Laissez Faire Today

The Laissez Faire Club Daily e-Letter

Aaron Swartz, Hero and Martyr

011513_LFT

My apologies for the sad tone of this piece, but a hero has fallen and we need to pay him tribute — and make sure his death is not in vain.

Every turning point in the history of civilization has its champions and its opponents. The opponents of the digital age are those who use the power of the state to keep the population in a state of ignorance, even though the technology is at hand to universalize knowledge through digital networks. The main weapon they use is known as “intellectual property,” even though the monopoly censorship they advocate has nothing to do with actual property.

The champions of the digital age are doing the opposite, breaking down the limits and working to spread enlightenment through peaceful means. They understand the astonishing power of computer networks to produce, reproduce, scale, and distribute unto infinity everything that can be rendered into digital form. Their work has set off the greatest migration in human history from the limits of the physical world to the unlimited possibilities embedded in global computer networks.

One such champion — now a martyr for the cause of freedom — was Aaron Swartz (1986-2013). He was the one of the brightest stars of his generation. That star took his own life in apparent frustration, depression, and fear over the ghastly hounding he was receiving from the U.S. Department of Justice. You might say that this David should have battled this Goliath to the death. But Aaron was only 26, a brilliant, kind, and sensitive young man whose passion was not war, but enlightenment. It was too much for him.

Born in Chicago, he showed astonishing promise at an early age. He came of age as the Internet opened to the world. He was winning prizes and meeting the greats at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at the age of 13. At 14, he co-authored “Really Simple Syndication,” an innovative means of assembling and distributing Web content that makes Web browsing easy. It powers the “app economy,” makes reader programs work, and enables the content to be mixed and remixed all over the digital universe.

Aaron founded in Infogami, which later turned into Reddit, one of the Web’s most popular sites for information sharing and content generation. As with most of his projects, Reddit pushes aside the gatekeepers and puts the tools of creation in the hands of users. He then founded openlibrary.org on the same principle: By devolving power to you and me and away from the big shots, we can create tools that serve humanity in unprecedented ways.

To Aaron, the digital economy was not really about running the world through code and technology. It was about empowering people themselves with the ability to contribute to the building of ever greater technologies in the service of humanity. As much as he loved code, his true affections were for the human mind and the way technology enables it to take flight as never before. He could never understand why government was in resistance. He was like a person in the Renaissance raised with the printing press, astonished at people who wanted to smash it.

He was so convinced that digits were powered by human minds that he even put it to the test in seeking the real power behind Wikipedia. He refuted the supposition of even co-founder Jimmy Wales that it was a relatively small number of editors who were the main content providers. He demonstrated that the main providers were millions of users themselves, thereby upending even what the owners and experts had supposed. (He was only 19 years old when he showed this.)

Aaron was facing a trial this coming April, with him on one side and the full power of the world’s most heavily armed government on the other. The prosecution wanted him fined more than a million dollars and jailed for possibly 30-plus years. And what had he done? He hid a laptop in a closet at MIT and downloaded academic papers that are already available to millions around the world, with the apparent attempt to make them available even more broadly. That’s all he did. For this, he was charged with wire fraud and computer fraud.

The database he had tapped into is known as JSTOR. It is a global archive of academic papers published over the last 100 years in all fields and disciplines. It allows students to search, assemble, cite, and study in ways that would have been unimaginable a generation ago. Bibliographies that once took months to assemble now take seconds. Research once available to a tiny number is now available to students and faculty the world over.

JSTOR is a mighty service, even a marvel, and there are good reasons to celebrate the company and its achievements. At the same time, there is something squirrely about the service. It is available only at superhigh subscription prices and allocated based on geographic IP address. If you are on campus, you can get the goods. If you are not and have no logins, you are out of luck. Outside the IP range, it’s darkness.

Remember, we are talking about scientific research that is mostly tax-funded and from which the authors themselves receive no royalty or payment of any kind. Moreover, the subscription system is made profitable not because of the forces of free enterprise, but because the payments are made largely by public universities also living off taxpayers. The whole thing smacks of a kind of information feudalism. The scientists are the serfs. Those without access are cast into the outer darkness.

To its credit, JSTOR never lifted a finger against Aaron. They knew of his downloads, but never pressed charges. In fact, JSTOR has responded to his activism by gradually moving toward a more open policy. MIT can’t say the same, but the real villain here was the federal government. “Stealing is stealing,” barked U.S. District Attorney Carmen Ortiz, “whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data, or dollars.”

Except for one thing: That is completely false. Crowbars hurt people. Stealing dollars takes from one person to give to another. But Aaron didn’t take anything away from anyone. Ortiz might not understand this, but when you download something, it doesn’t actually remove it from the original server. It makes an exact copy. It can do this with no limit. That’s the whole power of digital media.

