The document presents cyber-libertarianism as a philosophy advocating for minimal state intervention in cyberspace, emphasizing individual freedom and voluntary solutions. It distinguishes between social and economic freedom, asserting that both should be present online without state coercion. The authors argue against cyber-collectivism, which seeks to impose state or elite control over online affairs, promoting a diverse marketplace of ideas and practices instead.

1. 01000110011100100110010101100101011001000110111101101101001000000100011001110010011001010110010101100100011011110110110100100000010001100111001001100101011001010110010001101111011011010010000001000110011100100110010101100101011001000110111101101101001000000100011001110010011001010110010101100100011011110110110100100000010001100111001001100101011001010110010001101111011011010010000001000110011100100110010101100101011001000110111101101101001000000100011001110010011001010110010101100100011011110110110100Cyber-Libertarianism The Case for Real Internet FreedomVersion 1.0 - Summer 2009Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka

2. Our PurposeTo articulate the core principles of cyber-libertarianism To provide the public and policymakers with a better understanding of this alternative vision for ordering the affairs of cyberspaceOutline for a future book about “Real Internet Freedom” To reclaim the term from those who have bastardized it as a mandate for government control of new media2

3. Part I: What is Cyber-Libertarianism?3

4. Definition of Cyber-LibertarianismIndividuals—acting in whatever capacity they choose (as citizens, consumers, companies, or collectives)—should be at liberty to pursue their own tastes and interests onlineMottos: “Live & Let Live” & “Hands Off the ‘Net!” Seeks to minimize the scope of state coercion in solving social and economic problems online Looks instead to voluntary solutions and arrangementsbased on mutual agreement 4

5. Real Internet FreedomIs not freedom for the State to reorder our affairsTo supposedly benefit certain people or groups; or To improve some amorphous “public interest”It’s freedom fromstate actionIs not about imposing a single utopian visionIt’s about enabling a “Utopia of Utopias” (per philosopher Robert Nozick): A framework within which many different models of organizing commerce and community can flourish alongside, and in competition with, each other, This allows users to pursue their own values and interests and create their own communities5

6. Application in Social & Economic ContextsCyber-libertarians draw no distinction between social and economic freedomwhen applying this vision:Social Freedom: Individuals should be granted liberty of conscience, thought, opinion, speech, and expression in online environments

7. Economic Freedom: Individuals should be granted liberty of contract, innovation, and exchange in online environmentsIt’s not enough to support liberty of action in one sphereForeclosing freedom in one sphere will eventually affect freedom in the other6

8. What about “Code Failures” ?The digital equivalent of so-called “market failures” We support voluntary, spontaneous, bottom-up, marketplace responses We oppose coercive, top-down, governmental solutionsOnly market-driven approaches offer the rapidity and nimbleness necessary to be effective because the Internet is a uniquely dynamic mediumCyber-libertarians have a strong aversion to:The politicization of technology issues Efforts to replace market processes with bureaucratic processes7

9. Defining “Markets” BroadlyIncludes monetary & non-monetary transactions Includes proprietary & non-proprietary modes of productionCollaborative, non-proprietary technologies & efforts (e.g., Wikipedia and open source software) can also be “markets”But the cyber-libertarian does reject the notion these models are the only acceptable model or that they should be imposed on us by lawWe support techno-agnosticism: Lawmakers and courts should not be tilting the balance in one direction or the other towards on the “open vs. closed” spectrum8

10. Part II: The Intellectual Foundations of Cyber-Libertarianism9

11. Traditional Libertarian PhilosophyNatural Rights philosophers– John Locke, Ayn Rand, The FoundersUtilitarian philosophers– John Stuart Mill (On Liberty), Herbert Spencer“Austrian School” of Economics– Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Murray RothbardMilton Freidman(Free to Choose)Robert Nozick– argued for a minimalist state as a “utopia of utopias”Thomas Sowell– critiqued The Vision of the AnointedRichard Epstein– (Simple Rules for a Complex World)10

