[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: fork, trivial confinement, constructor

From: Jonathan S. Shapiro
Subject: Re: fork, trivial confinement, constructor
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 07:33:35 -0400

On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 12:59 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> My position is that the encapsulated constructor mechanism is a
> security threat, because it attacks user freedom.  My arguments for
> this position have been carefully laid out in "Ownership and
> Contracts", and have not been challenged yet.  Jonathan disagrees, but
> his disagreement at this point is just dismissal of the concerns and
> goals.

Excuse me, but this is untrue. I do not share your goals. I disagree
with them quite strongly. That is not the same thing as "dismissing"
them. To "dismiss" them would imply disrespect or unwillingness to
understand. I understand quite well what you are trying to achieve. I do
not agree. However, I respect what you are attempting.

This is true in the same sense that I respect high voltage, guns, and
chain saws: all of them are dangerous, and must be treated with care.

If you succeed, I think there is a chance that you will destroy (or at
least severely damage) the incentive structures that have driven
creative process since the beginning of recorded history. It is possible
that what you advocate will be better, but it is by no means certain.
You are engaged in an irreversible experiment with no control population
and no ability to reverse course if you are wrong. This is not your
fault; it is an inevitable consequence of attempting social change
within a closed social system. Whether your ideology is correct or not,
*any* experiment of this form is intrinsically dangerous, and must be
watched carefully. Certainly it must not be dismissed.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]