Re: The gun analogy (Was: Design Principles)

[Marcus Brinkmann]

At Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:22:05 -0400,
"Jonathan S. Shapiro" <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 22:20 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> 
> > > Neither am I. I was trying to make a legitimate point. Absolute
> > > positions in moral matters have the problem that they fail in real-world
> > > cases. Killing the injured horse is an example of a case where this
> > > occurs. When one person takes a dogmatic position, the opposing person
> > > only has to find *one* legitimate counterexample in order to demonstrate
> > > that the dogma is harmful.
> > 
> > You are insinuating that I have a dogmatic position.  This is not the
> > case, as is demonstrable by looking at what I actually said.  It is
> > also very easy to find out by asking me if I have a dogmatic position
> > (the answer is no).  I said, explicitely and with no possibility of
> > misunderstanding, that a weapon may be a useful tool, under
> > extraordinary circumstances.  This is not a dogmatic position, but
> > easily identified as a pragmatic position.
> 
> But this was not the position that I am referring to. I am referring to
> the position on DRM.

My opposition to DRM is not a dogma, it is derived from my personal
experience and intellectual analysis of the history of freedom of
thought and culture.  This analysis is based on fact, not opinion.

> > > I am not convinced that my example, which is a real-world example, was
> > > either narrow or stupid. If *you* think it is stupid, try looking at it
> > > from the horse's point of view.
> > 
> > I didn't say your example was narrow or stupid.  I said your
> > interpretation of what I actually said is narrow and stupid.  This is
> > one of your rhetorical tricks.  Another rhetorical trick is to
> > misunderstand my criticism of the rhetorical trick.
> 
> I beg your pardon. Neither of those was a rhetorical "trick" in any
> sense. Both were legitimate interpretations -- possibly legitimate
> misinterpretations -- but legitimate. I am deeply insulted that you
> believe me so dishonest.
>
> Yes, I will argue to the best of my ability. No, I will not knowingly
> "cheat" by playing tricks of this sort.

Then I want to ask you to read more carefully what I am saying.  I try
to express me to the best of my abilities, but all effort is wasted if
the nuances get lost in the heat of the argument.  I will try to do
the same.
 
> > > Fundamentally, however, the point that we disagree on appears to be
> > > this:
> > > 
> > >   You believe that it is proper behavior to lecture others on why
> > >   they should not use "immoral" devices (technical means) in order
> > >   to solve legitimate problems.
> > >
> > >   I believe that this behavior is merely invasive, rude, and foolish.
> > >   The obligation of the truly moral actor is to find or build a more
> > >   appropriate tool.
> > > 
> > > In other words: complaining is bullshit. Propose a solution. Advocate
> > > that a solution be found. Participate, but don't tell people that they
> > > have no need or right to make legitimate use of the best available tool
> > > just because the tool is not perfect (or even actively dangerous).
> > 
> > Please tell me which quote from me you interpret as complaint.
> 
> Actually, I am referring here to the anti-gun advocates in general, not
> to you. However, you *did* say in one of your emails that while the
> horse is dying you wanted to debate the merits of gun ownership and the
> proper method of destroying the animal.

You wrote:

> However, if I instead come to you and say "Can I borrow your gun?" it is
> another discussion entirely. A gun is a tool, and there are legitimate
> uses for it. Perhaps I wish to put a damaged animal out of its misery.

This is what I was replying to.  From this description it was not at
all clear that there is an animal in acute pain nearby and that I am
the only person who can help by giving a gun (I presumably own).  In
your other mail you said that even the time to make a phone call is
horrible cruelty, but yet you are unprepared by not having your own
gun, and you have time enough to find me (please consider that I am
living on a different continent) and ask in what looks like a calm
voice in print: "Can I borrow your gun?"

These are very different examples.  Maybe you had the one example in
mind when writing the other.  But they are not the same, and I was
replying to the first example.  It was incomplete, thus my reply had
to be understood as "best effort".

Well, the whole thing was a bit heated.  I am happy to stop beating
the dead horse here ;)

> > Please show me what quote from me you interpret as me telling "people
> > that they have no need or right to make legitimate use of the best
> > available tool just because the tool is not perfect (or even actively
> > dangerous)."
> 
> It is possible that I am confusing your statements with statements that
> Bas has made. However, I understand your position to be that true
> confinement should be replaced by some non-confining policy (which you
> have called "trivial confinement"). I have also understood that your
> rationale for replacing a well-known and well-understood mechanism with
> a less powerful and not-well-understood mechanism is a fundamental moral
> objection to DRM.

No, this is not my argument, and I have said my argument before, in
fact multiple times.  I don't mind a confusion here and there, but the
accuracy of your claims should at least match their strength, so I
have to insist.

My argument, in essence is the following: I do not know a legitimate
problem that is relevant to the GNU Hurd and which I can morally
support and which does not have, in the context of the GNU Hurd,
equivalent alternatives.  Independent of that, I also have done some
analysis which points me into the direction that there are fundamental
reasons why I could not found any legitimate problem that that does
not fit the description.  Both together make me tentatively decided
that non-trivial confinement is, in fact, an inappropriate mechanisms
in the context of the GNU Hurd.

I am not hiding behind the GNU Hurd here.  The connection is the
overlap of my personal opinions with the GNU free software philosophy.

> You and I disagree about DRM, but that is not the point here. True
> confinement is a generally useful tool.

Useful, yes.  But for what?  This is the crucial question, and there
is no evidence, so far, that it is a useful tool for a legitimate
purpose in the context of the GNU Hurd that does not have, in the
context of the GNU Hurd, adequate alternatives.

I can not stress enough the importance of the context here.

> If you exclude it by policy you
> are effectively making the type of statement that I claim.

I don't think that is the case, but we do not need to resolve this.

> And do not say "the user can add it". This is bullshit sophistry. If the
> architecture is built in a compromised way because the wrong
> foundational mechanism was used (and I believe that your "trivial
> confinement" is probably the wrong foundational mechanism), then the
> smallest addition possible is a complete rebuilding of a new system from
> the ground up.

Right.  And the same is true the other way round: If the system is
built from ground up to easily compromise user freedom and autonomy,
and to take away his ability to use, inspect, modify, copy and debug
his resources, then it is very hard to regain these rights later.

However, they are essential to the free software movement.  Without
these abilities, the free software movement can not grow and flower.

> > > There are two further points that require discussion:
> > > 
> > >   1. Do there exist substantial legitimate uses of (true) confinement
> > >      that cannot be achieved by other means?
> > > 
> > >      If so, then banning true confinement is inappropriate.
> > > 
> > >   2. Does my use of true confinement cause harm to others?
> > > 
> > >      If not, then banning true confinement is inappropriate.
> > 
> > As nobody is talking about "banning" anything, the answer to these
> > irrelevant questions is appropriately a floppy sandal over your head.
> 
> Please explain why my comments about architecture and bullshit sophistry
> are a misinterpretation. This would be welcome. I do not believe that
> true confinement can be added to the system later in any practical
> sense. Architecting it out is, for all practical purposes, banning it.

If that is the case, and it may be, then this reveals the aggressive
nature of the mechanism, and it in fact raises the barrier for
inclusion, because then the legitimation of the whole system would
depend on the legitimation of this single mechanism.

Thanks,
Marcus