away for
free" is not going to win anybody points for diplomacy._

I can’t bring myself to believe that Mr. Crockford was scheming to waylay
lawyers and BigCo when he wrote that line. I also doubt he was trying to
ignite an anti-evil fire. Most importantly, I even doubt he imagined that
there might be some disagreement about what is or isn’t evil. If there was,
what makes you think he would have the right to decide?

Perhaps a court of law would rule that only the Vatican can decide what is or
isn’t “evil.” His license doesn’t include the usual lawyerly language that he
sets the rules and has the right to change the rules arbitrarily and without
notice.

Thus, I agree that his license is not what you ro I might find convenient, but
I am not persuaded that he was being dickish. Impish, perhaps. Thoughtless of
the consequences, maybe. But not full-on dickish.

To borrow a word I just learned, your argument that he’s a dick is
phallacious.

;-)

~~~
jes5199
The _terms_ of the GPL are clearly spelled out and have a legal meaning that
people have tried very hard to make unambiguous. The Free/Non-free debate
happens outside of the interpretation of the rules.

If I made a license that said: "You may modify and distribute this so long as
you do not violate the spirit of Free Software", then I've made an ambiguous
license like Crockford's, where it seems like I could probably withdraw
permission from anyone for any reason that suits me, at any time.

If you have a license under terms that are unclear - you don't really have a
license. In some contexts that will made a difference to you, and you'll have
to find some other solution than to run this software.

But as a piece of performance art, I think Crockford's license is brilliant.

------
nirvana
This sounds like libertarianism to me, not socialism (small S or not.)

Libertarianism is the term for people who believe in the Non-aggression
principle. (NAP)[1]

The NAP says "The _initiation_ of force is immoral."

Thus libertarians believe that it is immoral to initiate force (against the
innocent) though it is moral to defend yourself with force against its
initiation.

Ragenwald rightly points out that the free software movement is more like
going into competition with the company. Don't like the policies of a for
profit (or even another open source) project? Build your own and compete.

The NAP makes it really easy to see the morality of various actions. Apple
excluding software that is incompatible with the kind of store it wants to
make: Moral. You might not like it, but it is not aggression.

The GPL restricting the way that software licensed under it is distributed or
modified? Moral. You might not like it, but it is not aggression.

The workers taking over a company and kicking the owners and managers out to
run it as a "workers collective": Immoral. Using force to take property from
others violates the NAP.

Those same workers leaving to form your own auto company organized around your
socialist ideals: Moral

The difference between libertarianism (those who agree with the NAP) and
socialists, is that socialists do not agree with the NAP. This may sound like
a tautology, but how many socialists oppose: (just to pick some topical
examples.) \-- Minimum wage laws \-- Laws that require companies to recognize
and negotiate with unions \-- Universal healthcare \-- Mandatory coverage
terms for health insurance

All of the above require the use of violence (or its threat) to coerce people
to act in a way that the socialists approve of.

Libertarians (by principle) oppose these positions because they violate the
NAP. Socialists often support them. Also, practically, libertarians believe
that all of the above make people worse off, increase poverty, etc. The NAP is
the principle, but the philosophy involves recognizing the economic effects of
violating the NAP are always worse than respecting it.

I've always seen the open source movement as intrinsically libertarian, and in
a way, capitalist. If you don't like the terms of what's out there- compete.
Getting others to contribute their time to make the product better is just an
efficient form of competition. It works better for some types of software than
others, but it is moral.

[1] Its popular these days, especially among those who came to call themselves
"libertarians" because they like Ron Paul, to think it just means "freedom".
But this isn't accurate. The founders of the Libertarian movement were clear,
and the Libertarian Party required all members to sign a pledge to abide by
the NAP as a condition of membership.

~~~
cmhamill
What's funny about your response, to me, is that 'libertarian,' outside of the
U.S., and in Europe especially, is generally associated with an anarchist
position, and most anarchists are socialists or communists. The associations
with the French revolutionaries is strong.

"The first anarchist journal to use the term 'libertarian' was La Libertaire,
Journal du Mouvement Social, published in New York City between 1858 and 1861
by French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque." [1]

The U.S. Libertarian Party's use of the word is an intentional effort by free
market supporters to express their support of a certain kind of "hands-off"
policy without the baggage of the left.

You're also insisting that "libertarianism"—a political philosophy—tells us
anything about morality or ethics. The stance your describing above is
actually a deontological ethics which takes aggression and coercion as its
principal 'bad acts.' That's a much stronger position than what, in my
experience, even U.S.-style libertarians tend to espouse.

