No, it is possible, simply not practical due to the volunteer nature of the manpower involved in the OpenOffice project. If it was a for-profit venture, it'd be imminently practical.

DMCA notwithstanding, reverse engineering *is* legal across the board. It is perfectly legal to buy a copy of any piece of software, disassemble/decompile/debug it completely and figure out exactly how every single piece of it works.

So let me make sure I have your position correct. You would support governement regulation requiring all software publishers to publish human-readable source code for their products? Apart from being impossible to enforce, it seems incredibly counter to your anti-regulation stance on other issues.

After reading through much of this I have to say I think the problem with libertarians here is that many seem to be libertarian for different reasons and not truly 'libertarian'.

Wanting the social freedom of libertarians is great, but not the economic freedom?

You can't have it all ways. I like libertarians, I'd let my mythical daughter marry one, but I think they are very naive with their foreign policy, or the lack there of. Since this is the sort of thing that gets nations killed in the long run, I can't accept it even though I’m quite happy with them in most other areas.

Currently any would be voter who votes libertarian might as well have voted for the candidate they REALLY don’t like. I’ve heard the arguments for voting 3rd party and I don’t buy them. The system only supports a two party system, and unless the system itself is changed or there is a TRUE revolution in thought akin to the anti-slavery movement you won’t see the birth of a competitive new party. Libertarians will just split votes and ensure the election of the greater of two evils.

Most software licenses explicitly prohibit reverse engineering. Furthermore, hardware reverse engineering is illegal in most countries.

If all software were to be, in some degree, open-source, it would not be difficult to monitor. In fact, it would, again, be easy enough to monitor it yourself, or with the help of a private organization - say, the EFF for example.

All open source means is that one has access to the source code, so it's a simple question. Can you get the source and compile the program yourself? Yes or no. If the answer is no, the software maker is in violation. If the answer is yes, they are not. This is not really a difficult thing to monitor at all and would not require any significant amount of resources.

No, not everyone would be able to make SENSE of the source code, but that's to be expected. The fact one could take apart the cotton gin to try and figure out how it worked didn't mean that everyone who did so would have enough knowledge to figure it out. But that that did could do so and improve upon it.

We are not in a democracy. We are in a very democratic republic. There is a difference, direct voting being a big one.

This is true. You must remember that there is no law stating Monopolies are illegal. What is illegal is anti-competetive behavior. Libertarians believe that force or coersion is unacceptable and prosecutable under law, even in a limited government state. There would not be much difference in a Libertarian state from today's current state as far as antitrust goes.

Software licenses don't really mean anything. "Shrinkwrap" licenses are unenforceable because you can't read the license before you have to agree to it. And you don't actually have to agree to a click-thru license in order to use the program. You bought a copy of the program, therefore you have the right to use it under normal copyright law. As for hardware RE, I don't know about other countries, but we were talking about the US and in the US its perfectly legal. Ever heard of the CueCat?

I don't think you realize the huge amount of software that is published on the internet by individuals. It would be insanity to try to track it. Besides, what is this private organization going to do with the information anyway? Last time I checked, private organizations didn't have law enforcement powers.

If you are going to use that argument, you could go back further a step and say that not everyone can understand the machine code, but some people can.

Besides, all this is off the point. The original discussion was whether or not removing governmental regulation could prevent an abusive monoply situation such as the one Microsoft currently is in. You're now attempting to *add* regulation and it still wouldn't fix the problem. All it would do is necessitate even more of a police state because piracy would be even easier to do. Forcing open source would make any attempts at copy protection and registration futile.

The anti-competitive behaviour outlaw in anti-trust law is not force or coercion. Its things like price-fixing, predatory pricing (selling below cost to get rid of competition), and other such abuses of dominance in the market.

Thats a form of forcing someone out of the market in my opinion. Others may see it differently though.

Well, I never said I was a Libertarian "idealist" ;) I also support a reasonable degree of anti-trust laws. Regarding open sourcing of software, all it takes is someone to say "give me the source so I can compile it myself" and they either get it or they don't. This doesn't require active government regulation. If someone wants the source and it's not available and won't be given to you, then you notify the government and it's quite clear-cut - either they will give it or they won't. Not doing so would be illegal. No loopholes, just nice and simple. If no one calls out a person who doesn't make the source available, more power to that person, and here's to hoping they never become successful.

Overall, in terms of regulation, what I'm proposing would be a drastic reduction. The contols granted in copyright would be returned to the VERY minimal controls of over 100 years ago, covering only publishing and only being applicable for 14 years. Software would need to have a seperate section, since it progresses so quickly, in which copyright length is restricted to, say, 5-7 years. Patents would be minimized and the USPTO would be completely overhauled. Again, a return to 100+ years ago would be beneficial. Again, this would be less government regulation as opposed to more. And the resulting regulation would be quite minimal and clear-cut. It's a simple question of yes or no - either the source is available or it's not.

Wait, so anyone could request the source and the publisher would have to give it to them? In other words, you are in favor of forcing the publisher to give away their software for free to anyone and everyone? What would be the incentive to publish commercial software then?

Anyway, your scheme for requesting source has loopholes you could drive a truck through. What happenes if there is no source code (i.e. it was written in machine code)? That is possible you know. What about if the source code is in a language for which there is no public compiler? Would you force the company to release an entire unpublished work for free? Or if the code is intentionally obfuscated? For some examples of that, check out the IOCCC (International Obfuscated C Code Contest) winners. The Perl contest is even worse. Some of the entries look like line noise.

Access to the source does not have to be free, just freely available. In other words, someone who pays for the software should have access to the source as well. Someone who doesn't shouldn't. Again, just like in 1800, someone who bought a published work of Shakespeare had access to the "source" - the words, characters, etc - and could then build off of and improve upon it. Someone who did not purchase the published work would not have this right.

Most things I post - anywhere really - can be described as "thinking out loud" - I rarely have a view that is set in stone. I know very well that there are holes. What I mean to get at though is that, just as one could read a Shakespeare text in 1800, see the words used in making the text, and then use those words and characters and improve upon them in some way, so should it be with code.

I've arrived late to the party, but I agree with the libertarian economic model. I'd be happy to answer attacks to it, so long as they don't develop into "end of the world" slippery slopes of nonsense like the one posted above.

As to the original question: It has always seemed to me that conservatives favor corporate solutions to problems, while the liberals favor government solutions. What the libertarian party recognizes, and what I believe, is that neither is your friend; they both want your money and they both want to take advantage of you. Would you rather be a $2 hooker, or be date raped?

And ustwo:
but I think they are very naive with their foreign policy, or the lack there of. Since this is the sort of thing that gets nations killed in the long run, I can't accept it even though I’m quite happy with them in most other areas.

Assuming that your basic premise is true (which I don't believe it is) what's wrong with getting nations killed? It's not like it's your brother or something. My allegiance is to my freedom; I don't care whether it's under the USA or the PRC so long as my rights are respected.

And yes, I'm in favour of killing copyrights and patents. If companies want to spend hideous amounts of money protecting their software from college students and rival companies let them, they will be priced out of business.

This is an excellent point. SecretMethod70 and myself are Libertarian because we want less government in our lives. We do not have to repeat word for word the idealism of the party. Not every Republican and not every Democrat believes in everything their party does, they simply agree most with that party. Ever since the Democrats got the labor unions on their side, all other Republicans are lumped together. From Wikipedia : Factions of the Republican Party

Religious right - or some argue interchangeably, the Christian right, is an important GOP faction consisting of conservatives united on social issues, embracing traditional Judeo-Christian moral values. They are against abortion and gay marriage and favor school prayer, and interpret the establishment clause of the First Amendment as prohibiting only the official establishment of a state church, as opposed to the more secularist view that the clause requires a strict separation of church and state. (Since the 1960s, the latter interpretation has generally been favored by the Supreme Court.) Some of this faction argue that the American colonies and the United States were founded to be Christian societies, although also tolerant of other Abrahamic religions. Some estimate religious conservatives represent the largest faction of the GOP in numbers. Prominent social conservatives include Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Senator Rick Santorum.


Paleoconservatives - This group has a blue-collar, populist tinge with a strong distrust of a centralized federal government, and has heavy appeal among rural Republicans. They are conservative on social issues (e.g. support for gun deregulation) and oppose multiculturalism, but favor a protectionist economic policy and isolationist foreign policy. Many are also active against illegal immigration, or, in more extreme cases, all immigration. Prominent paleoconservatives, such as Pat Buchanan, have spoken against NAFTA and what they see as a neoconservative take-over of the party. Some with similar views are in the Democratic Party.


Neoconservatives - The term may be disputable since many alleged neoconservatives have denied the existence of such a category. Nevertheless, neoconservatives are generally regarded as the most militaristic branch of the party, in favor of an aggressive pre-emptive foreign policy. Many were once active members of the American Left, now "disillusioned" with the perceived extreme relativism and "anti-Americanism" of the 1960s protest generation. They favor unilateralism over reliance on international organizations and treaties, believing such commitments are often against America's interests. They began rising to significant influence during the Reagan administration. Those considered among the neoconservative circles include Jeane Kirkpatrick and Paul Wolfowitz.


Moderates - Moderates within the GOP are a minority within the party, most popular in the Northeast and Pacific regions of the U.S. They tend to be fiscally conservative (e.g. balanced budgets) and more progressive on social issues (e.g. supporting domestic partnerships, affirmative action, abortion rights, some gun control measures, etc.). On foreign policy, they are less militaristic than conservatives and neo-conservatives, opting for bilateral negoations and peace talks as a solution to global discord before direct military intervention. Moderate Republicans today include U.S. Senators Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter. Members of some of the other factions sometimes characterize moderates as "Republican In Name Only".


