steveOh!

Internetocracy?

You know what the most beautiful thing about the internet is? The absolute lack of any governing authority. It also happens to be the essential element that has made the internet such an incredible technological, economic, and cultural success.

Nobody gets to vote on my status update. Nobody gets to vote on what I can post on Tumblr. No majority gets to decide what I should say in a YouTube video, or what I should purchase —tax-free—from Amazon.

I, like billions of others, am afforded by the internet the opportunity to exercise absolute control over my own affairs—if only the parts that are on the internet— and to use that freedom to learn, create, communicate, and do amazing things which have stretched very the limits of human potential.

So I when I think of the possibilities of and Internetocracy, I don’t imagine a new way to administer democracy—a wretched system by which everyone seeks to control everyone else, and by which minorities are oppressed by an easily manipulated majority—but instead I imagine a world where real life begins to mimic the best virtues of the internet and humanity begins to discover the incredible things that can be achieved by free people interacting and trading voluntarily with one another, independent of so-called authorities.

Some thoughts on the Younger Paul

On Tuesday, Sen. Paul single-handedly prevented the quick passage of new sanctions on Iran in the US Senate. His demand was to include language preventing the legislation from being construed as an authorization of military force against Iran or Syria. Basically, he is forcing his fellow Senators to vote publicly as to whether or not they intend to make war on the two countries.

This throws a great big monkey wrench in the Senate’s plan. The plan being, of course, to allow the President to start the war, claiming authority under a dubious reading of the sanction legislation, and for Congress to feign impotence—as they did both with the war in Iraq during the last administration, and with the war in Libya during this one—to stop him.

Now, either they accept Paul’s amendment and tie the hands of the President whilst going on record opposing military intervention against Iran and Syria (which doesn’t play well in AIPAC circles), or Senators must reject the amendment and vote for cloture, publicly tipping their hand as being in favor of the shiny new war in Iran (which doesn’t play well with the American people).

Those of us in the anti-war camp should acknowledge that this is an important and heroic stand that Rand Paul is taking. It shows, despite the fact that he previously voted in favor of sanctions against Iran, that he is at least serious about trying to prevent a shooting war. For this reason, I don’t think it’s prudent for libertarians to write off Rand Paul as I witnessed so many do in the wake of his sanctions vote.

Yes, sanctions are technically an act of war in and of themselves, and, yes, they are quite often a precursor to a real shooting war. However, Rand Paul doesn’t seem to share those concerns. Does that mean he’s just another neocon in libertarian’s clothing? It would probably be a cop-out to mention that even Thomas Jefferson used trade restrictions as an alternative to a shooting war with the British—mostly because the disaster that was the Embargo of 1807 is so well documented.

With regard to sanctions, I’m reminded of Bastiat’s admonishment that when “goods don’t cross borders, armies will.” Without even having to mention the role of sanctions in the trainwreck that is North Korea, or the humanitarian catastrophe sanctions visited on the people of Iraq less than two decades ago—which, in the end, did nothing to weaken Saddam’s regime—suffice to say, the son of Ron Paul really should know better.

It is clear—despite assurances I’ve been given by people close to the Pauls that Rand, though he plays more to the conservative base, is just like his father—that he is clearly no Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a voluntaryist at heart, and—unless, of course, the American people were actually under legitimate threat—would oppose intervention even if there was a single shred of evidence that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon (there isn’t).

To a Ron Paul, there is no legitimate reason for the government to inhibit peaceful and voluntary trade between two parties no matter who they are or where they live. Rand, on the other hand, seems to believe something must be done to discourage a nuclear Iran, but if his previous statements and his actions today are any indication, he seems even more earnestly opposed to a hot war with the country.

That’s why I don’t write him off. Not yet anyway. While there is clearly an ideological divide between him and his dad, his voting record, with exception of the black spot of the sanctions vote—and it is a big black spot—is mostly one that would make Ron Paul proud.

In his short time in office, Rand Paul has filibustered the Patriot Act, proposed a balanced budget amendment and budget that cuts $500 billion year one, fought against illegal searches—in and out of the Senate chambers—by the TSA, publicly scolded top DOE bureaucrats for forcing substandard light bulbs and toilets upon the American people, and now most importantly, is working to obstruct this insane march toward another disastrous war in the Middle East, and he’s done all of it from a very influential and high-profile position in the US Senate. That’s an ally, ladies and gentlemen—though perhaps an imperfect one—and heaven knows we need all that we can get.

So, in the end, Rand Paul isn’t the next great libertarian hope—looking for that in a politician was your first mistake (Ron Paul is a freak of nature in that respect). But I will continue to watch Rand—even if it is with a bit more skepticism now—and I will continue to applaud his accomplishments and the strength of his convictions. I will even vote for him, if given the chance, because even with his faults he is infinitely better than almost anyone else in American politics. I will continue to support him and, who knows, if he smartens up on sanctions and some other issues, I could even see myself possibly donating to or volunteering for one of his future campaigns. In the meantime though, I think he could really benefit from some quality time with the old man.