Julian Assange, through WikiLeaks, has made available to society a vast collection of information that undermines the state’s legitimacy. Assange cracked the government’s veil of benignity and brought into question the state’s tactics. His website undermines its moral authority. FULL ARTICLE by Jonathan M. Finegold Catalan
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/14996/what-the-state-fears-most-information/
What the State Fears Most: Information
Previous post: Against Intellectual Property, Now in Italian
Next post: Hazlitt at 80: Rothbard’s Tribute
{ 42 comments }
I recently stumbled across this quote, not quite yet a year old. The last line’s irony still rings in my ears:
‘In many respects, information has never been so free. There are more ways to spread more ideas to more people than at any moment in history. Even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable.
During his visit to China in November, President Obama held a town hall meeting with an online component to highlight the importance of the internet. In response to a question that was sent in over the internet, he defended the right of people to freely access information, and said that the more freely information flows, the stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens to hold their governments accountable, generates new ideas, and encourages creativity. The United States’ belief in that truth is what brings me here today.’
-extract from a speech by Hilary Clinton – Jan 2010.
“…and now if you will excuse me, we have to go hunt down someone using the internet to spread truth and we are going to do the exact opposite of what I was just preaching to you about. Because we are the government and we do what we want because we can. If you all have a problem with it, you can try to vote us out but we have new recruits coming up the pipeline that will do the same things as we do…only bigger. We have successfully dumbed down America so that most of the people we need on one of our sides will call anything they hear out of the norm “crazy” or “stupid” or “racist” or “sexist”. So…until you all have the gall for a REAL revolution, just sit back, relax and let our TSA Agents do to you and your families what we have been doing to America for the last hundred years”
I think the thing that the State fears most is probably not being taken seriously. But information can be a big step towards that.That’s why the Mencken technique is best. They want to be taken seriously. They want to be ‘important’, when all they are are a bunch of dupes and knaves; jokers with assault rifles; gods with feet of clay or, as Nietzsche would say, hollow idols. These grand, self-important busy-bodies and dictators are usually the most incompetent and lame of all the people, precisely because their ‘power’ is based around lies and nonsense; and their exploitation is only useful when they are precisely in a minority position and do not actually possess the majority of wealth (otherwise there would be no one left worth robbing!)
By the way, I love the WikiMisesLeaks graphic!
“Bloody revolution is no longer with the times, because government’s armies are becoming more and more immaterial.”
Go tell it to the Afghans. Go tell it to the Iraqis. Go tell it to the drug users. Inviting an escalation of the police state is naive and will get even more people killed. The government will not just peacefully walk away from its power.
The people who won a peaceful revolution in the US is the alcohol drinkers. That’s the model we should use to get the government off our backs, not inviting the police to kick in our doors, stick guns in our faces, wrestle us to the ground, chain our wrists together and drag us off to a tiny cage.
I’m not aware of the revolution you refer to Mark. In my state we cannot buy alcohol unless we are 21 years of age or it is before 1am, and alcohol purchases are heavily taxed by the state. If these are the results of a revolution being won, then I’d rather not win one. If all freedom lovers worked with the state to achieve the revolution you speak of we would end up helping them violate our rights ever further.
First, Afghanistan and Iraq are relatively technologically undeveloped (relative to the United States). It would be impractical to compare the two situations with each other.
Second, the “alcohol revolution” did incorporate police kicking down doors, sticking guns in people’s faces, wrestling people to the ground, and chaining wrists together and dragging people to a tiny cage. What did you think happened during prohibition?
Great post. Wikileaks has exposed the statist divide in society. In Australia calls to rendition Assange are equally loud from the left and right side of politics. The political class is a national disgrace. Regrettably it’s the salacious details that titillate the punters. The real issue; namely right to trample individual freedoms in the name of some or other cockamine war on whatever, doesn’t seem to register.
“and some have even supported a boycott against Amazon proper (for collusion with the state) — showing that Amazon has more to lose by acting against the will of its customers than it has to gain from complying with government.”
