Lew Rockwell had written:
The Rothbardian approach to a pro-freedom strategy comes down to the following four affirmations: 1) the victory of liberty is the highest political end; 2) the proper groundwork for this goal is a moral passion for justice; 3) the end should be pursued by the speediest and most efficacious possible means; and 4) the means taken must never contradict the goal, "whether by advocating gradualism, by employing or advocating any aggression against liberty, by advocating planned programs, by failing to seize any opportunities to reduce State power, or by ever increasing it in any area."
This is good advice for cypherpunks as well. We all support the victory of liberty, and we have a moral passion for justice. Whether our means are the speedious and most efficacious may be questionable, but it's not like other forums are seeing vastly greater success. And it's best if freedom lovers push forward on all fronts. Our goals of providing liberty through cryptography are complementary to other efforts to achieve freedom. But the last point is the one I want to emphasize, a continuing theme in my writings for the past several years: that the means must not contradict the goal. Too often have cypherpunks fallen into the trap of advocating violence and aggression as a means to achieve their freedoms. Tim May was the worst of these, wishing for the nuclear obliteration of Washington, cheering the Oklahoma City bombings, even threatening the lives of family members of those who would break their word to him. The destruction of innocents must never be part of the agenda of a supporter of freedom. Of course, if we stick to cypherpunk means, the issue does not arise. Cryptographic anonymity threatens no one but aggressors. It is purely defensive in nature. Using PGP, TOR or Freenet does not harm innocent children or anyone else. Yet these technologies open up new possibilities for freedom of speech today, and hopefully for freedom of contract in the future. In my devotion to freedom, I apparently go beyond the point where most cypherpunks are comfortable, in that I support private initiatives and technologies of all sorts and oppose government regulation of them. I am a supporter and admirer of Microsoft, which has achieved tremendous market success without relying on government support, indeed in the face of steadfast government opposition. I oppose government antitrust efforts in general, and specifically those directed against Microsoft. Yet how many other cypherpunks have spoken up in favor of this widely hated company? Where is your love of freedom, if you can be silent in the face of government infringement of their rights? Re-read Rothbard's fourth point, and understand that support of antitrust actions is exactly what he cautions against. Last year a widely published diatribe against online "monoculture" called for Microsoft to be compelled to engage in all sorts of activities, including rewriting all their software to run on Linux. This homage to statism was authored by, among others, a man who once called himself libertarian: Perry Metzger, moderator of the cryptography mailing list. No one who loves freedom should allow himself to be associated with any such proposal. Likewise, I support privately organized technological initiatives such as DRM and even Trusted Computing. It doesn't matter what the net impact or effects of these technologies will be (although I think they will be overall neutral to positive). The only important point is that these are free and non-coercive, without government regulation. Of course, DRM is presently strengthened by the DMCA, an evil and counter-productive infringement on personal rights, but here it is important to focus on what is wrong and what is right. What is wrong is government restriction; what is right is technology and contract to enforce mutually agreed-upon conditions and permissions. Cypherpunks should take a close look at how they choose which issues to support and oppose. Bear in mind Rothbard's advice against advocating aggression against liberty, advocating planned programs, or supporting the increase in State power in any area. We must be uncompromising in our support for freedom and liberty. If we stick to our goals of building technology to let people communicate privately and anonymously, that will be our contribution to the freedom of the future world. == Read the Unlimited Freedom blog, http://invisiblog.com/1c801df4aee49232/