#agorism

Agorism is a Cis-man (He/Him) and Unlabeled (if he had a label he'd be on the bi-spectrum). Character-wise he's light-hearted, attentive and caring outside of work. He's an ex-government agent and now primarily works as a private investigator (his preferred line of work) though he can be hired for other jobs such as being a bodyguard or delivering packages and selling illegal products on behalf of others. He's non-violent and avoids conflict when he can, but due to the sensitive and risky nature of his jobs, he will inevitably end up in some form of conflict. He's unaligned in Das Kapitacide and works independently and on his own terms, though you'll often find him in Ancapistan due to his work and the individuals he has to deal with, for example you'll frequently find him in AnCorp.'s many casinos discussing with clients or building connections. The members of AnCorp. are either vaguely familiar or closely familiar with Agorism.

↳ {Other miscellaneous details!:} ✦=- Agorism is Middle Eastern (still deciding on a specific ethnicity) but grew up in New York. ✦=- He has white pupils which causes light sensitivity, therefore he prefers being in dimly lit areas and working at night. He'd wear sunglasses in the day. ✦=- He's in a casual relationship with Neoliberalism.

Anti-busing? Even the most retarded libertarian could demonstrate that the State is responsible for busing to atone for the sins of segregation visited upon the seventh generation.

Anti-gun? Well, this may bother some gun nut libertarians, but the trick, I assure you, always works. If the rube throws you a curve, reverse your stance to catch it. Try this:

“I’m sure you’ll agree we can’t get rid of all guns by force. After all, who will get rid of the guns held by those who are forcing everyone else to hold them?

“But actually, there are indeed far more guns than people would freely produce if they had their way. And you know who has the most guns—to be used for offensive as well as defensive purposes—not to mention gas, planes, neutron bombs, killer lasers, missiles, tanks and on and on?”

Needless to say, the audience is once again facing the State as the obstacle to the satisfaction of their anti-ness. The same “reverse stance” can be used whether you’re given anti-sexism or anti-feminism, anti-pollution or anti-ecology, anti-war or anti-(reason for the war).

Anti-tax? You should be so lucky.

Now if I’m really that good a libertarian magician, I should be able to foil my own trick. Suppose I enter a parlor where some alleged libertarian, having only read the first half of this article, is wowing the guests with my ploy. He’s a deviationist of some kind, so assume I am annoyed. He decides to rub it in by looking at me, asking me to fall for my gambit. “Pick an anti, any . . .”

“Anti-repeal. ”

More than likely, this deviationist is an anarcho-democrat (polite term for political-process libertarians ranging from cuddly Roycians to fire-breathing Partyarchs). If there is one thing every anarcho-democrat believes, one common denominator for any libertarian who’s the least bit soft-core on politics, it is support of repeal. Repeal of laws, repeal of taxes, repeal of regulations, repeal of office (impeachment)—what libertarian could be against that?

Got him!

But maybe this person has read two-thirds of the way through this article and was expecting this. Suppose, fiendishly, he throws it, back at me, like so:

“Say, aren’t you the guy who came up with this trick? Yeah, that’s right. OK, why don’t you show us all how to answer it?”

As I said, a good libertarian magician should be able to foil his own trick. A great libertarian wizard should be able to counter the foil when used on him. So I’d answer thusly:

“‘To repeal’ means ‘to enact legislation withdrawing or nullifying other legislation.’ That is, the supporters of a repeal divide into two groups: those who gain by further political processing, and those who just want to get another law off their backs.

“But many, if not most, laws are perceived to affect only a small interest group in a statist society; hence, in order to use the political process to get the law in question off their backs, the latter group must devote resources to persuade the less concerned to bestir themselves. The former group—politicians and their jackals—profit by allocating the resources and consuming much.

“The alternative is for the latter group (victims is a good name) to devote whatever resources they have for the struggle to protect or defend themselves while they are ignoring the law. Suddenly, the equation changes.

“Now the dead weight of the unconcerned has to be stirred to gain resources and consent to crack down on the law-abolitionists (counter-economists).