Sadly, I don’t think this is true. Another thing the internet has brought is an over-exaggeration of how much discontent actually exists in the masses. It’s easy to rabble-rouse on a forum or sign an online petition, but I sincerely doubt more than a handful of people will actually stop using Amazon because of this. They’ll leave some acerbic commentary in the “comments” section on a few news articles, then go back to using the shopping site exactly as they did before. People see all those comments however and think, “surely this is a powerful movement, there’s so much anger here!”
The reality is that despite the anger, the vast majority lack the will to act on it if it inconveniences them. Remember the big “Opt-Out” protest planned against the TSA? I flew that day, from Dallas, to Atlanta, and then JFK. I didn’t see any more people “opting out” than at any other time. People weren’t willing to miss a flight to make a statement. And I’m not casting stones here; I wouldn’t want to miss my flight either, so I got scanned, just like the other cattle.
The gov’t, on the other hand, can do a lot to make life miserable for Amazon, even if through largely “unofficial” channels or commerce regulation. So unfortunately, the site has a lot more to gain by ignorning it’s loud but unwilling-to-do-anything-about-it customers and kow-towing to the gov’t.
Personally, the idea of democratic secrecy both disgusts and terrifies me. We should give thanks to Assange for exposing the false conservatives like Palin, Graham, Boehner and others (ok, there is plenty of other proof that they aren’t conservatives, but let’s add this to the list). I like the fact that we are seeing the government’s dirty work, but I LOVE the fact that it is making them all so freaked out.
There is no left wing or right wing politics anymore, if there actually ever was. The divide is statism vs liberty. Technology like the internet shows how main stream media is pretty much an organ of the state. Sites such as this one are far more a threat to statism than Wikileaks in the long run.
A very impressive article. However, I hate to have to remind viewers that very few States have to resort to the ham-fisted, barbaric method of book burning (or murdering authors) anymore, because they already had–until very recently–total control of the information that their citizens had through the Public childhood indoctrination system (“publik skoolz”), the control of access to government and corporate secrets through sundry “official secrets” and “public security” regulations, along with selective and self serving invitations to ‘press conferences”, licensing of publicly broadcast electronic media, etc. When you have a population of gullible and credulous “sheeple” who are totally ignorant of heresy, book burning is unnecessary!
The internet, its websites, blogs, and cellphone access effectively circumvents this. The powers that be know this, and this is why they have been frantically waging war against it, from so-called “war-on-terror” websites to “kiddie porn” to their legal(?) lynching of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.
The State dreads REAL freedom of information the way cockroaches dread insecticide, and for much the same reasons!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
I have frankly been amazed that the state has allowed internet freedoms to proceed as far as they have. At the same time I wonder if the state is gaining the advantage by collecting demographics on site visitors, writers and commentators.
Jonathan,
Without addressing all the passion you seem to have concerning the good that Wikileaks is doing for the cause of revolution, etc., there is something troubling about your article.
The source of the Wikileaks documents was not Wikileaks. These documents were taken by someone who violated the trust that had been granted to him by those who had legitimate control to access. We may argue as to whether that act serves some greater good, or whether such secrecy is justified, etc. I think rational people might be able to disagree on that.
However, books, even those burned by Nazis, are not comparable to an act of misappropriation and illegal publication. Of all the things that could be said about the Wikileaks acts, one must admit that it involved illegal conduct.
Book burnings are in no way similar to the Wikileaks situation, and to draw that comparison merely places Wikileaks in the position of a legitimate author who wishes to express his thoughts, and whose expression is forcefully denied by the police state. This is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
This is not a free speech issue. No one is denying anyone else’s right to speak or write or express themselves in any way that is related to the exercise of free speech rights. If someone steals documents, and then publishes them against the owner’s will, that is a crime; ethically, morally and legally. If it “needs to be done” then it should be justified on that basis alone.
If such a law breaker is subjecting himself to punishment because of a higher purpose, then so be it. We may debate whether this act meets such a purpose or not. But to equate this with a suppression of free speech is dishonest and inflammatory.
