Honestly this guy was a big factor in me turning sour on the GPL and the people supporting it. Especially in the last revision GPL is not about software freedom at all, it is rather a way to force some rather silly requirements upon business or software developers. Sad really because some of the concepts behind open source make lots of sense.
It's just that there are two different types of freedom:
GPL : Enforced freedom that you can not relinquish
BSD : Complete freedom, including the freedom to be enslaved
Each has it's purpose and place.
Imagine a free market, where the banks control sizable shares of many companies, and things are setup where it is more "efficient" use of capital to borrow money as needed and return equity to investors as dividends, rather than to simply save money within the company. This would mean that boom and bust cycles would inordinately be compared to the credit expansions and contractions induced by the banks.
Ok, now, given that a boom and a bust were then mostly artificial constructs, and that wages are set by the interaction of supply and demand for labour, then it becomes clear that complete freedom, to hire yourself out for whatever wage you want, would mean that the oligopolies in charge could simply create a recession to skew labour demand, and thus lower the wages as low as they want, even below the poverty line. You now have the freedom to be enslaved. But, with a minimum wage law, you have enforced freedom, which is freedom within bounds, that you can not be coerced to give up. True, unemployment itself would increase, but that would then induce other effects to limit the profitability of the induced recession.