Today LoganFerre attempted a
A Left-Libertarian Manifesto earnestly while generic outrage at "wiretapping," frankly without any point beyond wishing it were 1999 continued all over the site, and interguru bugged me with the centrist triangulation versus entertainment in
A parenting issue we cannot ignore. Here is some
suggested reading to follow up that diary with.
In short, we do need a manifesto. A statement of principles for progressives who value privacy and free expression that is topical to the issues of today, tomorrow, and the very recent past. Realize that this does not exist. There is no vision. Disagree with this if you wish, but agree it should exist.
The Limits of Political Progressivism
There are limits to what should be tackled at the ballot box. It is important to state this pragmatically for electoral interests. But it is also important for the socially progressive with legitimate grievances like Gay Marriage to realize that they have other avenues where they may be more successful: Paving the way in public opinion at least to shore up coalition support.
Politics can protect existing rights from insurgent social mores, sometimes, although there are failures such as Prohibition. But politics is a vehicle for social progress only at cost, such as Desegregation. Sometimes that is a necessary battle, sometimes not. But the only necessary battles are in wars you can ultimately win. You can't hope to win a war for social mores without actually mobilizing for it in the populace to win public opinion completely outside of politics. Hearts and minds, people. So political battles, such as for Gay Marriage, can be very short-lived if the war has not in fact been joined where it will be fought.
However, this is not a point about discouraging the use of politics for any particular social-more activism, either where it would expand rights or renege them.
This is a point about politics being an inappropriate vehicle for the advancement of any social mores.
The Limits of Government Against Progress
Government should not have a role in shaping society in terms of its norms, or the extent of the diverse philosophies society includes. What government should do is protect peoples (and corporations) rights and liberties while ensuring no one's rights or liberties are trespassed. None of us have a right, for example, to remain unaffected by information. All we have a right to protection from is that which is illegal and otherwise presently and undeniably dangerous to our physical persons, which includes toxins, murder, rape, kidnapping, speeding cars and trains. Even the odd occasional terrorist.
In seeking to provide this service, government should respond to all specific complaints that people have vigorously so far as it does not abridge or discourage free expression and information, which are absolutes. Actual crimes (real world and not imaginary) which may be conveyed via such media should not be held to impugn said media. Real crime should be fought. As to thought crime: Doesn't exist in progressivism. And certainly, no double standards regarding infant media versus established media, or sex versus violence, or that which favors police and patriotism versus that which has a rebellious theme, should be tolerated. Intellectual honesty, and above all a passion for dispassionate fairness, are the hallmarks of good progress.
What we do not need, and will not accept as progressive left liberal libertarian whatevers, is any further regulation of free thought, expression, information at this time. We do not hold that the existing arrangement is permanent, because it is far too convenient to imagine that we live in a state of perfection. But we can be darn sure that this is not the climate in which we should concede anything to the book-burners, wire-tappers, or burqa-enforcers. The buck stops here. We are not going to agree collectively to invest in a political fight to roll back any regulation in this era, or to advance any revolution in mores, but we will push in order to push back. We will hold the lines for the legitimate freedoms we hold dear today, whether we actually hold them dear or not, against any temptation to "do good," or any seeming political expediency.
The Practical Constructive Applications Today
That cannot, of course, be a bar to the ongoing business of governance which includes legislation. Of battling to stop the clock or roll it back to 1999, we are not really serious about that. We are not advocating to "Shut It Down."
So the following principle is the practical breakdown of this one-point manifesto:
Information should be supplied to the people for buying, viewing, and listening decisions, including to allow electronic proofs to function. However, no new regulation should be made on how certain media can be distributed and to whom, unless absolutely across the board regarding all media. In short, A-Bomb plans can't be shown on HBO so public access TV requires no special regulation, nor do camera cell phones and so on. Collecting and grading that information should be the responsibility of consumers ultimately via democratic tagging systems, so that eventually bodies like the MPAA sunset in their dictatorial power over the practical avenues available to free speech.
Information however should not be used against freedom. Therefore regulation and enforcement should require a complaint as a first order of business. Law enforcement should not be unduly restricted in their ability to do as other citizens do and, for example, find out where to get "Superman Returns" off Bit Torrent in order to fight theft. That's legit. Storing all information that might be of use at a later date simply is not.
They can register said complaint of real crime on behalf of an unaware target of theft or an anonymous real victim of, say, a recorded crime. Following the trail of charged crimes should potentially (and in serious cases definitely) lead to the investigation of possible further crimes by the same individual. However free expression and free association should be scrupulously encouraged by abstaining from the collection or interception of data.
In effect, no victim, actual or proxy witness, no presumption of crime. No blow to expression and information without said mandate; therefore no mandated data retention. While the rollback of Operation: TIPS rightly reflected that we should not be a nation of snoops, we should encourage people to come forward with real crime tips, and not discourage them from assisting in the enforcement of their own laws.
Red Meat For "Joe Sixpack" and "Jane Ladies' Home Journal"
This touches upon the Minutemen thusly: Illegal immigrants should be presumed innocent of that charge and should be subject to no harassment or interference that would be illegal or inappropriate to subject a citizen to. Government and individual politicians should not be exhorting them, but neither should law restrict them from merely gathering information in public places and passing it to law enforcement.
People's personal or corporate outward expression should not be considered by the government (or corporations, or eavesdropping stalking individuals) to be any more public than the interior of their homes and offices. Their homes should not be consider less sacred than their persons. Their persons should be as off-limits as their minds and souls. And those are not subject to governance.
As regards marriage, it should be enough to supply a marriage certificate to prove marriage. It should be enough to supply a marriage certificate for two individually eligible people to apply for one. At no time is it any government's business to record their gender or make any determinations accordingly, nor is it the business of insuring corporations to do so.
This is the manifesto of liberal principles on free expression and association via all media. It does not handle some things satisfactorily, like "Cybervigilantes," i.e. the Minutemen of street obscenity. I would welcome opinions on that as well as the scope of this piece.
The desire here is to empower people to protect themselves and one another against real harm and trespass by other individuals, corporations, or government. Pursuing that goal, and never the empowerment of government and corporations over people, or for that matter government over corporations where free expression is concerned, is sure to have better results for the clients of government.