On Dec 13, 2007 5:52 PM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Freedom means having control of your own life; "Freedom of choice" is > a partly accurate and partly misleading way to describe that, and > taking that expression too literally leads to mistaken conclusions. > Thus, I say I advocate "freedom" -- not "freedom of choice".
No one has control of their own life. Why? Because in a society we are not separate from others. By definition. We enter, or rather are entered at birth, into a social contract which includes us, the government and other members of that society. > In > other words, a society in which non-free software more or less doesn't > exist. And there you go denying non-free software, by your definition, the very right to exist. How free is that? Perhaps we should tar up all the non-free software in the world and untar it in a data-crypt on a remote island where the murky odour of its tainted code does not attack our refined sensibilities? Is that acceptable on the road to a free, by your definition, society? You use a lot of grand words: good, evil, freedom, but seem unaware of the logical conclusions of your own thinking, or for that matter, the several millenia of debate surrounding these concepts. If I take your words at face-value I must conclude that you are either seriously misguided or downright dangerous. In any case, you do not stand for any definition of freedom that I could ever subscribe to. But I would actually like to thank you for having made this clear to me. michael