The driving motivation in Aaron’s mind was information liberation. We have the capacity — right now in our times — to create global libraries of all known things. What’s stopping it is this antique institution known as copyright, an outright government privilege for monopolistic producers who use the violence of the state to stop peaceful sharing of knowledge. Aaron was offended by such limits in times when they are wholly unnecessary and cause unneeded human suffering.

Aaron didn’t choose the path of piracy and underground hacking to disable the feudalism. He wasn’t even particularly exercised about copyright itself. What he favored was freedom, free speech in particular. He sought constructive alternatives, which is why he was a great champion of Creative Commons, a system that uses existing copyright law, but allows writers and researchers to share their discoveries and creations with humanity, instead of having them smothered.

All that said, it wasn’t his attempt to liberate JSTOR that caused the government to go after him. No, it was something far more specular. Aaron also founded Common Dreams as a vehicle for digital activism. Much to the astonishment of nearly everyone, he marshaled the power of global networks last year to beat back one of the most deadly pieces of legislation to ever be proposed by Congress: the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA.

SOPA was at war with the whole idea of information sharing, which is to say the whole basis of modern economic life and cultural progress. It would have given the power to any private party to aggress against any distributor of information and to do so without warnings, hearings, or burdens of proof. Taken to its extreme, the legislation would have rolled back history to a pre-1995 state of being.

Because no one told him that he could not, Aaron used every innovation to stop it. Within a matter of weeks, Congress backed off in absolute fear of the global outrage that had been engendered by the educational materials that Aaron had distributed. What no one expected had happened. Even politicians in the pay of media moguls backed down.

It was beautiful. In doing this, Aaron not only stopped the leviathan state; he pointed to the possibility of something completely marvelous, a reinvention of the way that citizens take part in the political process. In other words, he was showing how computer networks themselves could be used to upend the power of the state as we know it. He was innovating a new form of restraining power and giving it back to people, doing for the business of civic affairs what he had already done with technology.

The establishment was insanely bitter about the defeat. Within days, the government took action against the popular file-sharing site Megaupload in a military-style hit against its founder’s private estate, using SOPA-like powers that Congress had just denied the beast. It was as if the establishment was saying, “We don’t care about Aaron and what he did. We want this power. We are going to use the power. The people have nothing to do with it.”

Aaron’s work pointed to a brighter future. The government never forgave him for this. This is why they hounded him. This is why they wanted to bankrupt him. This is why they wanted him behind bars. They wanted him brought low. They wanted him in an orange jumpsuit, eating old bread and groveling before the judges and wardens. And they would accept no compromise, despite his lawyers attempts to negotiate: Aaron must be captured and jailed.

He would not relent. He would not give up his dreams and let them be shattered by their lies, pomps, black robes, and prisons. Our hearts break — deeply and profoundly — at Aaron’s decision to take his life. Maybe he saw it as a last cry for freedom. His having done so makes it impossible for them to make him a slave.

The state has taken from us an epic genius and humanitarian. What can come of this? Sometimes, the suffering and death of one great individual can shock society into dramatic change in a legal practice. Such people become martyrs, and their memories touch the conscience of everyone. We are overwhelmed by the sense of loss, and we vow to never see its like again.

“The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins.” — Soren Kierkegaard

Yours,
Jeffrey Tucker

  • Pingback: Ed and Ethan Show 42 with Jeffery A. Tucker

  • Pingback: Ed and Ethan Show 42 with Jeffery A. Tucker | Ed and Ethan

  • Pingback: Ciò che lega Kim Dot Com, Aaron Swartz, Bradley Manning e Julian Assange | libertariaNation

  • Edward

    Wondering why so many people accept his death as a suicide without questioning whether this was, in fact, how Aaron died.

    • geneiup

      HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE DIED OF SUICIDES AND OTHER MEANS and were acturally deliberately murdered to silence or cover up anything. President JFK, death bed confession by watergate criminal goes unheard by a public outcry.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Billy-Mullins/1613683982 Billy Mullins

    Finding myself also in the jaws of Leviathan (My crime? Failing to show proper respect to one of Leviathan’s minions. You would not BELIEVE what Yogi Bear’s kindly Mr. Ranger has morphed into.) I often think there should be a special entrance to every courthouse just for defendants in criminal cases. Over the door should be posted “Abandon hope all ye who enter here.” It is a fearful thing to be caught in the jaws of leviathan.

    Since the Defense Authorization was passed year, any of us may be seized by federal troops, carried off and incarcerated indefinitely merely under SUSPICION of being a “terrorist”. “Posse Commitatus” and “habeas corpus” be damned! If Leviathan wants you it WILL have you by hook or by crook.