Fiscal Conservatives - This faction overlaps with most other factions of the GOP. They are pro-business free-traders, receiving fervent support among corporations and the nation's economic elite. They favor large tax cuts, reduced domestic spending, privatization of Social Security, equal taxation, and decreased regulation of business and the environment. Prominent fiscal conservatives include the late Senator Barry Goldwater, and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

There is no way George Bush holds all six faction's values, but for most Republicans, he holds more than Kerry does, which makes him a better choice for their values. The same goes for Libertarians, Democrats, Greens, etc. We do not have to hold all values to vote for them, but if they represent us best, we are doing ourselves a disservice to vote otherwise.

Ok, so let's say for the sake of argument that a Libertarian candidate wins.

How long will it take to change all of this? Don't forget, it has to go through congress, which at that point might be equally as big in libertarian, dems, repubs.

Say the candidates' 4 years are up and a republican joins office... everything is back to the way it was.

Are we going to have to deal with these changes each time a candidate comes into office? A libertarian comes in, removes government regulation, decriminalizes drugs, splits things into private businesses, then his term is up. A republican comes in, makes drugs illegal again, or a democrat takes office and re-adds the government regulated programs.

Won't that screw things up?

Yeah, you know, cause all those other democracies with 3,4,5, even 6 active parties are really "screwed up" with laws going back and forth constantly :rolleyes:

Well, I mean... if you go from government regulated this and that to totally open and removed and BACK again, wouldn't that be too much?

It'd be kinda nice to have an actual thoughtful response to the question though rather than a sarcastic one, it was just a question :)

Didn't mean to be overly sarcastic, just thought that the example was enough. We would not go back and forth between two extremes just because the government is held by different parties back and forth. That's like saying if marijuana were legalized and a republican were to be elected president he'd make it illegal again, and then when a different person becomes president it's be legal again. That wouldn't happen for any significant period of time because eventually the PEOPLE are going to stand up for what they want. And that's just a simple law, let alone entire government institutions. It's like looking to the fact Bush wants to privatize social security and saying "oh no, now we have two parties with differing views on how to run government, it's going to lead to a disaster." It's the nature of government - you vote for who you agree with and don't vote for who you don't agree with. In time, some issues will take hold and some new ones will arise.

I thought it would be because eventually activists judges decide what is right, where did you get this people idea? :hmm:

My question for libertarians would be "Why does your Presidential candidate have no political or leadership experience whatsoever?"

I thought we were a Constitutional Republic. According to CIA worldbook we are " Constitution-based federal republic." Whatever works.

To answer the question posed above, I would answer that Badnarick knows a thing or two about the constitution and with that being one of the most important documents that sets the rules for the job, it'd be good for presidents to know it.

I also agree with madsenj37's comment on the different degrees of how far you support or agree with something. Thus, best not to judge someone based on the whole philosophy because they might disagree with the party on that issue which is why I will always support more than two parties.
(I tried to keep my comments respectful)

The Texan we support is better than the 'other' one we currently have in office. In all seriousness, I want to vote for him because of his lack of political leadership. He has no political ties that he must keep. He will keep the bad politics out of politics. That and the reason he best represents my views. We are not supposed to have career politicians here in America. Jesse Ventura is a prime example of that.

madsenj37 -- I respect that opinion, but unless you replace EVERY career politician, an outside President won't be able to get anything done. A LOT of what the President does is build agreements in Congress. Someone with no political experience will have no idea how to do that and will get no respect from Congress at all. Further, Badnarik is not a CEO, not even president of his local Elks club. He's never been a leader of a group larger than ten, probably, and certainly not larger than one hundred -- how do you propose he lead 250 million of us?

I know he will not get elected. He is running in order to spread the word of his party. I am voting for him because I like him, I do not like our two party system, and I do not care for the two main candidates running. But I still think your question is fair. If he works as hard as he campaigns, I have no fear that he will accomplish things in D.C. It may take him longer due to his lack of connections, but that does not mean he will not work at it. Thats what I want in a president besides someone I agree with, working hard to accomplish goals. He will be able to get the republican vote on economic matters and the democrat vote on social matters. Between the house, senate and the president something will eventually happen.

I just want to echo this. If there's one thing I can say about Michael Badnarik it's that the guy is really driven and dedicated, and it shows in his campaign. His dedication and drive has caused his campaign to consistently outdo itself - recently they had a donation drive with a goal of I think $54,000; the end result was $90,000. There's no doubt in my mind that this is directly due to the type of person Michael Badnarik is.