Thursday, September 19, 2002

Civil Liberties, Libertarians and Anarchists -- Unlikely Bedfellows? Wired mag has a nice profile on Copyright warrior lawyer Larry Lessig that's a bit deeper and more probing than most I've read of him. Although he's plowing a very important route for the future of civil liberties, I don't think he's the big rebel that more perfunctory press accounts paint him to be. Rather, he's a hard working reformist who's willing to dissent with the received wisdom on the crucial area of intellectual property. And while Disney and the rest of the entertainment cartel see him as a roadblock to their exponential profit growth, the guy isn't advocating the downfall of copyright and intellectual property (which would require major constitutional tinkering, anyway). He's simply fighting for the rationalization of copyright.

I think it's also interesting that, as this article notes, he started out his political life as a right-winger and libertarian. I actually don't think this is so unusual. My experience indicates that so many people self-identify as conservatives or libertarians because of their strong concerns for individual rights and civil liberties, and the belief that those are core principles of the American way of life. They tend to go right or libertarian instead of left or anarchist because of the general mainstream smearing of the left, socialism and communism, not to mention the true evils executed in the name of socialistic philosophies (leaving aside the evils executed in the name of colonialism, mercantilism and capitalism). In many ways it's a route I, myself, have traveled.

Though I've never considered myself a conservative or right-wing, I have self-identified as libertarian due to my strong sense of individual liberty combined with a suspicion of untamed group action (be that a group of CEOs, cops, or well-meaning activists). However, lots of thinking and consideration of democratic principles, along with a better understanding of anarchy and consensus has tempered the more bone-headed libertarian impulses -- those that are ignorant of larger impact of supposed individual action on other people. Indeed, I've become quite more an anarchist.

This is why I often coach activists and leftists to not be overly knee-jerk in their responses to libertarians -- there is often a wide area of agreement between them, whether either side wishes to acknowledge it or not. They both greatly value freedom. With some patient and thoughtful discussion and deliberation I think libertarians can find lots to agree upon with those of more left persuations, and, especially, anarchists. It's not an anti-libertarian notion to strike at hierarchies and dictatorial structures that impede personal liberty. The biggest impediment to agreement is typically seeing the corporation to be as evil, constraining and anathema to individual liberty as "big government" -- this requires the free-thinking libertarian to take make quite a shift from the unexamined and hegemonic dogma of corporate freedom, but is quite revelatory when effected.

And while many a libertarian might be also suspicious of working within a real democratic structure, especially where group consensus is a priority, I think experience can be the best teacher. I know that working in situations where cooperation, rather than competition, were emphasized has greatly improved my view of the potential for group interaction and action. I've learned that often my own self-interest can be creatively re-imagined so that it meshes nicely with what others want or need.

This doesn't mean I think the Cato Institute can be won over to Anarchism -- Cato's conception of the individual has more to do with corporate liberty (corporation as individual) than true individual liberty. But if you are willing to sit, listen and discuss, you'll find that a "conservative" or "libertarian" who has actually given thoughtful consideration to her beliefs will likely also engender some of the same suspicions of corporation and government, even if they manifest in different ways. You both might even be able to join forces on some issues, without each having to sell your souls.

I guess my argument is this: be ruthlessly suspicious of dogma, but be willing to hash it out with real people who might believe some of that dogma. Thoughful people evolve and learn, even though organizations, corporations, governments, philosophies and dogma often can't (or won't) keep up. You never know when a little open (and kind) dialogue will bring some very smart people over to your side.
posted 9/19/2002 02:06:24 PM [link to this entry] [respond] [top]