  • Pingback: Does the Aaron Swartz Case Present a Dilemma for Libertarians? | Lucifer the Light-Bearer

  • http://www.facebook.com/Decon21 Ed Lemieux

    We invite Jeffery A. Tucker onto the show to talk about the untimely loss of this Internet freedom activist.
    http://youtu.be/l0o9w-w8xdM?t=1h14m40s

  • studd

    Thank you for the article, he embodied a cause both the right and left can rally around.

  • Pingback: Potpourri

  • http://www.facebook.com/kaitlin.wiebe Kaitlin Maria Wiebe

    Well, I think he was a hero and a genius, for sure. And maybe he saw his death as a last cry for freedom, but I kind of doubt it. You don’t think that way when you’re depressed. You want escape, that’s it. To glorify suicide, is to simplify life, and brush over the uncomfortable reality of mental illness and the complexity of human psychology.

    There are probably times when suicide is a noble choice, but I don’t think this was one of them. I try to suspend judgement on people who commit suicide, cause I’ve been close myself, and I know that it’s not an easy thing to resist when you have Depression. Still, lets not stretch the truth. The state didn’t take Aaron from us. Yeah, they treated him horribly, and unjustly. But Aaron chose to die. Aaron left of his own accord.

    It’s like his illness is too embarrassing to focus on or something. As if to say he succumbed due to it, is to call him weak. He wasn’t. It’s a struggle to keep living, if you have it. It’s fighting to just find the energy to stay alive. And I wish he’d had proper help in dealing with it. Who knows what else he would’ve done, had he lived? Would the state really have won?

    Anyway, the article Lew Rockwell posted covering this, presented the Depression side of it in a much more balanced way.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kaitlin.wiebe Kaitlin Maria Wiebe
    • Franklin

      Tucker did not glorify suicide. That is a poor implication of his thesis.

      “There are probably times when suicide is a noble choice, but I don’t think this was one of them.”
      You weren’t in his shoes, nor did you experience his own private, waking and sleeping moments and thoughts. Only one person did, and only one person can know.

      • geneiup

        VERY WELL SAID,I agree SUICIDE by BUDDIST MONKS MAYBE OK Doing IT FOR PROTEST. MY INNER SPIRT HAS A RIGHT TO DECIDE FOR ME ONLY I WILL NOT TAKE IT .I THINK FOR MYSELF. A GOOD GOD IS LOVE AND GOODNESS. FREEDOM IS NOT FREE,& it can be lost or stolen RIGHT from UNder our noses! DYING FOR ANYTHING IS A PERMANT SOLUTION FOR A TEMPORARY PROBLEM.TIME IS OF THE ESSENSE.

  • http://twitter.com/JoseRoy Jose Roy

    Most of the copyrighted stuff, use a communication language,
    aren’t those pirated? Yes, the rule of the Martyr begins…

  • disqus_TjKNdr6BXe

    Thank you for this article. I too believe that the pressure put upon Aaron by the Feds was a factor in his decision to end his life. It is true that some would have had the psychological stamina to stand up and fight in court. I often think about the psychological pain that people endure in our supposedly ‘free’ country. We know that we are being watched, recorded and can be punished for any infraction the Feds can dream up. That psychological pressure is real and goes against the ideals of the Founders in every way. I often ask people- which are you more afraid of – being killed by a terrorist or being audited by the Feds- I have yet to have anyone answer fear of terrorist. What they do not realize is that the Feds ARE the terrorists!!

  • Guest

    Martyrs keep up the fight in spite of everything. He’s no martyr if he
    kills himself. I’m sorry to seem harsh, but he gave up. He took the
    cowards way out. The State didn’t do it, he chose to do it. He may have been a hero to his effort, but in the end, he just committed suicide. Not a martyr by any definition. I believe in personal property, and if that property is digital, an individual or a company has a right to still own that property. Stealing is stealing. Just because it is easy to make a copy, doesn’t mean that person has a free right to it. And if it wasn’t for the big corporations there wouldn’t be an infrastructure to use in the first place. There is a cost to the infrastructure, there is a cost to research. I believe in a free market in ALL markets, the owner of their property are entitled to not have it freely distributed if they so choose. I would rather see a person want to volunteer to share their property rather than be forced to by someone who thought they were entitled to free access to it. How is that any different than the State telling us what we can and can’t do?

    • rikugo1

      First of all, ideas are not property. Property only exists as a way of justly allocating scarce resources. Preventing someone from copying information that has been freely released to others is claiming partial ownership over their life and property, and is therefore invalid.

