RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)

[Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net>]

Jim Choate wrote:
> > When I talk of a free market I mean Laissez Faire Capitalism, 
> > not Anarcho-Capitalism.
> 
> What's the specific difference?

I cannot claim to be an expert on anarcho-capitalism, but the
fundamental difference is Laissez Faire Capitalists believes in limited
government. The primary role of government being the abolition of
coercive force, the protection of intellectual property, and running or
overseeing of what can absolutely be justified as a natural monopoly
(e.g. military defense, sewer, local roads, etc).

Anarcho-capitalism on the other hand believes in no government (anarchy)
and that social institutions and co-ops will assume any functions that a
government would have had. Some believe that people and organizations
will independently prevent force will others believe in a competitive
free market for force and protection.

In either case there is no government interference in free trade (except
LF would prohibit Assassination Politics (AP) and similar).

> In what way are the resulting markets different from
> either the producers or consumers view?

Views on intellectual property and the obvious marketplace changes due
to an IP or lack of IP framework would be the major difference IMHO. I
cannot currently justify no intellectual property rights taken to an
extreme, and then you have the contradiction of force within the
framework of commerce.

> Explain further what you mean by abolition of force is a 
> prerequisite please.

Basically no person (or entity) can use force (or its derivatives)
against another person (or entity). Your long history of criminal law,
except stripped of all victimless crimes.

> And what specificaly do you mean by proper role of government?

"What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual
right to lawful defense. 

Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his
liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of
life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent
upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but
the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an
extension of our faculties? 

If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person,
his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have
the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights
constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for
existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common
force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any
other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a
substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against
the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common
force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the
person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. 

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our
premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights.
Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the
equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can
lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not
logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common
force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the
individual forces? 

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is
the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the
substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common
force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful
right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain
the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all."

from _The Law_, by Frederick Bastiat

	Matt