🚀 go-pugleaf

> > Again, it definitely happens in agriculture, which I think might be a
> > better model.
>
> How? Agriculture is doing the same, basically unchanged for years,
> thing over and over again. Science is making pains *not* to reinvent
> the wheel. Which are we?

Producing software does not require as extensive an education as doing
science, and doing it for profit has been historically an established
practice. Therefore if software were subsidized, its likelihood of
attracting profiteers who want to manipulate the subsidies to their
own ends would be more like that of agriculture than like that of
science, which is mostly full of people who have chosen to devote
their lives to non-monetary goals.


> Which is why the citizens (the ones who care about the grant of the
> day) should decide. When you have this amorphous entity "the
> government" acting completely on its own, then the citizens aren't
> really being represented.

If the citizens are represented by means of each deciding exactly what
he will fund, that's fine with me. However, if this is not the case,
then some citizens are being forced to pay for what other citizens
want. This is true under any form of government. Democracy does not
have magical moral properties - the tyranny of the majority is still a
tyranny. There is no meaningful way to let the citizens decide other
than to let each citizen decide individually.



-- 
guile -c '(define c call-with-current-continuation)(define(f s)(lambda(o)(let
((n(c(lambda(x)(o x)x))))(let p((n n)(l(string->list s)))(cond((not (null? l)
)(display(car l))(p(c n)(cdr l))))))))((f"Js nte ul akr")(f"utAohrGieHce\n"))'