I am happy to join with you in the criticism of abuses of state power. In fact, it is hard to know where to start. But to cast a situation in a way that it is not, weakens your position.
Wildberry,
It’s a difficult topic, because by what means do we legitimize state law? By what means do we make it illegitimate? That the whistle blowers spread confidential information and therefore broke contract is one thing to argue, but that they “broke the law” is something else entirely. If the law is designed to monopolize protection of certain information, then I think we can question its legitimacy if we can question the legitimacy of the state (on whatever grounds one prefers).
In any case, I didn’t try to approach the topic by moralizing the situation. I don’t know what’s “right” and what’s “wrong”. To that extent, I never meant to judge WikiLeak’s operation as “right” or “wrong”, and by extension that was not the purpose in regards to the whistle blower. However, the act of pressuring Amazon to end its hosting of part of the WikiLeaks website was an act of censorship, because the information was available by that time. The point of the article is to illustrate how the government failed in its attempt at censorship, and the wider implications of this fact.
Regards,
Jonathan
Jonathan,
“It’s a difficult topic, because by what means do we legitimize state law?”
Yes, this is one issue, I agree. One could start with an accurate depiction of current whistle-blower laws. Like all laws, they are intended to serve some purpose. There is no doubt, usually, that a whistleblower is breaching confidentiality, and normally would be liable for consequences of that act. When the whistleblower “illegally” releases information showing illegal activity by his employer, for example, he is relieved of liability and socially rewarded as a hero. Is that the case here?
However, if the “whistleblower” is just trying to harm the proprietor, he gets nailed for the illegal conduct. There is some rational basis for this position, especially if one assumes that in at least SOME cases, government must have control of what goes public and what does not and when, in order to function effectively in our interest.
If you assume, like some, that NO government can EVER function effectively in our interests, well the world can become black and white. Consistency can replace ambiguity. This situation, like most, is not black and white, and there are good arguments on all sides of the issue.
“If the law is designed to monopolize protection of certain information, then I think we can question its legitimacy if we can question the legitimacy of the state (on whatever grounds one prefers).”
Question, yes. I question many circumstances, including the national security exception to the FIA. It can, is and clearly has been abused. I don’t approve of that.
However, a statement like “…we can question the legitimacy of the state (on whatever grounds one prefers)” is so broad and ambiguous, it can mean almost anything. There is never an issue with raising a question. I just think we need to be more discriminating than that to deal with such difficult topics.
“However, the act of pressuring Amazon to end its hosting of part of the WikiLeaks website was an act of censorship, because the information was available by that time.”
You have a point here. The use of administrative police powers at the federal level can be ham-handed, to say the least. This is a downside of the technology. It is great when it facilitates the dissemination of information and knowledge for benevolent purposes, and equally as harmful in the hands of malevolence. Also, with the speed of dissemination and the decentralized nature of the technology, once the cat is out of the bag, there is no way to put it back. The idea of a temporary injunction seems to have merit, but there is no real way to accomplish that in a situation like this. In the end, there is ineptitude all around.
“The point of the article is to illustrate how the government failed in its attempt at censorship, and the wider implications of this fact.”
Are you celebrating the failure, or criticizing the attempt? Do you blame Amazon for not standing up to the pressure? How do you judge Assange’s intent? Does it matter? If America was materially harmed, would you feel differently? If some of our strongest allies were suddenly assassinated as a direct result of something like this, would you feel differently about a government attempt to shut it down?
I think it unwise to jump to conclusions about how any of this is going to wash out, or even how it should wash out. As you said, it is a difficult topic, and no one’s interests are served by pouring hyperbole upon inflammatory rhetoric, IMHO.
However, I do commend you for putting this article out there for discussion. That serves an important purpose, in my view.
Regards,
Wildberry,
First of all, I am very clear in the article that it has nothing to do with Amazon. It was a celebration of the failure, and nothing more. Anything else is inconsequential to the topic of the article. I will repeat myself: there was no moralizing taking place.
