What Is Freedom? by Winston Churchill

What is freedom?

There are one or two quite simple, practical tests by which it can be known in the modern world in peace conditions -- namely:

Is there the right to free expression of opinion and of opposition and criticism of the Government of the day?

Have the people the right to turn out a Government of which they disapprove, and are constitutional means provided by which they can make their will apparent?

Are their courts of justice free from violence by the Executive and from threats of mob violence, and free from all association with particular political parties?

Will these courts administer open and well-established laws which are associated in the human mind with the broad principles of decency and justice?

Will there be fair play for poor as well as for rich, for private persons as well as Government officials?

Will the rights of the individual, subject to his duties to the State, be maintained and asserted and exalted?

Is the ordinary peasant or workman, who is earning a living by daily toil and striving to bring up a family free from the fear that some grim police organization under the control of a single party, like the Gestapo, started by the Nazi and Fascist parties, will tap him on the shoulder and pack him off without fair or open trial to bondage or ill-treatment?

These simple practical tests are some of the title-deeds on which a new Italy could be founded.

-- Winston Churchill 1944.

These same questions can be asked of any modern democracy.

Of particular concern today is political influence over judicial proceedings, the justice of laws and a legal system that can be adapted to charge and convict just about anyone given a sufficient search of the legal codes, extra-judicial punishment, and mob behavior whether by individuals, politicians or corporations.

Will China be more Democratic than America?

A brutal and saddening truth that needs no WikiLeaks to reveal it is that democratic sentiment is more powerfully held in China these days than it is in America and other democratic nations.

It took columns of tanks and merciless infantry in 1989 to stop the pro-democracy protesters in their tracks. But all it will take is duly constituted action by democratic institutions to quietly quell and kill off the peaceful blooming of Internet inspired democracy on its yet green vine.

The Chinese government is so frightened of underlying democratic sentiment that it has responded in no uncertain terms to the awarding of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to one of its own citizens Liu Xiaobo. Many countries (approx 19) were "persuaded" to not attend the award ceremony, Liu Xiaobo is behind bars, and his wife was put under house arrest. The government is clearly worried.

And where did those sentiments come from? Western democracies beginning with the ancient Greeks, flowering in England, America, France, and many other nations. And in recent times thanks to Ronald Reagan and the United States winning the Cold War and unfreezing the latent democratic instincts of Poland and other Eastern Bloc nations.

The Statue of Liberty and the "soft power" of American culture (fortunately it's not all hamburgers and drug culture) inspire those abroad who aspire to freedom and justice and democracy in their institutions of government and society. Can you think of a better way to discourage democracy in the USA and elsewhere than by going after WikiLeaks?

The thing is, the democratic sentiment in our very own democratic nations is weaker than in places like China and Burma. Going after WikiLeaks may be discouraging to the Chinese democracy movement, but when you've faced down tanks, that's not going to stop it.

But it will dampen democracy, and in particular investigative journalism, in our own democratic countries. Our proud Western history of progress against the darkness of feudalism, poverty, censorship, patriarchy, slavery, prejudice and wrongful punishment and imprisonment will be tarnished for all the non-democratic governments to see and cheer and toast our pitiful downfall with glasses of vodka and jasmine tea. They have their intelligence services to pass on diplomatic "secrets". It's we the people who will be left in the dark.

Who would have thought in 1978 when Deng Xiaoping launched the Four Modernizations, that two decades later China would have a vibrant state run capitalist economy that some believe could eclipse the USA in twenty or thirty years? The natural market affinity of Chinese peasants (where many of the reforms began) was alive and well after thirty years of Communist rule.

We can be confident that the hard-won democracy of Taiwan just across the Straits from mainland China will continue to be a beacon of democracy for the many Chinese who travel between the two for commerce and family visits. Two or three decades hence, the great irony will be that America was once a great moral and materiel supporter of Taiwanese democracy.

Is it unthinkable that China in two or three decades might be more democratic than America?

That would be good for China and the Chinese. But not for America and the rest of the Western democracies. It's no longer unthinkable.

What Would It Take For You To Be Okay With WikiLeaks?

Comment on: WikiLeaks: Fruit of an unhealthy tree

Correction: WikiLeaks has not dumped 250,000 diplomatic cables on the web. Only about one half of 1% of the total, with care to avoid bad consequences for innocent people.

Let's turn some of those arguments on their heads:

1. If there were very few or zero harsh consequences for innocent people (e.g., informers helping American officials) would WikiLeaks be okay with you?

2. If diplomatic cables security were to be raised to a higher level they have) such that no new ones will see the light of day, would WikiLeaks be okay with you?

2a. Do you really believe that only very bad behavior in a cable justifies their release?

2b. Do you really believe that WikiLeaks has enabled total transparency of human life, public and private, and that your private conversations are no longer private?

2c. Do you really believe that your government has the right to mislead you in the formulation of foreign policy? Not the execution of foreign policy (military secrets, etc.) but in the formulation of foreign policy?

3. Other nations have their own intelligence agencies who are likely right up-to-speed with new cables, and it's primarily the public that is in the dark. Are you okay with that?

4. Many of the cables reflect well on American diplomats and American diplomacy. If WikiLeaks were sufficiently secure in its existence and the anonymity of its sources that Russian, Chinese and Iranian sources began leaking documents to WikiLeaks. Would WikiLeaks be okay then?

What would it take?

Could China Be More Democratic Than American in 20 Years?

If America continues to harass WikiLeaks, and by direct implication threaten very effective investigative journalism, American democracy and its shining example to the world may be heading for a deeply dark period.

It will be bad enough for Americans if China surpasses America economically. But just imagine how bad Americans will feel if China in 20 years overtakes America in terms of the health of its democratic institutions and freedom of the press?

Why Do We Elect Our Governments?

In theory our governments are elected by us to server our interests. They're supposed to balance our competing demands (lower taxes, higher expenditure) and keep us individually and collectively safe at the very least (the minimalist night-watchman theory of government).

The executive government (such as prosecutors and police) are not there to selectively apply laws and principles to only those people and activities they especially disapprove of.

Why is Julian Assange being prosecuted, but the majority of those whose wrongdoings WikiLeaks uncovered are NOT being prosecuted?

And going deeper, if there are laws which are capable of resulting in negative outcomes for democracy, surely they themselves should be immediately up for review and retro-active application. If a law intended to safeguard our nation has the negative side-effect of concealing wrong-doing and anti-democratic behavior, then we need to review that law, and then review potentially wrong convictions that were based on it.

WikiLeaks and Money

Comments on Love, money and independent media published on ABC Australia The Drum.

The free online encyclopedia Wikipedia seems to be doing okay from donations. One of those is a rather generous donor (Google) but a large number are just ordinary people wishing to support a good cause that they benefit from.

The quality of writing on Wikipedia doesn't seem to be as low-brow as you fear. Crowd sourcing with some editing does the trick. And besides, WikiLeaks publishes material written by others. In recent days, material written by American embassy employees, and not just the nursing staff and cooks.

The DoS attacks on Visa and MasterCard (not by WikiLeaks) are not helpful. What's more to the point is the democratically chilling attacks on WikiLeaks by cutting off access to Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, Amazon web hosting, and the wikileaks.org URL.

Mainstream media outlets could return the favour of substantial original leaks by donating directing to WikiLeaks. Perhaps not via Visa or MasterCard. There must be other ways.

America's Task in a Hobbesian World

Greater transparency and openness of all governments is a good thing -- including democracies, kleptocracies, monarchies, theocracies, the Vatican, corporate and state-owned enterprises. WikiLeaks provides the means for whistle-blowers in any country, such as China, Burma, Saudi Arabia, to expose corrupt, unethical or brutal activities.

America should cease all harassment and persecution of WikiLeaks and let whistle-blowers in dictatorships do their job and unmask their masters.

The fostering of openness and democracy by WikiLeaks is not anti-American. It is anti-anti-democratic. Like all democracies, there are significant elements in American institutions and society that have a decidedly anti-democratic bent. WikiLeaks helps to expose that, both directly with revelations, and indirectly by exposing the unsavory attempts to silence WikiLeaks.

It is a big plus that the sole world superpower is a democracy and not one of the would-be alternatives. We should support American democracy and those Americans who try to strengthen democracy. It must be difficult being a democratic superpower in a Hobbesian world. But that is the task.

Whoa. Slow Down Cowboy.

A comment on today's New York Times article:

WikiLeaks Taps Power of the Press

Whoa. Let’s just slow down a bit. Language like “spilling information willy-nilly and recklessly endangering lives”, “Mr. Assange’s own core anarchism”, “the State Department is an illegitimate organization.”

Democracy is a good thing. American democracy is especially vital. The health of American institutions reflects well (or poorly) on other democracies around the world, because of its iconic status as a republic founded on very fine principles and practices. If democracy fails in the USA, what hope has democracy of surviving in the rest of the world? Recall the absolutely vital importance of American democracy to the survival of Britain during WWII. Absolutely vital.

It is important for Americans to support WikiLeaks (and try to read some accurate and non-sensational accounts online) for America’s own sake. Information is the currency of democracy. At the moment America is looking a little uncomfortably like China in its attempt to suppress information that may embarrass politicians and reveal those inner workings of government that are the legitimate concern of the people. This is not a good look.

I personally have been very pro-American and pro-democracy all my life. I am concerned that anti-democratic forces (which are alive and well in every democracy) have become too powerful since 9/11.

If WikiLeaks goes under, what hope is there for Chinese, Russian, North Korean, Iranian, Burmese whistle-blowers to leak government or corporate (state-owned) wrong-doing to a safe and anonymous repository?

Imagine the lives that might have been saved if the Internet and WikiLeaks had been around in the 20s, 30s and 40s. Stalin’s terror campaigns might have come to life much sooner. It wasn’t until Stalin’s death that he was denounced for his brutal reign of terror. And what if someone working for a contractor building death chambers at Hitler’s concentration camps had been able to upload the blueprints?

We want to see democracy flourish in places like China and Burma. We need democracy to shine more brightly in America too. That will help promote world peace and provide a beacon for others.