      The corporations that you praise are not innovators; they crush innovation with the help of the state. Indeed, they were created by the state, and could not have become so bloated and detached from the needs of the market without them. What you are defending is in fact an entitlement, an artificial monopoly that in the end is bad for everyone. It is only marginally better than the government nationalizing industry.

    • Franklin

      You will not find a more staunch defender of property rights than Mr. Tucker.
      Yours is an astonishing response and evidence that you either did not read Jeffrey’s article in its entirety, or you did not comprehend its several points, let alone its thesis, which were proactive refutations of your comments.
      Sadly you have defended the tryants, while the human loss, individual and intellectual, flies blithely over your head.

    • George Autry

      I don’t wish to enter into a debate on the definition of martyrdom, but I would like to add my support to rikugo1 on the question of intellectual property, This is a topic concerning which even libertarians have been largely ensnared by the statist orthodoxy. I blame the founders for enshrining the power to grant patents in the Constitution. I freely acknowledge that the ideas expressed in the remainder of this missive are owed (by me at least) to Steven Kinsella’s book, “Against Intellectual Property” (which is available at Laissez Faire Books, or from me (gmautry@gmail.com) for free under the Creative Commons License, which Aaron championed).

      As rikugo1 pointed out, the concept of property, as understood by an advocate of freedom, exists to protect the individual’s possession of a scarce resource, that is, a resource which, when used by one individual, cannot be used by any other person. The original example is land. If I am standing on a plot of land, no one else may stand on it. This is a physical law. If I plant a seed in a patch of land, no one else may plant a seed in that patch without diminishing the yield of my crop, This is a physical law. This is the reality that the concept of property acknowledges.

      How does this concept apply to “intellectual property”? If I compose and whistle a jolly tune, and a passing stranger hears the tune, memorizes it, and whistles it for his wife when he arrives home, have I been harmed? Have I been prevented from whistling the tune to my wife and children? Has my property been diminished? It is not difficult, from a libertarian viewpoint, to discern that the stranger’s action is of no concern to me.

      But what if I write down the tune in a musical notation which is decipherable to many? Suppose that I then take the manuscript to a printer, from whom I obtain at some cost several copies of my work. Suppose I then go into the market and sell my work to any willing buyer. If these buyers then go home and whistle “my” tune to their spouses, I doubt any libertarian would dispute their right to do so. Nor do I suppose any libertarian would dispute the right of friends of the buyer, or even chance passersby, having heard and memorized the tune whistled by the buyer, to whistle it to their children in turn.

      But now, suppose one of these buyers has a friend who hears the tune, and wants to own a copy of the printed musical notation for himself. Suppose that the buyer, wishing to retain her purchased copy (we will call this “copy n”), but also wishing to accommodate her friend, and using paper that she has lawfully purchased, and ink that she justly possesses, copies the musical pattern purchased from me, and gives, or even sells it to her friend. What property of mine has she thus violated?

      It is true that this transfer represents the loss of a potential sale of my work that I might have benefited from, had the buyer not troubled to make a copy and the friend had sought me out in the marketplace. Is the buyer’s act thus a theft? Or is the imposition of an arbitrary law of copyright, backed by the violence of the state, a theft of the buyer’s right to dispose of his own property of paper, ink and labor? Please consider this question carefully.

      Consider that the natural right of any buyer to copy my tune and dispose of the copy as he wishes, though it may abort a potential sale by me, in no way diminishes the number of copies I still have to sell. In fact, it could easily transpire that “copy n” might have been my last copy on hand, and that I discounted my price to the actual buyer (a miser who drove a hard bargain) so that I might close up shop for the day, only to lose a sale at a premium to the wealthy, liberal man who entered the market a few minutes later. Is the actual buyer then responsible for my (imaginary) loss?

      And then consider that my use of arbitrary state violence to enjoin the sale of my work, copied by buyers (not thieves), constrains the property rights of every owner of paper and ink (or RAM) in the world.

      If I do not wish to have my work copied and distributed by others, I can certainly refrain from distributing it myself. Or I could enter into a contract with buyers which prohibits them from copying, or even reselling, my work. The first option would preclude my receipt of any benefit from the sale of my work, while the second option would increase my transaction costs significantly, reducing the potential benefit I might receive. But both options would be compatible with libertarian theory. However, if I rely on copyright law to prevent distribution of my work by others, I transfer the cost of this prohibition to the victims of tax theft.

      Thus, I contend that the right of “intellectual property” in copies disseminated by the originator, cannot be defended on moral or utilitarian grounds. This argument comprehends not only works of composition or authorship (copyright), but also works of invention, design or art that might be reproducible by one in rightful possession of the realized artifact (patent).