Should Obama Give Stimulus To Open Source? 525
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Bill Snyder posits a deeper relationship between government and open source than was proposed in last week's open letter to Obama calling for broader open source adoption: economic stimulus. Since software vendors urged the president to go open source last week, security companies 'have raised scary points about vulnerabilities in open source,' suggesting they could step in to help secure an open source switch. Rather than opt for this kind of security through obscurity, Snyder argues in favor of earmarking funds for open source development to instead ensure security through transparency. 'Once the government expands its use and support of open source, venture money — which is drying up in the current recession — would again start flowing to those small companies, allowing them to hire or rehire some of the tens of thousands of unemployed IT workers,' he argues."
Re:Buy American (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stimulus? (Score:4, Informative)
All economists agree that government spending is important during times of contraction, as it helps to make up the shortfall in the economy from the side of the consumer, and helps "stimulate" the economy. Another advantage of government spending is that it's usually an investment in infrastructure that will last many decades and provide a platform for future growth in the economy.
This is patently false. Not all economists agree that government spending is a "good thing" in times of contraction. Here is an economist who argues that it is a bad thing: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5408 [capmag.com] He is by the way a staunch conservative/libertarian who tends to support Republican politics (although I have seen him write columns condemning "spend, spend" Republican policies).
Re:Stimulus? (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the problem: a stimulus will NOT work when our tax laws are driving American citizens to either participate in the underground economy or "offshore" trillions in assets to offshore banking centers in the Bahamas, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Panama, Singapore, Switzerland, etc. I've read that we've "offshored" legally a mind-boggling US$10 to US$16 TRILLION for income tax reduction reasons, an amount of money that if returned to the USA under better tax circumstances to participate in our financial system would end the economic crisis in almost no time flat.
That's why I'm pushing for drastic tax reform (either major tax simplification, a low-percentage flat tax, or replacing the income tax altogether with a true consumption tax like the FairTax proposal) to help revive the American economy.
Re:No. (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not rich. But ideologically speaking I believe that laissez-faire capitalism is the best way to relieve poverty, ensure liberty and minimize conflict.
What the US has right now is NOT laissez-faire capitalism. It is a hodge-podge of welfare, centrally-controlled money, regulation, trade restrictions and spending projects.
I won't bother going into the philosophy or economic arguments. Those posts are becoming unpopular on /. during this period of newly revived confidence in the US government (I genuinely hope that works out). You can read Ludwig Von Mises' Human Action or the For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray M. Rothbard or The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul if you want an alternative point of view to balance the "Capitalism is all about making the rich richer and the poor poorer!" belief.
All I will say is that when government tries to control or influence the way that people behave, interact and trade with one another an environment is created that promotes conflict. Conflict is at odds with human cooperation. And cooperation is necessary for technological and social progress. Government influence is exactly the sort of thing that has lead to "rich getting richer and poor getting poorer". In a truly free market monopolies become extremely rare and short-lived. An environment is created where there are no deliberate obstacles prevent voluntary cooperation among individuals (contracts).
People will behave the same no matter what system they live in. The difference is how much forceful control their government exercises over them. If you think that conditions will improve regarding poverty, liberty and conflict in a system of tight government control then pick up a history book and then read Human Action.
Re:oh god no (Score:5, Informative)
Could you please show me the job offers to work on open source? I'll give you a day to find something and then check back on my post.
Here, now, let me Google that for you [lmgtfy.com].
Re:oh god no (Score:5, Informative)
Is not honor reward enough? Doing the right thing is its own reward.
I can't take honor to the store and convert it into food. The power company also doesn't take honor as a form of payment.
Re:oh god no (Score:3, Informative)
Democracy is not about low taxes, or free markets, or any other economic philosophy, its about solving problems for the common good
No, democracy is rule by the people (demos). If the people are antisocial bastards then the democratic society they construct will be a pure libertarian state where anyone can do anything they want, irrespective of how it harms others. If they are idealistic hippies then the state that they create will have everyone working for a common good and lazy people being given a free ride. Most people are somewhere between these two extremes and so democratic states end up taking on some characteristics from each of these models.
Re:No. (Score:5, Informative)
The United States of America is a representative democracy, where the people select representatives that will run the country on their behalf. This is in contrast with a direct democracy, like the Swiss cantons or Greek city states, where the people meet regularly and conduct the business of government through direct voting. It is also a republic, as the President is elected rather than inheriting the title.
This is stuff most people learn in a high-school class room, so I suggest the phrase 'people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' applies to your comment about keeping quiet while the adults talk.
It was already in the "Stimulus Bill"! (Score:3, Informative)
In the big omnibus let's put everything we can including the kitchen sink bill that Obama just signed in Denver (also known as HR1 or the "Supplimental Appropriations for Job Preservation and Creation Act") there is section 4206 under the Medicaid provisions for a "study on the availability of open source health care technology systems".
Yeah, this is pretty dense and buried way deep into the bill, but somebody must like open source "technology" in some form or another in congress. I really wonder who shoved this little provision into that bill and even more wonder if anybody else is paying attention to this being a part of that trillion dollars getting spent.
I sure would like to read that study when it comes back, and it specifically is to compare open source vs. proprietary software.
Too bad this had to be buried in a law that nobody is going to be reading.
Re:oh god no (Score:3, Informative)
If you want to give away your time and effort then go ahead - its your life. But I don't want any of my tax dollars subsidizing it.
Re:oh god no (Score:3, Informative)
The first thing you and your fellow nutjobs must realize is that in a democracy government is not an evil entity whose entire mission is to screw you over and take your money. When it takes your money, it's because you asked it to.
If you want smaller government and lower taxes, stop voting back the Republicans and Democrats, and keep replacing inefficient/unresponsive/corrupt/all-of-the-above politicians.
If you really want to make a difference, go work for the government. Based on your brilliant comment, it's quite clear that you're obviously superior to anyone there, so our government is sure to improve.