I would like to remind you thought that if the government was aiming to work to our benefit then there would be far less incentive amongst “whistle blowers” to divulge confidential information. I would be willing to wage some money that there would be less confidential information to divulge. Confidentiality about information that is relevant to populations as a whole is usually bad.
Regards,
Jonathan
Jonathan,
“I would like to remind you thought that if the government was aiming to work to our benefit then there would be far less incentive amongst “whistle blowers” to divulge confidential information.”
I think you mean far less need to do it. Ther is a strong disincentive for doing it, as it exposes one to personal risk. But I do agree with your ponit.
If you keep a secret from me, and later divulge it to me, and I see from this that you were acting in my interest, then I can conclude I had no need to have you divulge it in advance. That may have actually served my purpose less satisfactorily.
Of course, this is the problem, and why it is so controversial. Does the fed,for example, always act in my best interest? Hardly. On this we probably agree.
>>These documents were taken by someone who violated the trust that had been granted to him by those who had legitimate control to access.
I agree with you, but if we’re coming at it from a ‘contract’ and ‘theft’ position then the question remains, who owns the Government? If it’s the people themselves, as its shareholders, then don’t they have a right to this information, since it was communication that took place in an official capacity on behalf of the state?
Graham
“We” do have a right to as much information as we can letitimately demand. I think the entire operation of governemnt, at all levels, should be much more transparent. There are very few justifications for secrecy in government.
But there are some circumstances that require discretion. This is not the “Truman show”.
If the size and scope of government was much smaller, this issue would be a smaller issue too.
Although ironically, your demand for transparency only applies to government functions. Since we don’t “own” private enterprise, the transparancy obligation is much less.
For example, actual corporate sharehoders only have a right to certain types of information, and SEC laws dictate how and when this information must be disclosed.
Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Without the SEC, no obligation, no consequences, no problem?
>>But there are some circumstances that require discretion. This is not the “Truman show”.
I agree with that. In fact so does WikiLeaks, since they exerted some effort to redact some of the information deemed potentially dangerous. Although the rift between its founding members suggests that some of them at least thought that process should have gone further.
What I meant was that it’s not just simply a case of “breach of trust” and “theft”. As essentially the owners of Government we do have some claim to information, and we agree on that. Arguably much of the benevolent, but duplicitous, backroom diplomacy that is apparent in the leaks is legitimately a public concern, because it directly effects the interests of the people who own the Government, the same way the classification of certain information is also in our best interests. The potential for damaging leaks is now a reality of technology. The flow on effect is that either governments start being a little more open in their diplomacy and/or diplomacy is restricted to “official statements”. Either way is an improvement, in my opinion.
>>Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Without the SEC, no obligation, no consequences, no problem?
Not at all. Transparency must be legislated for in the commercial sector.
Graham,
We seem to be aligned on all points. That redaction tidbit is interesting, I hadn’t heard that. This implies that somebody involved recognized a responsibilitly not to harm innocents, at some level.
That aspect of the story has received no emphasis, as far as I know.
On your general point concerning the desirability of government transparency, I couldn’t agree more. Even in mundane matters, where the people’s right to know is unquestioned, there is not enough obligation, in my view.
The current omnibus bill is just the latest example. Now that SHOULD be more like the Truman show!
Regards,
” If someone steals documents, and then publishes them against the owner’s will, that is a crime; ”
Not if the original “owner” is himself, a thief.
I hope someone does a story on the EPA\honeybee debacle. The fact that people thought that the EPA was this angelic institution that would protect us all is laughable at best.
And so it becomes necessary to establish global governance through which censorship can again become an affective tool of control.
Bloody revolutions are not in style because we don’t know whom we should hang. Shall we hang the people we elected two years ago or the people we elected this year? Our Constitution was designed to keep the Americans in serfdom and guarantee that our owners get richer. Our owners do not live in the US. How shall we hang them? Did the colonists really win the war of 1776?
Stupid Americans think we are “free” because we can own guns, got to church where we please, and write nasty things about politicians. Big Deal! Our owners are the only ones who understand “sticks and stones . . . ?”