“Finally, a coalition of repeal groups, seeking repeals of various laws, find it difficult to see the common enemy (the State) and rather see themselves competing for the same people, same money, same time for their particular repeal. In stark contrast, every counter-economist is in solidarity with every other. ‘The Man’ is enemy of the smuggler, prostitute, dealer and street gambler alike. To fink is the ultimate crime.

“Repeal, then, perpetuates the State, and even where it passes, it leaves 99 and 44/100 of the oppression and plunder. The direct action of counter-economics consumes capital only for the specific purpose desired, and can never be used to sustain the State. Every counter-economic act takes from the taxman and regulator, and snubs noses at their authority.

“And that’s why libertarian are anti-repeal as well.”

The ideas of liberty, independence, innovative thinking, and the development of society are the main underlying foundations upon which the whole project is built. The project intends to remain state-free as it operates entirely without support from the government, and most of the funds come from voluntary contributions of our donors and partly from commercial activities such as running a unique co­working space and the world’s first bitcoin-­only cafe. It was founded by members of a contemporary-­art group Ztohoven, and Slovak and Czech hacker­spaces. Its main goal is to promote economic, social, and digital freedom. We try to be a vocal voice of freedom to shape the public discourse and ultimately work towards a freer future.

HCPP23 | Richard M. Stallman & Amir Taaki – The Economics of Free Software

Richard Stallman:

I started the free software movement for freedom-respecting software — because freedom is what makes life good.

If you're using computers and you're running software, your software needs to respect your freedom too.

Otherwise, if you're running non-free software, it's an instrument for somebody else to have power over you — whoever controls what's in that software.

If you're running Apple software, then Apple has power over you. If you're running Google software, then Google has power over you. If it's Microsoft software, then Microsoft has power over you.

And that's not right.

Anyway, I’ll give a talk this evening and say more, but this is more of an interview with Amir Taaki.

Amir Taaki:

Thank you very much, sir.

So I just want to give a preamble — this should be interactive, so feel free to throw things, yeah, throw things, join in, even come up if you want.

The title says “The Economics of Free Software.” Now, economics doesn’t mean money. It comes from the ancient Greek meaning “household management,” and it concerns the well-being and needs that sustain life.

The most contemporary definition of economics is:

“The science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means, which have alternative uses.”

So you have a sought-after end, but there are scarce resources to achieve that end.

Given the end of technological freedom, parallel infrastructure, and ownership by society — how do we reconcile that with the means? The means being developer focus, actual resources (like money, time, quality of life), and community momentum to achieve maximal effect.

That’s the kind of topic I want to go more into.

If you don’t mind, I’d like to also give an introduction to you, and why you're so important to this movement.

Stallman:

Okay — but I would not have chosen that title.

Amir:

In my life, there were three moments when my mind was completely blown.

One of them was discovering Bitcoin. Another was discovering zero-knowledge proofs.

But the first — the first time was when I learned that you could change the operating system on your computer. That free software existed.

I was a teenager. I was at school. One of my friends said, “You know, you can change the OS on your computer.”

I said, “What? Really?”

He said, “Yeah, you know there’s Windows and stuff, but you can change that. There’s another one called Linux.” (We used to call it G/Linux — but my friend said “Linux.”)

I said, “What’s that?”

He said, “It’s an operating system made by people all around the world. It’s not owned by any company.”

So I went home. I started researching. I started watching videos. I saw the documentary Revolution OS. I saw Stallman.

I was so inspired. I decided I would dedicate my life to the free software movement.

That was the beginning of the path that led to where I am now.

Amir (continued):

Let’s also give some historical context.

The personal computer revolution — which Stallman was very much a part of in the 1980s — that was a time when computers were these giant machines, in the hands of industry and military.

And hackers, like me, acquired that technology because they saw it as a tool of power. They said, “We need to bring that power to the people.”

They started getting jobs as janitors, or whatever, just to access those machines. They learned how they worked. They put them together in their garages.

People shared software freely because there was mutual recognition — a shared mission. That led to the development of the personal computer.

But then, what happened?

This formerly niche hacker community — suddenly, a ton of money started to flow in. Kind of like with crypto.

A lot of people lost their morals. They started throwing themselves at companies. The culture changed.

But one person didn’t change. One person said “No.” And that was Stallman.

Stallman:

[laughs] Well...