Support American Democracy

American democracy (like any other democracy) has its share of democratic and anti-democratic forces (people, groupings) in the executive, legislature, and judiciary. In anti-democratic countries such as China, there are the same forces operating both within government and in the population.

In recent years and during other periods (e.g., the McCarthy era) the anti-democratic forces have had the upper hand, and seem capable of mostly silencing the more democratic forces.

The American founding fathers (such as Thomas Jefferson) saw that it would be a constant struggle to preserve democracy.

What the founding fathers may not have foreseen is how complicated it would be for American democracy and freedoms when America is a superpower. Democratic principles have been described more as a luxury rather than a right.

The catch is that a superpower is almost always on a war footing. That’s unavoidable. And one of the main reasons why America is hated by despots (of all stripes) is its example of freedom and openness which the despots don’t want to see sprouting up in their own country.

The pendulum in American politics has swung too far toward the anti-democratic extreme. The shear viciousness of attacks on WikiLeaks (extra-judicial cutting off funds via Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal, removal from Amazon web hosting, removal from its DNS domain name URL) should send chills up American spines. Who will be next? When will they come for your rights? And consider how strong the anti-democratic forces are right now to get away with such tactics.

Don’t believe that just because WikiLeaks-like sites are springing up, that American doesn’t have a serious internal problem with the quality of its democracy.

America and Americans need all the support that can muster to defend the quality of American democratic institutions and principles.

Julian Assange a Traitor?

I read today in the paper

That Julian Assange is a traitor

That reason is treason

And it's open season

On truth and all who debate her

Australian Bookshops: Wake Up and Examine Your Fear of Online Competition

While listening to Late Night Live this morning (see LNL 29 November 2010) I heard an interview with an Australian author who has just published his biography. Later I was walking past Tim's Bookshop in High Street, Kew (Melbourne, Victoria), and decided to look it up. It wasn't on the shelves, so I approached the attractive lady behind the counter and asked her if she could look up a biography by an Australian with the given name Manfred.

No, I'm sorry, I would need the title for that.

Hmm. Why are bricks and mortar bookshops worried about online competition? There are good reasons, but this is not one of them. All she needed to do was search Amazon.com for the key word "Australia", author "Manfred", subject "Biography", and publication date 2010.

Let me quickly say that Tim's Bookshop is one of my favorites and the staff (and Tim himself) are very helpful and efficient. No problem there.

But why don't bricks and mortar bookshops take advantage of online bookshops for even bibliographical look ups like mine?

It's a bit like restaurants in the same shopping area resenting the other restaurants and eateries nearby. The reality is that those other cafes add to the critical mass of potential customers who walk by and potentially come in and have something to eat. If they dine next door tonight, maybe they will check out my restaurant next week.

Bookshops are no different. It's even possible to order meals online, to take the simile further. If I see a book online, I may consider buying it in a bookshop if I want it now.

And the price comparison between bookshops and online sellers is not quite accurate. Yes, the online booksellers have a price advantage. But the bricks and mortar bookshops have the tactile advantage. People are far more than 10% more likely to buy an item they have touched and felt.

Bookshops: go online, even if it's just to look up a book for a customer. People like to look at books, read a bit, feel them, even savor their sweet print and paper scent.

The Spell-Check Editor

I propose that from now on book publishers appoint a spell-check editor whose sole responsibility is to not allowing spelling and grammatical howlers to make it into the published book. The spell-check editor should be named prominently inside the front of the book along with the technical reviewer. Geeks don't like compilation errors in code, and they don't like them in books.

On page 11 of Being Geek: The Software Developer's Career Handbook is the following: ... those who are closest to the code are imminently [sic] qualified ...

With all the automated spell checkers and grammar checkers available, such compilation-like errors should be rare ... for all intensive purposes [my favorite Malaprop].

emoral (new word) is what's moral on the web

What is emoral? Add it to your dictionary now!

emoral is what's moral on the web.

Have you noticed that morals, ethics, standards, principles, etc., are context sensitive?

And what bigger context is there than the web.

Take privacy. If a corporation were to steam open your snail mail, right from your letter box -- you know, the physical device that sits on your front fence -- that would be considered an invasion of privacy. Let's not get hung up on the legality here, and just sit with the moral content, and context.

If a corporation were to not only steam open your snail mail, but then add pamphlets to your letter box with advertising for goods and services related to the content of your mail content, you'd feel that were a problem too! That would not be considered moral in that context.

However, if Google does that with your email, it's considered okay -- emoral.

See the difference?

Not straight away, maybe. And I can see a parallel here that undermines my emoral neologism right out of the box.

What if snail mail service provision was supplied by multiple providers -- and let's say one of those is Google -- and that the provider's mail room was fully automated and contained high tech machines for steaming open mail and appending advertising leaflets to your mail batch and then delivered your mail and leaflets to your physical letter box?

It's starting to like a lot less immoral, isn't it? There's something about the idea of a slimy human being reading your physical mail (or your email), whereas it doesn't seem too much of a problem (for many people) if a machine does the reading.

Nevertheless, I think my neologism emoral is a valid new word. The web context is truly different in a morally significant way. That doesn't mean it ought to be different, but it is.