[752] in libertarians
Re: Zimmerman case
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sethf@MIT.EDU)
Fri Feb 24 15:01:57 1995
From: sethf@MIT.EDU
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 15:00:36 -0500
To: vimrich@MIT.EDU
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU
> What else is new? That's why we're libertarians and not Republicans.
> Republican's think government is great as long as it's helping their
> businesses. Libertarians don't want ANY people to use laws to thwart
> competition whether they're rich or poor.
I'd believe that a lot more if I saw Libertarians reflexively
denouncing patents and "intellectual" property as attempts to thwart
competition, instead of focusing almost exclusively on any Government
presence. But I think that doesn't happen, because it's a very touchy
argument - Libertarianism deals a lot with the importance of property,
and to grapple directly with the property-rights and redress arguments
being used in these issues would be to admit that businesses can misuse
these philosophical constructs, and persecute individuals in the
question for greater control and profit. That goes to a place
Libertarians don't want to be, questions of corporate evils (if someone
can claim a property violation that doesn't exist because it increases
their profits, what other philosophical property claims might be
similarly shaky?). The concept of "abuse of private power" is almost
regarded as an oxymoron.
It's easy to sit back and flame "Government is attempting to
invade our privacy - evil, evil". Dealing with the intellectual
property based motivations "Zimmerman has grievously injured RSA company -
theft! theft! - and we're trying to get back at him any way we can" is a
lot more demanding (and, I think, much more difficult politically for a
Libertarian).
> As for who we get angry with, it's a judgement call. If a girlfriend
> cheats on a guy, some get mad at the other man, some get mad at
> the girlfriend. Libertarians tend to get mad at the government for
> being the agent of the real legal power (the girl). Democrats get mad at
> the people who have the "audactity to abuse the noble law" out of it's
> intended contex (the other man).
I'd say it's more if a girlfriend and guy go off on a Bonnie and
Clyde crime spree, Libertarians tend to argue in lines *similar to* that
the girlfriend did it because in our society women are raised to have
low-self esteem and to be dependent on men, so she is a victim, but he is
just scum. So we shouldn't ever regard women (business) as capable of harm, but
only men (government). Because, after all, if there were no men who ever
tried to find female companions (no government power), the woman would
never have been able team up with him (business and government collaborate).
> at fault. In short, Libertarians view their government as the sleasiest
> cheat around.
And don't think of businesses as cheats at all.
> Blaming the RSA holders for this would be like blaming
> the johns for the prostitution business.
And, as the prostitutes complain, they go to jail, but the johns
do not. You've exactly proved my point above - whatever the particular
implications of the case, it's to be pressed into service as more
proof of the desired social theory, by focusing exclusively on a few
elements, throwing in some broad philosophy, and ignoring everything else.
It might surprise you, but even the government element in the
Zimmerman case is not especially anti-Libertarian. The export
regulations being used are not commercial in motivation, but military -
that's why the penalties for violations are so severe. They are
over-broad, and there is substantial opinion is that parts will fall if
seriously challenged, but they come out of the *philosophical* function
of government that doesn't get much dispute - "national defense". The
big problem is not so much the authority, but the *cost* of overturning
an abuse.
It's important to fully understand the issue - the PGP and Zimmerman
case doesn't have so much to do with misuse of government power, as opposed
to the question as how much can an algorithm be considered property (and
if so, what kind of property is it - like a machine or like a book?). A
Libertarian take on it should deal with those basic problems, not cliches.
================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu
