Is setting a Standard Liberating or Opressive - Liberty.me

Is setting a Standard Liberating or Opressive

Tags: contracts laws regulations Rules

Frank Maruschak October 26, 2015 at 3:01 pm

Mathematician have “standards” for math symbols, Computer Engineers have “standards” for logic symbols, Automotive Engineers “standards” for measuring symbols. Is the coming together and “agreeing” on a “standard” for a set of symbols for the communication of thinking and ideas, an Oppressive or Liberating concept? Is there more benefit from the reduction of errors, mistakes and miscommunication by the adherence to a “standard” in a field of communication than the harm caused by any suppression of the creative process?

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Dave Burns October 26, 2015 at 5:44 pm

To count as oppressive, I think someone would have to coerce us to use a standard. If I can choose not to use it, I don’t have much to complain about. Of course, there are network effects, so that I may feel an incentive to use an approach that otherwise would not tempt me. For instance, Microsoft has never been my first choice for anything. They managed to achieve de facto standard status in several areas, with consequences I see as unfortunate. But people who don’t like M$ can use Apple or open source or something. The setup might be less problematic if patents and copyrights did not further complicate the situation. I am not sure how serious the problem is, or what the solution is.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Frank Maruschak October 26, 2015 at 8:17 pm

The Microsoft “standard” that you speak of is the result of monopoly and trickery rather that the voluntary agreement of a “society” of Engineers such as SAE. So it is to the benefit of the society to set up a set of standards which have more “positive” attributes than negative ones, Then it is to the benefit of most who volunteer a participation within the standards of a particular field for a gain in moving toward a goal rather than a loss. If the “standards” are not producing a “gain” the “society meets and modifies the “standard”. Is Bill Gates “smarter” than open-source or just more “realistic” when it comes to the operation of “human” behavior

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Peter Lawson October 26, 2015 at 11:06 pm

As long as something is not coercive I wouldn’t see it as oppressive. Someone could choose to use a different standard. They might be punished or rewarded as a result but it would be their choice.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Anonymous October 28, 2015 at 1:20 pm

I think that it is liberating, in the same way that a common language is liberating. Being able to communicate easily through common language saves time and energy. Standard languages (whether spoken, code, or mathematics) are not oppressive. You can choose to go a different way, but if you wish for someone else to understand, it would be much quicker and easier if you at least offered a connection between your method and the standard.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.