I've only read a few writings by Richard Stallman. It seems plain to me that he is an egomaniac with some kind of rigid obsessional thinking patterns. People like this are very annoying, and ironically undermine their own case if they intend to persuade others of their views.
The willingness with which he labels the practices of large swaths of the population (of the US) "unethical" would be very disturbing if he was a political leader with significant power.
Oddly, the patterns I see evidenced in his writings (that I have read) remind me of the thinking used to justify totalitarian states!
I think his views on his core issue of the badness of copyrighted software are not well thought out and absurd on their face. He makes a point of pointing out that the copyright laws are arbitrary, they are not some kind of natural right. One of his main arguments is that making a copy of a digital good does not destroy the usefulness of the original, or harm the person who has it in his "possession."
What he is apparently oblivious to is that a system of laws is entirely a social construct. It contains huge amounts of arbitrariness. The whole concept of property is extremely abstract, unless you consider it in some kind of caveman scenario. "It is wrong to take this food that a person has in their hands because then they will be deprived of the ability to eat it." As far as I can tell that's how he thinks about property.
I think a lot of his confusion is because he is an absolutist. He thinks laws should be "ethical." There is certainly an overlap between law and morality. But there are major areas of disunion.
IMO, the ability to accept ambiguity in the areas of law, ethics, and personal conduct is needed to keep society humane.
Just writing this to think through my thoughts. I usually try to not be judgmental of others being a fallible human, but I make exception in cases of people who have chosen a career as self appointed judges of their fellows.
This argument could be made against anyone who stands by any conviction.
The diagnosis of some psychological problem solely based on the fact that he won't agree to follow the arbitrary established order which is against his convictions is a common feature of authoritarian regimes.
The accusation that if he disagrees with a system of laws because he wants them to be more ethical and less ambiguous he is undermining a social construct that is needed to keep society "humane" is worse.
It's not helpful, when someone disagrees with a law or set of laws, to argue against the entire concept of disagreement with law - unless you want to either paint them as an absolutist or an anarchist. Psychological problems are usually diagnosed based on the amount of suffering of the individual, and RMS doesn't seem to be suffering at all. He has specific concerns that can be replied to specifically.
You might be right about all of this. RMS clearly does not have the same sort of thinking as a "normal" person and his bio Free as in Freedom even suggests he probably has some sort of mild spectrum disorder. Maybe he is less egomaniacal and more oblivious.
That puts him in good company with thousands of other geniuses and philosophers. We need absolutists so someone will stand up for these important arguments down to the bitter end.
Even though RMS is still disgusted with the state of software, there's no question that software and freedom have been massively advanced by his life's work.
The willingness with which he labels the practices of large swaths of the population (of the US) "unethical" would be very disturbing if he was a political leader with significant power.
Oddly, the patterns I see evidenced in his writings (that I have read) remind me of the thinking used to justify totalitarian states!
I think his views on his core issue of the badness of copyrighted software are not well thought out and absurd on their face. He makes a point of pointing out that the copyright laws are arbitrary, they are not some kind of natural right. One of his main arguments is that making a copy of a digital good does not destroy the usefulness of the original, or harm the person who has it in his "possession."
What he is apparently oblivious to is that a system of laws is entirely a social construct. It contains huge amounts of arbitrariness. The whole concept of property is extremely abstract, unless you consider it in some kind of caveman scenario. "It is wrong to take this food that a person has in their hands because then they will be deprived of the ability to eat it." As far as I can tell that's how he thinks about property.
I think a lot of his confusion is because he is an absolutist. He thinks laws should be "ethical." There is certainly an overlap between law and morality. But there are major areas of disunion.
IMO, the ability to accept ambiguity in the areas of law, ethics, and personal conduct is needed to keep society humane.
Just writing this to think through my thoughts. I usually try to not be judgmental of others being a fallible human, but I make exception in cases of people who have chosen a career as self appointed judges of their fellows.