[12821] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
I think we've flogged this horse to death
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Frezza (via RadioMail))
Mon May 30 06:21:42 1994
Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 15:06:01 PDT
From: Bill Frezza (via RadioMail) <frezza@radiomail.net>
Cc: alt-politics-datahighway@cs.utexas.edu, interesting-people@eff.org,
rre-maintainers@weber.ucsd.edu, eff-board@eff.org
To: com-priv@psi.com
Folks,
Given the number of postings that have degenerated into hooting and
sophomoric name calling perhaps this debate has run it's course.
A few words to explain why I set this in motion and then I need to
move on (bet you're all glad about that :)
Several months ago I was contemplating joining the EFF. Before I did I
wanted to understand how they could so passionately defend personal privacy
while simultaneously advocating massive government involvement in the future
of the information business. Even worse (to my mind), the latter was being
done in pursuit of a "new social contract" that included a set of
entitlements that would have to be financed, ance again, with either
coercive taxation or heavy handed regulation.
I began privately questioning their founders about their fundamental moral
principles, the foundation for any political policies, or so I thought.
Mitch and John quickly stopped responding and I was passed to EFF's
"on line activist". After hours of unsatisfactory dialogue that served
only to convince me not to join the EFF I decided to take the discussion
to com-priv.
I had two simple objectives in doing this.
I wasn't foolish enough to think I could change anyone's fundamental
beliefs, least of all the enormous egos at the EFF. This rarely happens. But
I did think that if I was confused about the EFF's principles, maybe
others were to. Perhaps some people that were attracted by EFF's
anti-clipper stance might take a second look at the whole package deal they
were signing up for and come to the same frightening conclusion I did.
My second objective was to conduct a little unscientific survey to help
me plan my own actions. Was I the only one that was angry about being taken
in like this? Was I the only one that was concerned about the narrow range
of viewpoints being aired in this now national debate over the Infobahn?
Were there others that felt strongly enough about Liberty to speak up?
Both of these limited objectives have now been achieved. Thank you for your
forebearance.
As to "the debate" I believe Marvin Sirbu summed it up best in his
posting that compared the drive for Universal Health Care and the drive
for Universal Guaranteed Access. The principle underlying both efforts
is identical. He even states this moral principle explicitly (something that
is rarely done anymore).
Both political efforts are directed at satsifying "the will of the majority".
If the majority believes that everyone is entitled to health care or
information or what have you then It Shall Be Done, never mind the means.
That detail can always be worked out "in a compromise" in which we all make
a "sacrifice".
This is the creed by which we now live. Truth and justice can be ascertained
by counting votes and the wherewithal to achieve any "public" goal can
be conjured up by compromising.
There was a time in this country where "the rights of the individual"
constituted the fundamental moral code. There was a time that if these
inalienable rights came into conflict with "the will of the majority" they
were nonetheless protected. There was a time when the words "private property"
actually meant something.
Perhaps those times are gone forever in "the real world". But it is not too
late for Cyberspace. The same rules just don't apply. This frontier will
be entirely of our own making. And, I suspect, the equation "might makes
right" in all its variants is just not going to work anymore. At least, I
hope that's the case.
And so I end this thread by asking the question that started it all.
Who speaks for Liberty?
Stay tuned.
