What Should Freedom Lovers Do?

[An Metet]

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/