Your position is also incoherent, to be blunt. You say that "using force to
take property from others violates the NAP." You mean to say that a workers'
occupation is an act of aggression or force, if I understand correctly. I
simply ask you this: if the taking of property via force is a violation of
your "NAP," what do you say to the implicit threat of force which establishes
the principle of property in the first place? If your answer is that that
force is not used, then I ask you whether it is okay for me to follow you
around with a gun, as long as I never actually use it. If your answer is that
property is a natural right or a self-evident 'thing,' I ask you to please
explain why you feel this way.

I don't want to start a political flame war, but these are the issues at the
heart of the article's claims. I'd love if you'd be willing to engage.

[1]: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#History>

~~~
nirvana
I find it endlessly amusing that communists or socialists would call
themselves anarchists. I think this is just an example of socialists
attempting to coopt another movement.

Libertarians are often anarchists because they believe the state cannot exist
without violating the NAP. The state (By definition as an entity with a
monopoly on the use of force in a geography) thus uses violence to conquer a
land and takes for itself rights that naturally belong to the people.

>You mean to say that a workers' occupation is an act of aggression or force,

I don't see how this follows from anything I said. I can't connect it so, I
can't respond.

>You're also insisting that "libertarianism"—a political philosophy—tells us
anything about morality or ethics. That's a much stronger position than what,
in my experience, even U.S.-style libertarians tend to espouse.

I'm not insisting anything. I'm giving you the definition. I'm a Libertarian,
and that is what we believe. This is consistent across the US, and in my
experience, among libertarians across the world. This is consistent with the
founders of the Libertarian party in the 1970s, Rothbard and Nolan, and with
the philosophical groundwork and economics that they took inspiration from.

FWIW, wikipedia is a crowd sourced entity. It is not authoritative, and it is
often quite biased when it comes to political topics that leftists have a
strong opinion about.

~~~
cmhamill
> I find it endlessly amusing that communists or socialists would call
> themselves anarchists. I think this is just an example of socialists
> attempting to coopt another movement.

You'll be glad to know, then, that Proudhon, the first to self-describe as an
anarchist, is also perhaps most famous for coining the phrase "property is
theft". It's hard to imagine how socialists could be co-opting anarchism,
given that both ideologies were born in the same intellectual climate and
have, as a matter of historical fact, been associated time and time again.

You said: "The workers taking over a company and kicking the owners and
managers out to run it as a 'workers collective': Immoral. Using force to take
property from others violates the NAP." Am I wrong in taking this to mean that
you consider a workers' occupation an act of force?

> I'm not insisting anything. I'm giving you the definition. I'm a
> Libertarian, and that is what we believe.

I cannot apprehend the confusion of ideas which lead you to believe that
defining a term, enumerating your own beliefs, and speaking for an entire
political movement, are one and the same.

> FWIW, wikipedia is a crowd sourced entity. It is not authoritative, and it
> is often quite biased when it comes to political topics that leftists have a
> strong opinion about.

Do you object to my using of Wikipedia to simply note the existence of a
leftist journal calling itself "The Libertarian" over a hundred years prior to
the founding of the U.S. Libertarian Party? If so, feel free to read the
French yourself:

<http://joseph.dejacque.free.fr/libertaire/libertaire.htm>

No engagement with my second-to-last paragraph, I see. I'm sorry to find that
you're no more serious about your politics that all the other libertarians
I've encountered. I had hoped you'd be willing to engage with the content of
my argument instead of its dressings. I am disappointed to find that you are
not.

Edit: spelling.

~~~
Androsynth
You're arguing on semantics. Anarchy has been split up into sub groups
specifically because it can be taken to mean multiple things. Now there are
Anarcho-capitalists (American Libertarians), Anarcho-socialists, Anarcho-
syndicalism, etc.

~~~
cmhamill
Of course; virtually all arguments are semantics. I was simply looking for
clarification into nirvana's intended meaning. That that involved getting into
the semantics of anarchism/socialism/libertarianism/what-have-you is the
nature of this kind of discussion.

If I was concerned with finding the 'right' answer, or pushing my own
political ideology (which happens not to be any of those currently under
discussion), then I could see why we'd need to have a discussion about what
'anarchism' with or without adjectives really is.

I was, however, only concerned with the history of these ideologies (as a
former student of precisely this topic). I had hoped to probe into that by
bringing up the diverging uses of the category libertarian in the broader
history of European politics and the divergence of U.S. political categories
from those.

Certainly never meant to upset anyone.

------
Porter_423
Really awesome writing.A true example of libertarianism. Thanks for explaining
the definition of freedom so well,

