Liberty

Liberty. Y’know, the thing. The thing that, like, hasn’t helped anyone (in FOSS). FOSS-liberty can be summed up with the following satirical piece:

Liberty!

(By the way: The usage of comic sans is purely a part of the satire. I condemn the hate crime of using comic sans and I will not stand for these radical comic sans users, destroying our country!)

Honestly, libertarian FOSS-projects tend to be worse… But hey! They’re extensible, am I right? Free and extensible is the only good qualities about FOSS-libertarianism. Speaking of FOSS-libertarianism, it’s been 11 chapters, shouldn’t I provide a definition at some point? And should “at some point” be now? Yeah, let’s go with that.

Conlibertism

FOSS-libertarianism is the “FOSS” (Free and Open Source Software) variant of libertarianism, meaning “freedom in software”, this correlates with Fossarchy-Mossarchy, but is more on the “consuming” side of the FOSS process. But when we speak of FOSS-libertarianism, we might mean “Pure-FOSS-libertarianism”, which is when you can do anything with the consumption of a FOSS-project.

But FOSS-libertarianism and Pure-FOSS-libertarianism are very long terms, so we’ll call them “Conlibertism” (Consumption libertarianism) and “Pureconlibertism” (Pure consumption libertarianism).

Extensibility

Haha, how I love extensibility in FOSS, that’s one of the best things about Conlibertism! Okay, I do not love extensibility in FOSS… Or, it’s complicated! Here’s Marxocracy’s philosophy on extensibility:

Any unnecessary customization is bad customization.

Which I know the Conlibertists do not agree with me on. Their philosophy would be something more like

Any customization is good customization.

Which is idiotic. You can customize but if it’s not necessary, why do it? Overextensibility is the death of everything Marxocracy stands for, and thus, I shall not stand for it. The reason “Overextensibility is the death of everything” is as such:

Lightweightedness in a FOSS-project is – of course – one of the most fundamental parts of a good such. Overextensibility often leads to less lightweightedness, and as such: Leads to less quality.

And as such, we can come to the conclusion that any unnecessary customization is bad customization.

Conrestrictionism

Conrestrictionism is the idea that – fundamentally – software cannot fully thrive with unlimited consumption. Unlike Conauthoritarianism: A lot of restrictions on consumption, Conrestrictionists only want some restriction allowing for a project to thrive.

This is another fundamental principle of Marxocracy: The belief that there shouldn’t be many restrictions on software, but that you can sacrifice total liberty for a higher quality product and to assure for the thriving of the FOSS-project. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again,

QUALITY OVER EXTENSIBILITY, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!

Which I personally believe is a really good core principle to hold.

Consumption principles of Marxocracy

I’d like to present 5 core principles in Marxocracy for consumption, these should be followed closely. They are

  1. Any unnecessary customization is bad customization.
  2. Lightweightedness in a FOSS-project is – of course – one of the most fundamental parts of a good such. Overextensibility often leads to less lightweightedness, and as such: Leads to less quality.
  3. Conrestrictionism is a fundamentally good principle and should be the core of Consumption-Marxocracy.
  4. QUALITY OVER EXTENSIBILITY, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!
  5. The most important fundamental of Conrestrictionism is that some liberties must be sacrificed for the good of the project as a whole.

A satirical piece

… You know, I was planning to put a satirical piece right here, but the problem with libertarianism – unlike Godotism – is that it’s not very funny, it’s just plain bad. I guess I’ll use this section to highlight the core problems with Conlibertism, I guess. These are:

  1. In their eyes, “Any customization is good customization.”
  2. It leads to a worse project overall.
  3. They prefer extensibility over quality.

It’s quite honestly a sad reflection upon our society that these kinds of philosophies have thrived, since they’re largely reactionary. They poke up in response to authoritarianism in FOSS, and I honestly can’t blame them. What Marxocracy tries to achieve is a balance between these two – now debunked – ideas.

Next chapter: The emperor