Stupid Americans think we are free because we have secret elections. Americans will never be free BECAUSE we have free elections. Americans are afraid to let their neighbors know form whom they voted? Why? They been lying to their neighbors. This is one of the few URLs where people are not afraid to use their real names. Maybe that’s why I’m not afraid to claim Libertarian Party membership. I don’t have to be afraid of Libertarians.
Very well written article Jonathan.
I agree with the criticisms of the government, but am not clear as to the position of this article. Is it that the government should never have the power to maintain secrecy? For example during WWII, should it have been legal to publish our troop movements, and the activities in Los Alamos NM?
The question is irrelevant because the released documents are describing imperial policy, not defensive military tactics.
Well written article. However, recent events in the wikileaks / Assange case lead to a more generalized view:
Money = Power. Spending your money on products manufactured / distributed by a company based in a state that helps bringing down Wikileaks or its founder, will inevitably support the finances of this state.
However, if you support Wikileaks, you have to take a decision. You cannot serve two masters.
That’s why I stopped buying products manufactured / distributed by companies based in the US (for chasing Mr. Assange and desperately trying to construct an allegation and criminal charge) and Sweden (for affiliating with the US and acting in this smear campaign).
Depending on the final decision on extradition, the UK will also be added to this list.
P.S.: PayPal account was cancelled a week ago, Amazone is not being used for this years christmas shopping (and probably never will be used again – although I appreciated its service).
I note the repeated references to Hitler and the Nazis regarding censorship; our local library will not allow a copy of Hitlers’ book on the shelves. I doubt Nazis are responsible for that policy.
you wouldn’t say that if you knew my librarians.
You’re on the right track but heading in the wrong direction. It’s the opposite. The man still conducts the Internet. The Internet was invented by the state, ibid, Department of Naval Research, the Arpanet. Also, it isn’t everywhere. At least not yet. My sole point is that the Internet shall be controlled by man some way, some day. For now, it’s a good tool for good or bad use.
Actually, that’s wrong. ARPANET is one of those fancy stories told to convince us of some government legitimacy. Just like how NASA regularly takes credit for private market innovations, ARPANET was just the armed forces way of ripping off Hewlett-Packard, who invented the first network 5 years before the ARPANET project even started.
There is still information that Americans NEED to know about, and this is one is just as important as leaking info about the war and the fed. America needs to know about Obama’s background. Obama still hasn’t released any official documentation about himself.
The beginning of this article is ridiculous, to draw an analogy between the censorship of Nazi Germany, and governments keeping secrets is simply rhetorically dishonest. Even if there may not have been an explicit analogy drawn, starting the article with that incident in history does not implicitly.
“Presently, our ability to attain knowledge is threatened because said knowledge represents a threat to the state — not to ‘national security,’ as is claimed, but to the legitimacy of the state itself.”
Everyone keeps secrets, just because of the government does so does not hurt human knowledge. Would you say that it is immoral for the governments to keep secrets at all, or shall we publish the day-to-day orders and operation play-books of the U.S. military each day on the internet? I would consider that not only stupid, but also immoral since it puts soldiers unnecessarily at risk.
“The threat posed by Assange is underscored by the government’s seemingly disproportionate response. Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, successfully used the power of the state to shut down part of WikiLeaks.”
This is a bad analysis. Just because a single senator, known for being a national security hawk, took action does not mean that the entire government believes Assange to be a threat to its legitimacy. The U.S. government is a complicated organization containing many interest groups and world-views, yet this analysis treats it as homogeneous so it is erroneous.
“Bloody revolution is no longer with the times, because government’s armies are becoming more and more immaterial. As this WikiLeaks episode unfolds, and as government sows the seeds of its own humiliation, we will see government combated, not by force of arms, but by the supremacy of the market.”
Revolution will always be a bloody affair, and it will always be with the times . The only reason why the Western world has avoided the bloodshed now seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Congo, among other places, is that it has institutions so that political power can be handed off without the need to resort to violence.
Overall, this is a terrible article with scant analysis, all of it wrong, and plenty of libertarian sword-rattling. Funny to read, though.