Amir:

When I was 16, I literally wanted to be Stallman.

I used to say, “When I grow up, I want to be Stallman.” I even wanted to have a beard — to look like a hacker.

But when I grew a beard, I ended up looking more like a Muslim terrorist... like Al-Qaeda. [laughter]

But seriously, Stallman is the reason many of us are here today.

I kind of liken him to the Diogenes of hacking.

I want to tell a little story — but in it, we’re going to replace Diogenes and Alexander with Stallman and Elon Musk.

So... Elon Musk comes up to Stallman and says:

“Stallman, I’m a great admirer of you. I yield to your greatness. I can offer you the heavens. What do you want from me?”

And Stallman replies:

“You’re in my metaphorical sunlight. I want you to just get out of my way. I’ve got work to do.”

Stallman (cutting in):

No, that’s not me. I’m sorry to mischaracterize you.

Amir:

Fair enough, fair enough...

Stallman:

I might ask him for things he wouldn’t do. True — they’d be things that would help other people.

But he, being what he is, wouldn’t want to do things that are good for other people. So he wouldn’t do them.

But I wouldn’t waste the opportunity just asking for “Get out of my light.”

Amir:

True. You're very perceptive and always practical.

Stallman:

I’m a practical sort of philosopher.

I see things that are unjust, bad, painful in the world — and I look for ways to make them better with whatever is at my disposal.

Often, that calls for more than just me. So I ask other people: “Would you like to help?”

Of course, only a fraction help — but that’s better than nothing. And so good things get done.

Amir:

I made a short two-minute video — a compendium of clips from the 1980s — with you, Stallman, talking about free software.

It’s a gathering of hackers discussing the future of the personal computer. They’re talking about business and technology.

Then you stand up, in the middle of the crowd, and make a giga-Chad move. You say:

“I want to make all software free. That’s my life goal.”

[Video plays – archival footage from 1980s:]

At the touch of a button, you can now correct a letter without retyping it, recalculate financial projections, or send electronic mail across the world. Hundreds of programs let you manage money, draw on your screen, teach your kids to type, and play games. But the real purpose of the get-together was to discuss the unique set of values that made the computer revolution possible and to brainstorm about its future. Richard Stallman: “My political platform is that we need an electronic Declaration of Independence. My project is to make all software free.”

Amir (continues):

You’ve been called the last pure hacker — for staying at MIT and not chasing the temptations of the commercial world.

What early hackers had in common was a love of excellence in programming. They wanted their programs to be as good as they could be — to do neat things, exciting things that others believed impossible.

But today hackers are divided. Some believe source code — the blueprints — should be shared. Others don’t.

There’s a quote from that same documentary:

“Tools I’ll give away to anybody. But the product — that’s my soul. I don’t want anyone fooling with it.”

To which you responded with a great metaphor:

“Imagine if you bought a house, but the basement was locked — and only the original builder had the key. You’d be stuck.”

Stallman:

Yeah — and that’s what happens when the blueprints to a computer program are kept secret by the organization that sells it. That’s the usual way things are done.

Amir:

Would you object if a few of us took a bow to you — just out of respect?

Stallman:

I would. It would be bad for me.

Nowadays, I get tremendous amounts of irrational, misguided hatred — but I also get tremendous amounts of perhaps excessive admiration.

I’ve learned to resist some of that influence — but I still need to keep practicing.

Instead of admiring me, admire justice, admire truth — those are the things that are bigger than me, and they are good to admire.

Amir:

Recently, you were “canceled.”

We’re all big believers in free speech here. You were attacked by people — would you like to talk about that?

Stallman:

I don’t want to go into details.

But there’s a website called stallmansupport.org — not written by me, but by supporters and friends. It refutes many of the false claims made about me.

Sadly, a lot of people don’t even bother to check. They just see enough hostility and assume I must be a monster — because their friends say so.

And that has practical consequences.

It limits what I can do for causes like:

Free software

Justice in computing

Freedom in computing

Privacy

Still, I do what I can.

Amir:

You created the free software movement.

When you first started, a lot of people thought you were crazy.

But through your will, you created the GNU system…

Stallman:

Well — that’s a bit of an oversimplification.

