everything wrong with free software

 "obedience breeds foolishness"

### refuting-anarchists-in-a-single-paragraph *originally posted:* aug 2022 first things first, the paragraph: > When two societies of different sorts come into prolonged and effective contact, the rate and character of change taking place in both is seriously affected to the extent that entirely new patterns are created. Two general rules can be observed to apply in such cases. First, the weaker of the two societies (i.e., the one with less economic capacity) is bound to be adversely affected — and the bigger the gap between the two societies concerned the more detrimental are the consequences. For example, when European capitalism came into contact with the indigenous hunting societies of America and the Caribbean, the latter were virtually exterminated. Second, assuming that the weaker society does survive, then ultimately it can resume its own independent development only if it proceeds to a level higher than that of the economy which had previously dominated it. the source: "some questions on development" by walter rodney, 1972 => https://crimson.earth/html/some-questions-on-development.html the discussion: how exactly is anarchy supposed to overcome this? is it incorrect? is it surmountable in some way? obviously, you cant just post a single paragraph and say "that settles it", even if this sort of purports to do just that. i mean, it may very well "settle it" but i dont actually consider this conclusive proof. you can certainly say its cocky, or dismissive, to present this as an argument thats definitely over now. the truth is, in my limited experience, too many anarchists offer "there you have it" type statements and responses, which this is actually intended as a response TO. in that context, its not so cocky. this paragraph is no revelation to me; rather it says so much in so few words, that i think poses a serious challenge to casual anarchists. more serious anarchist theorists may be able to wave this one away like neo transforming bullets into thin air. i dont know, i havent met any "elite" anarchists yet, only their front line blog troops. also, im not usually in any sort of debate over this topic. i wasnt looking for this quote, or even the subject it refers to, i was simply perusing the "shelves" of crimson earths virtual library when i found this. i am genuinely curious what the other side has to say about it. maybe theyve covered this. maybe theyve debunked it. and maybe they dont have a real answer, either. i dont know, the more i try to be openminded about the subject, the more ridiculous things i encounter to quibble and complain about. it is because im interested in what both sides have to say here that i keep finding these things. i think ive made my bias clear enough, i am having a heck of a time trying to find something that challenges it for more than a day. i make no promises about impartiality. sometimes well-intended ideas are crap. im still looking for contrary evidence. who knows, maybe the "side" it comes from has already debunked it. to be certain, no one is refuting the goals or the merits of anarchy with this, only the viability. and there are at least some ways around this problem, workable or otherwise, which may not refute the idea itself but which refute the idea that examples of this prove the futility implied. so thats fine. but i do think this paragraph is really, really interesting. => https://wrongwithfreesw.neocities.org