So far, we know of nearly 10,000 years of “goverment” abuse (control), and it’s something no material or intellectual market will ever permanently overcome, because we are bent by fear, lust, greed, malice, etc.
The idea that “government” seeks control is simply metaphorical if you aske me; it’s actually other people trying to control people. And so long as they seek the goals of their ugly, animalistic human nature, there will always be an effort to abuse the masses using a tool call “government”.
You know what typically happens to those thoroughly disrupting the establishment, whatever and wherever it is.
“You know what typically happens to those thoroughly disrupting the establishment, whatever and wherever it is.”
Yes. They’re remembered as heroes. While those who remain quiet are remembered as cowards.
US troop movements being leaked in WW2, mentioned as a supposedly relevant comparison, is of course a crime within the parameters of that war, but as an example here it is comparable to only records from Sony being illegally downloaded. And one might hail Wikileaks introducing such leaks, but still be unwilling to support it if one thought future leaks would be likely to include American secrets only. It might take some time before leaks from China with any substance will appear, but I think they eventually will, and then most Americans might think it a good thing?
This is a fine article … especially pointing out the merits of the Internet. At a different time and place history shows that Gutenberg’s press instigated parallel measures to provide information that rendered the State and Church impotent for a period of time. That said, I’d impone that the ever-increasing dismay by all governments and the elite whose iron-fisted control is slowly slipping away will try and rebound via ever-increasing their thugatarian measures to sequester information: increase self-serving propaganda and instituting greater use of the “law,” bringing the badge and gun to bare, all in trying to stifle information flow. “National security,” doncha ya know?!
I personally do not think they will succeed … as well they shouldn’t! Ya just never know how mean and ugly things will get … especially when it comes to the U.S. government! Future sanctions will determine the true value of free-flowing information especially the Internet and just how much Americans and others in this world will take, and finally recognize just how truly corrupt their governmental institutions have become. We’ll see what happens. Pick a good seat early to view the coming events!
******************
If we want to keep our nation’s secrets SECRET, store them where President Obama stores his college transcripts and birth certificate. ~ Governor Mike Huckabee … concerning WikiLeaks
C’est la guerre,
Capt. A.
Principauté de Monaco
UTC +1:00 CET
“There’s no government … like NO government.” ~ Bumper sticker of long ago
Seems to me that the big objection to boycotting Amazon is that it punishes Amazon for having been willing to put up Wikileaks materials in the first place. Boycotting Amazon wouldn’t even be up for discussion if Amazon had denied it a place on Amazon.com in the first place.
What the boycott teaches companies is to look ahead and deny a place to any controversy that might possibly raise objections from the government. The exact opposite of what the boycotters are supposed to be opposing. (Rather as the unconstitutional federal disabilities Act hurts the disabled by making businesses want to avoid hiring or renting to them.)
@ Wildberry,
Everything you claim is “illegal” (even if we set aside Spooner’s cogent objections to the idea that the State represents some sort of legitimate authority) is due to the federal regime’s appropriation of powers that prima facie violate the terms of its own constitution and treaties.
For example, the U.S. hasn’t been in a declared war since WWII. The Constitution has a procedure for the declaration of war, precisely so the government can’t casually or unofficially interfere in the affairs of other countries. The presence of more than 800 U.S. military bases in more than 140 foreign countries, or the hidden and blatantly criminal actions of the so-called CIA, ad nauseum, has absolutely no legitimacy within the premises upon which our regime is predicated. It’s the presidents, the Congresses, the federal courts, the generals, the “intelligence” agents etc. who are the traitors. Anyone exposing them is a hero and patriot, the politically appointed federal judiciary notwithstanding.
Strange that no stories embarrassing to Israel have (yet) emerged from Wikileaks.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/12/08/gordon-duff-busted-wikileaks-working-for-israel/
I think I shall quote the following line from this article on my Facebook page:
“As government sows the seeds of its own humiliation, we will see government combated, not by force of arms, but by the supremacy of the market.”
-Jonathan M. Finegold Catalán
Comments on this entry are closed.