GPL is a hack; its existence is not an approval of the system in any way, shape or form.
That's not the point though.
Whether Free Software is at odds (or not) with capitalism shouldn't matter at all in any intelligent discussion.
That's not the point though.
Whether Free Software is at odds (or not) with capitalism shouldn't matter at all in any intelligent discussion.
But I don't think we should exclude the capitalism debate from an intelligent discussion since it has pretty huge implications. If you're advocating a system that is incompatible with capitalism, you have to first make the case for an alternative to capitalism.
It's not as though any idea that's at odds with capitalism will require "an alternative system". There's not gonna be any change to the system that requires a new theory of economics.
Suppose bitcoins are at odds with capitalism because they're just like gold (yes I know this is ridiculous, but just for argument's sake). What now? Should bitcoiners make a case for an "alternative to capitalism"? No. You will still be able to buy and sell and own property and trade and own factories and rent an office space and build a company and hire employees.
I just got this idea right now, but I think a pure capitalism will deteriorate very quickly into a dictatorship. All it takes is for someone to accumulate enough military power so that he can take over. Assuming you can buy/sell groups of armed people and/or hire them.
in a purely free market people won't want to do business with people who violate others' property rights since you have no guarantee they won't violate yours.
traditionally, guarantees against this have been ethnic. "well I know he won't enslave me since the norm is to only enslave blacks, therefore we can both happily profit from the slave trade and are no threat to each other."
No you wouldn't. All of those things are the exact opposite of capitalism, since they prevent voluntary association and threaten body, liberty and property.