esr wote:
>I think the reason you've been resisting the gift-culture model is
>that you are emotionally reluctant to see hacker culture as something
>that is powered by ego and selfishness -- even the rarefied,
>non-materialistic kind found in gift cultures. I've seen this
>reaction, leading to the kind of objections you make, before. You
>would prefer explanations that have a lot of nobility, altruism,
>community feeling, and sacrifice in them.
Which is pretty normal ... idalism is a very good thing, but also
influencing the way we see things. And i know kyrah as beeing very
idealistic ( a very good thing btw ).
> [..]is actually my selfish desire to *create* that world so I can
> live in it.
Thats a good point, but i think it should be used with caution because
it offers the ability to turn around the things we are writing about.
>My experience teaches me that "altruists" are not trustworthy.
>They're normally either ignorant of their own motives or in denial
>about them,
But what's the difference? I wouldnt go so far to bend a persons motive
to another one just to fit in my picture.
>and are therefore ethically unstable.
Well. Who isnt? everything can change.
>I prefer to deal
>with people who are like me -- selfish on a long time scale, and smart
>enough to be constructive about it.
I think that's the force behind the success of OS and behind of linux:
A mass of persons that differ in motivation, goals, ways .... boosting
OS and Linux as a "side effect" of their usage.
Thats not really the same thing as a "gift culture", but anyhow the
problem with social systems is that they cannot exist in a "pure and
clean" fashion.
> I always look for the self-interest that altruists are concealing
from > themselves.
Always good to see what people really want if the want to do you some
good ;o)
Franz Schaefer <schaefer@mond.at>:
> > i do not see how it is any useful to talk things like moral or
> > solidarity with people who are proud to own guns...
> That's an ignorant and bigoted remark. If you wish to correct your
> ignorance, see http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html for a
> discussion of the moral philosophy of personal weapons.
Yes, the remark is ignorant. Dunno if i am ignorant, but after reading
the article i am still no fan of personal weaponry in my neighbourhood.
"The Founding Fathers of the United States believed, and wrote, that the
bearing of arms was essential to the character and dignity of a free
people."
s/free/america and i 'll agree to that. But i also think that talkshows,
brute crime movies and fast-food is also as essential.
> PS: as for the 'guns', we shouldn't forget that US and europe have a very
> different history, very different attitude towards state, very differnt
> ideas of how social problems should be solved,
"Our nation is at war and our budget priorities and actions need to
reflect that reality." G. Bush
> and consequently a very different ideas about legality and merrits of
> personal weapons.
OK. Yes i am a cynic. But the good thing about personal weaponry in
america is that it is mostly (mis?)used to kill americans.
At a larger scale it seems that people in europe still (i feel a strong
american influence in the last years working on a change) know that it
does not make sense to bomb weddings and canadians.
I do not see a chance for the US to bomb us in the near future. Of
course they have to bomb something, as long as they build their enemys
in the 3rd world its still not OK but we are safe from them.
The only concerns i have are (our) goverments - so stupid to join the
war against terror because they want to be on the pictures too.
tw
-- Q: How many guns do the US need to combat an enemy? A: two: one tho shoot and one to sell him to shoot back[ Um sich von dieser Liste abzumelden, sende bitte "unsubscribe" ] [ an <linuxevent-request@mlist.austria.eu.net>. ]
Dieses Archiv wurde generiert von hypermail 2.1.3 : Son Feb 02 2003 - 17:08:42 CET