What I wanted was a world of software in which people could continue using computers and have freedom.

At that time, the old free software world had pretty much sunk beneath the waves. There was very little of it left.

So, I looked for the most practical plan: to make a free operating system similar to Unix. Unix was a non-free system, but it was widely used — and its structure made it a good model to imitate.

It was divided into many separate components. That meant each component could be replaced by someone else. Different parts could be developed in parallel, around the world.

Eventually, we’d have all the parts we needed — and we’d have a complete, free system.

I announced the GNU Project in September 1983. I started coding in January. By 1992, we more or less had a complete system.

Stallman (continues):

One of the components was a kernel called Linux. It was first released in 1991 — but initially under a non-free license.

So, at first, it didn’t exist for us.

A non-free program has no value or contribution to the free world. But when its author re-released it under a free license, it became part of our free world.

So now we had a version of the GNU system that used Linux as the kernel. It became possible to get a PC, install the GNU system, and use it without software that put chains on you.

Of course, it took a few years to make it easy to install. But the important thing was: it was possible again to use a computer in freedom.

Stallman (continued):

But it didn’t end there.

We want to do many things on our computers — and usually, new things come along tied to non-free software. Companies present them with chains.

So we have to come along and create free ways to do those things. There’s a lot of work to do.

And there’s plenty for you hackers to help with.

Amir:

These days, we see companies like Microsoft and Google talking about “open source.”

But in the 1980s, it was hackers who created the personal computing revolution.

Then corporations hijacked it. The free culture was lost.

You revived it — but as it started to grow again, people began to say, “We need to bring in big business.” They stopped talking about freedom and values. That’s when the term “open source” was born.

Why do you think big tech finds that narrative more attractive?

Stallman:

To understand that, you need to know what the term “open source” means.

As you saw in the video, the idea of free software is about freedom — for the people who use computers.

That’s always been the point of the free software movement.

But in English, we don’t have a word that clearly means “free as in freedom” and not “gratis.” In Czech, you can say “svobodný software.” If we had such a word, I might have used it.

So people get confused. They think we’re talking about price. But we’re not. We don’t care if you sell the software — we care whether it respects users’ freedom.

Stallman (continued):

Some developers say,

“This program is my soul. I don’t want anyone touching it.”

But we say:

“Your freedom matters more than a developer’s ego.”

There are people who say the only value is how much money you can make.

We don’t say it’s wrong to make money — but there are more important things. There are unjust ways to make money. If doing the right thing means making less, so be it.

The origin of “Open Source” and how it diverges from free software

Stallman on surveillance, “the cloud,” and digital anonymity

A heated dive into modern tech platforms and peer-to-peer systems

Stallman (continued):

In the 1990s, there were disagreements in the free software community — disagreements between people with different values.

Some people just wanted to be successful and make money. They were involved in free software development, promotion, and use — but they didn’t agree with me about why we were doing it.

In 1998, some of them coined a different term: “open source.” They preferred it because it let them disconnect from the values I had brought into the free software movement.

That’s what “open source” has been ever since: a way of talking about more or less the same collection of programs, but with different underlying values.

Stallman (continued):

If you look at what open source advocates say, the values they promote tend to be:

Convenience

Success

Cooperative development

In the free software movement, we fight for people to have the right to change the programs they use, and to share those programs — so others can collaborate.

It’s not just about whether this particular program was developed collaboratively. It’s about whether you and your friends can collaborate on it in the future.

So for us, the key is the freedom to collaborate — to change and improve the software together.

Open source, on the other hand, tends to focus on how a particular piece of software was developed — not on what freedoms it gives the user.

Stallman (continued):

They don’t criticize non-free software. They never say:

“This program is bad because it’s closed source.”

Because they don’t believe that. They don’t want people to think that.

So they never even ask the question.

In contrast, for the free software movement, that’s the most important question:

“Why is it harmful for society if a program is non-free?”

So you have two different philosophies. And they’ve been disagreeing ever since.

What makes it hard is the misinformation.

For example:

More people will tell you that I am an open source advocate — which is false — than will tell you the truth, which is that I disagree with open source.

Most people have never heard of the free software movement. The only thing they’ve heard is someone connecting me with “open source.”

