Saturday, August 28, 2010

Galambosianism

This post is going to be about the main ideal set in the philosophy of Andrew J. Galambos.

Andrew J. Galambos considered himself a Liberal (or Libertarian, can't remember which), but his viewpoints seem to be closer to Anarcho-Capitalism. He was 100% for intellectual property rights, even going as far as putting a nickel into a can or jar every time he said the word "Liberty," because he thought that Thomas Paine invented the word (he didn't, but that's beside the point). Using that logic, we should be paying for every single word we use, since somebody had to invent it. That would mean this sentence alone is worth over half of a dollar.

Galambos seems to be gaining a bit in popularity since his death in 1997, partially due to the Internet, but also because audio tapes and a humongous book called Sic Itur Ad Astra were released (however, the book is no longer in print). These were based on lectures he had given throughout the past few decades before he died. They were not released until after he died because he told his students not to tell others about his ideas because he considered them his intellectual property, and even told them not to follow what he says.

Despite this, some of his material has been spreading after his death, and has been garnering a small Libertarian following. It seems to be because the Galambosian ideology supports a personal independent way of thinking, like with Ayn Rand's Objectivism, but at the same time, it's Authoritarian because it forces people to do something-to pay for something minuscule like words or other non-physical productions and tell them not to share anything-as opposed to allowing them to do as they please. Not only that, but things such as wikis, the GNU license, free software, peer-to-peer file sharing, and so on would be viewed as unacceptable.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, the book I described earlier talks about much more than just intellectual property. For instance, he also tries to dispel the "overpopulation myth." Of course, this was back in the late sixties, when the world population was only about three billion people, compared to our six billion (nearly seven billion) in present times, which also explains the lack of knowledge when it comes to things like the way the Chinese have been dealing with their overpopulation problem; the One-Child Policy, which forbids couples from having more than one child, or else they don't get the same benefits, or may even have to pay the government a fee.

No comments: