Reading about FOSS philosophy, degoogling, becoming against corporations, and now a full-blown woke communist (like Linus Torvalds)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
Foss licenses are copyleft, they bar individuals from enclosing the commons built by the collective for profit. Anarchism isn’t just letting people do whatever they want. Anarchism means against hierarchy. Having rules that prevent unjustified hierarchies from forming is entirely with in the bounds of anarchism. Including rules that prevent using copyright as a coercive hierarchy.
All heirarchies are unjustified.
I'd look at foss licenses more as tools of defence against (and within) the current system/context than "rules" that serve to enforce some kind of anti-capitalist "heirarchy".
Copyleft is NOT against profit! Go read Stallman! Anarchy mean 'No Rulers' not no hierarchy. Call yourself an Anorderist otherwise! Hierarchy is just a form of structure. Some people have management and coordination skills. Others specialise in an area that fits into a greater project. There is nothing wrong in a voluntary structure system. It is only the initiation of force upon structure (see. Government) or otherwise that is a problem.
Honest question: "Without any authority who gets to enforce the rules?". Everyone, as they see fit it seems. What makes "your" hierarchy better than "my" hierarchy?
Everyone sort of enforces the rules as they see fit now. The difference is there is an expectation to not resist when someone is abusing their power because they are an authority figure. Under anarchism, it is your peers holding each other accountable, and your right to question actions against you is accepted.
I look at it the other way. In a free and prosperous armed society where common sense rules are respected and insisted upon by the majority who would be stupid enough to break the rules? Let us look at it some other ways. Ebay is one of the largest merchant structures in the world. It is not an authority, but has for decades now used in-house arbitration for disputes. Detroit has a private 'police force'. It is not an authority. It is a private defence org that also runs a volunteer community protection unit that uses psychology as its main policing tool. Historically we had Panarchy in Ireland. People regardless of territory could voluntarily join a tuath. It would offer legal services. If unsatisfactory the client could join another tuath. Even today way much more is spent on private security than on policing. Maratine law orignally ran on banishment. Did not pay your contract or larder bill. You could no longer dock your ship or be served at a tavern etc. Before the state co-opted the law, there was Common Law! Law does not require authority.