That’s a pain.

How can I promote the cause I actually stand for, when everyone’s out there saying I support the opposite?

Amir:

Fast-forward to today.

On one side, we have neoliberalism, big tech, surveillance capitalism.

On the other, we have free software.

Users are being turned into farm animals — their data harvested. Devices are designed for consumption, not creation.

Would you say the utility of a technology is linked to its ability to help people collaborate?

Stallman:

Well… I get the impression that many communities work together while using what I call “snoop phones.”

I’m not going to use a snoop phone myself — because the surveillance makes me too angry. I won’t tolerate it.

But I can’t claim that no good comes from using them.

Amir:

Take platforms like Google Docs — the computing paradigm is: a user, and a company delivering “content.”

Stallman:

Let’s not call it “content.” I don’t use that word.

“Content” embodies the values of someone trying to sell a product. It reduces what people create — books, music, drawings — to stuff to fill a box.

And it says what’s inside the box doesn’t matter — just keep the box full.

I’d rather look at a novel, a memoir, a song as a work — with value in itself, independent of whether it can be monetized.

If we use the word “content,” those values start to rub off on us. So I refuse to use that term.

Amir:

Okay, I hear you. But let me rephrase the question:

Is a technology’s value linked to its ability to help communities work together?

Stallman:

That’s one measure.

But another is: Does the technology respect your freedom?

Does it require you to sacrifice your freedom to use it?

There are political causes I want to support — rallies I’d like to attend. But the websites for those causes require non-free JavaScript just to find out where and when the event is.

Because of conscience, I can’t visit those sites. I can’t direct people to those rallies. And often, I can’t go myself.

It hurts me deeply when that happens.

They focus on one cause. I focus on another. These causes don’t conflict — we could help each other.

Just enough attention — enough care — to avoid harming one another. That would be good for all the good causes.

Amir:

You were part of the personal computing revolution. Hackers birthed it. Crackers too — breaking into networks, challenging authority.

Today, it feels like we’re on the defensive. We have to hack our own devices just to avoid surveillance.

What conceptual breakthroughs did you witness during that early era?

Stallman:

I don’t think about that. I really don’t.

I don’t ask myself that kind of question. I lived through those years, but I don’t analyze them in that way.

Amir:

Okay — then what did you experience firsthand? What did you see as the shifts?

Stallman:

In the early years of my computing life, any computer you could do anything useful with belonged to an institution.

It might be a school or a lab — and they’d let me write programs on it. Sometimes because they needed those programs.

At MIT’s AI lab, we — the system hackers — were staff. We wrote programs for others in the lab. Sometimes just for fun.

That was fine with me.

I didn’t want to own a computer. I was happy using the lab’s multi-million-dollar machine — funded by the Department of Defense.

But what mattered was what we were doing with it.

We weren’t doing anything bad. Nothing military. Just useful tools.

Stallman (continued):

Some people were uncomfortable that the funding came from DARPA, especially during the Vietnam War.

But I pointed out:

“DARPA lets us release everything we write. If a business were funding this, they’d make it proprietary.”

And later, when business did take over — it was far worse.

Next up

“There is no such thing as the cloud” – Stallman’s takedown

Cryptocurrency, anonymity, and peer-to-peer tech

Questions from the audience on the future of freedom and software ethics

Amir:

So — can you explain why “the cloud” is dangerous?

People often say, “The cloud enables collaboration,” but I know you’ve strongly criticized the concept.

Stallman (interrupting):

There is no such thing as “the cloud.” It’s a confused, confusing term.

If you treat it like it refers to a real thing, you’re already spreading confusion — no matter what you say.

The only way to avoid spreading that confusion is to reject the term completely.

There’s no “cloud.”

Let’s talk about what actually exists:

Servers.

Owned by companies or institutions.

Located in specific countries.

Governed by specific laws.

If someone says, “Your data will be in the cloud,” they’re trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

What servers? Whose servers? Who owns them? What laws apply? What governments might access them?

These are the questions that matter — but the term “cloud” exists to blur them.

Stallman (continued):

In reality, what’s happening is:

You connect your browser to someone’s server.

It pulls in data from you.

It forwards that data to other servers — maybe across the world.

You don’t know where it’s going.

They don’t care to tell you.

So my answer is:

“I don’t want you to get any of my data. Get lost.”

When I buy something, I pay cash. I don’t tell them who I am.

Amir:

You've just clarified the serious issues with today’s computing paradigm — especially pushed by Google, Microsoft, Facebook.

Now, about Unix — one of its early strengths was its ability to network computers. That allowed it to scale.

Do you think that was a factor in its success?

Stallman:

I don’t even know what “achieving scale” means. That’s too vague.

Yes, Unix had networking — usually based on phone lines. One great use of that was Usenet.

You could post an article in a newsgroup, and it would propagate across a network of computers via modem calls.

Each machine would send and receive articles from others — spreading them around. It was pre-internet. A decentralized information system.

It was nice.

Amir:

Recently, I was using Jitsi, a free software tool for making video calls. But their server went offline — probably due to lack of funding.

Many free software projects are trying to replace tools like Google Docs, but they rely on central servers that are hard to maintain.

In contrast, Google just eats the cost — and you pay with your data.

What do you think of peer-to-peer technologies like BitTorrent? And can cryptocurrency help fund infrastructure for free tools?

Stallman:

I’m in favor of peer-to-peer systems for communication and collaboration.

I’m not against server-based tech either — sometimes you need to run a server. But it doesn’t have to be big or expensive.

You can set up a server with friends. That’s fine. It’s not a huge problem.

As for cryptocurrency… I don’t lean toward it.

Amir:

Let me give you an example.

Take Tor — they run many relays, but bandwidth is expensive. And it comes with legal risks, since states might pressure you.

There’s a project called Nym — they’ve created a mixnet, and when you run a server, you earn micropayments. That incentivizes people to host servers.

Do you think that could be a useful model?

Stallman:

I’m not against it, but it raises a concern:

How would I get that cryptocurrency in the first place?

I don’t do that sort of thing.

Amir:

There are crypto ATMs in most cities. No ID needed. You put in cash, scan your wallet, and get anonymous currency.

You can then use it to access services. Or exchange it.

Stallman:

I hope they don’t require ID — because if they did, I wouldn’t use them.

It sounds complicated, though.

What would the actual implications of this system be for anonymity, privacy, and freedom? I’d be slow to draw conclusions.

Amir:

In the crypto world, there’s lots of new cryptographic tech being developed. I come from both the free software and crypto communities.

But I often notice the free software world is skeptical of crypto — maybe because of conservative attitudes or misunderstandings.

Do you see a way for the communities to collaborate more?

Stallman:

Most cryptocurrency implementations are free software. So in that sense, there’s already overlap.

But the community I built — the GNU community — is about building useful tools for people to use together.

Not something that depends on millions of people running it. That’s not how I think.

Yes, a program might be used by millions. But it doesn’t require that scale. It doesn’t rely on it.

Stallman (continued):

It’s all decentralized — in a loose, informal way. Not organized like a single network where all the parts must function together.

I like the Tor network. I use it. But it’s not the sort of thing I would personally design.

Amir:

I helped grow the crypto scene, but I see a big task ahead of us — resisting the Big Tech surveillance paradigm.

Free software and crypto both aim to give power back to the user — but they often don’t work together. I think there’s potential synergy.

Stallman:

That may be. But personally, I don’t do any digital payments.

What would I even want to pay for online? Mostly just bills: electricity, gas, internet.

Amir:

Then maybe telephony is something we could decentralize.

Stallman:

We already have GNU Jami — a free software tool for voice and video communication.

It avoids central servers — except for locating peers. Once you’re connected, it’s peer-to-peer.

Amir:

There’s also GNU Taler, right?

Stallman:

Yes. GNU Taler is an anonymous payment system.

It’s not a cryptocurrency. We designed it specifically to avoid speculation.

We didn’t want people buying a coin that fluctuates in value. That’s not freedom — that’s gambling.

Stallman (continued):

With Taler:

Payments are denominated in national currencies.

The payer is anonymous, using blind signatures.

The payee is known — so they can be taxed.

That’s intentional. We don’t want to help rich businesses evade taxes.

One of the biggest economic problems in the world is hidden wealth — money flowing from the poor to the rich.

We didn’t want to contribute to that. So GNU Taler supports anonymity for users — not for large corporations.

Amir:

That’s a powerful distinction. Thank you.

We’re coming up on the final segment. Shall we open it up to audience questions?

Stallman:

Sure.

Audience Question 1:

Mr. Stallman — you’ve spent your life fighting for freedom at a time when it’s increasingly being taken away through surveillance.

Are you optimistic about the future of free software?

Stallman:

I’m never optimistic. That’s just my nature.

I see all the ways things can go wrong. I see powerful enemies. I feel discouraged.

But I don’t give up — because giving up is useless.

All it guarantees is defeat.

So we keep fighting — whether we think we can win or not.

Next up :

Audience questions on values, inflation, monetary systems

Stallman’s views on “free money,” taxation, and decentralization

Closing thoughts on strategy, philosophy, and resistance

Audience Question 2:

Thank you, Stallman, for being here with us.

What strategies or tactics have you found effective in propagating the values of free software?

Stallman:

I present these issues in terms of values — because ultimately, values are what matter to people.

Yes, different people have different values — but those differences are what we need to discuss.

What should matter to you?

Wealth?

Freedom — for yourself and others?

Working together to prevent harm to society?

These are broad questions — they apply to all of life. Software is just one domain I focus on because that’s where my talent lies.

Audience Question 3:

Since you care about freedoms — what about monetary instruments? In many countries, they’re the main tool of enslavement — through mechanisms like inflation.

Isn’t using state money another way to propagate control? Shouldn’t we also be creating free money?

Stallman:

Your words contain a lot of assumptions that I don’t fully understand — and I may not agree with any of them.

It’s hard to respond directly to what you said.

Stallman (continued):

It’s true that governments often serve the rich, and the rich lobby to change laws to divert more wealth toward themselves.

That’s why things get worse for the rest of us.

But I don’t believe that monetary systems, in and of themselves, are the core cause.

For example:

Union laws affect wealth distribution.

Public health policy affects well-being.

Tax policy affects social equity.

None of those are caused by money per se. They’re caused by political capture. The rich control politics — that’s the deeper issue.

Audience Question 4:

You’ve spoken about “the rich.” But who are the rich? Because by some standards, you might be considered rich — living in a developed country.

Stallman:

The rich are those who, through their wealth, dominate politics — in whatever country we’re talking about.

By US standards, I’m not rich. I don’t have political influence.

Yes, I donate to candidates — because I want the US government to allocate more resources to non-rich people.

I support progressive politics.

Audience Question 5:

Back to the topic of cash — you mentioned paying in cash whenever possible. But in many countries, we’re seeing rapid moves toward cashless systems. What then?

Stallman:

That’s an exaggeration.

Take the UK, for example. I read The Guardian, and people there are fighting back.

They’re demanding the right to use cash — because they’re running into real problems:

Disabled people can’t access card readers.

Some towns don’t have working ATMs.

Some stores refuse cash.

So yes — people are organizing. And that’s exactly what they should do.

Demand laws that require stores to accept cash. Demand laws that require there to be an ATM in every town.

For example, New York City passed a law a few years ago requiring all places that sell food to accept cash. I celebrated that.

Audience Question 6:

In the crypto community, we talk a lot about how open-source software is necessary — but also insufficient — for confidence that software does what it claims.

Free software is auditable, yes. But it’s often too complex for most people to really verify.

So what about accidental complexity? Wouldn't it be better to build systems from small, provable modules — like the old Unix philosophy?

Stallman:

I think you're mistaken about our origins.

I never endorsed the Unix philosophy. I was not interested in “provable” behavior.

I wanted programs to work in practice. And that meant:

Build features. Fix bugs. Improve it continuously.

Yes — our systems were big and complicated — because that’s what people wanted them to be. We needed them to be that way.

So, no — I never aimed for that minimalist philosophy. I wanted systems that were useful, not formally elegant.

Audience Question 7 (final):

Thank you. That actually answered my intended question too — I was going to ask whether the Unix philosophy fits with free software.

So instead, I’ll just say: congratulations on 40 years of GNU. We haven’t had a chance to say that yet.