12. Modern Cyber-Libertarian TheoristsIthiel de Sola Pool(Technologies of Freedom)Alvin Toffler(The Third Wave, Future Shock)George Gilder(Microcosm, Telecosm)Peter Huber(Law & Disorder in Cyberspace)Tom W. BellEugene VolokhJonathan Emord(Freedom, Technology & the First Amendment)Technology Liberation Front– the cyber-libertarian group blog since 200411

13. Internet Exceptionalists Nicholas Negroponte(Being Digital)John Perry Barlow(“Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace”)David PostEric GoldmanH. Brian Holland12

14. Part III: The Contrast with Cyber-Collectivism13

15. Cyber-Collectivism DefinedThe opposite of cyber-libertarianism: cyber-choices should be guided by the State or an elite according to some amorphous “general will” or “public interest” Distant influences of Plato, Rousseau & MarxCyber-collectivism comes in many flavors, however:“Left”: focused on economic fairness, “neutrality,” and equality of outcomes“Right”: controlling the Internet’s impact on culture or securityNot as philosophically coherent as cyber-libertarianism—which also comes in many flavors but shares a larger core of common agreement14

16. Relationship Between Cyber-Collectivism & “Digital Commons” MovementLeftist cyber-collectivists & the “information commons” or “digital commons” movement share belief that digital resources should be shared or commonly ownedWe don’t object to commons, only to mandating themCyber-collectivists Are generally not Marxists; few of them call for state ownership of the information means of productionMight better be thought of a “cyber-social Democrats” (European) or “Digital New Dealers” (American)Advocate a generous role for law and regulation in many online matters, but do not typically resort to full-blown nationalization 15

17. Exponents of Cyber-CollectivismLawrence Lessig (Code)Tim Wu (Who Controls the Internet?)YochaiBenkler (The Wealth of Networks)Jonathan Zittrain (The Future of the Internet & How to Stop It)David Bollier (Viral Spiral)Harvard’s Berkman Center*New America Foundation* Public Knowledge*16(*We are, of course, generalizing a bit here. Not everyone in these institutions is a cyber-collectivist and, again, there are many flavors of cyber-collectivism, just as there are many flavors of cyber-libertarianism.)

18. Part IV: How Cyber-Libertarians Think about Various Policy Issues 17

19. Issue: Free Speech & Online Child SafetyThe First Amendment is of paramount importance and should apply equally to all speakers and media platformsWe favor parental empowerment and education, and industry self-regulation over censorship“Household standards” should trump “community standards” & “public interest” regulatory mandates18

20. Issue:Privacy Policy & Online AdvertisingThe real “Big Brother” problem is state surveillance, not private data collectionPrivacy is a profoundly subjective conditionRegulations to “protect privacy” could have serious unintended consequences for freedom of speech and the growth of online content and commerceUser empowerment & industry self-regulation represent the superior way to address privacy concerns19

21. Issue: Net Neutrality & Infrastructure Regulation“Open access” regulation is nothing more than infrastructure socialismNetwork operators should be free to own, operate and price their systems & services as they see fit, subject only to enforcement of their terms of service & other contracts with their users New entry & innovation work better than regulating yesterday’s networks & technologies20

22. “Market power” & “code failures” are best dealt with by spontaneous evolution of markets & new entry, not bureaucratic micro-management of old technologies or market structuresCyber-markets are evolutionary & dynamicDisruptive innovation usually unseats incumbentsRegulation often creates, or tends to foster, most monopoliesAntitrust is often used as weapon by disgruntled marketplace competitors to hobble rivals21Issue: Antitrust & Competition

23. Issue: Internet Taxation & State RegulationNo special taxes should be imposed on online services or Internet access If the Net disrupts traditional tax bases, that should be seen as an opportunity to reform those tax systemsStates shouldn’t be regulating the uniquely global medium of the Internet or imposing barriers to interstate commerce22

24. Issue: Online GamblingPeople should be free to do as they please with their moneyWe shouldn’t protect state-run lotteries and casinosInternet gambling is likely impossible to shut down entirely anyway, given the uniquely global nature of the Internet23

25. Issue: Copyright & PatentsCyber-libertarians are deeply divided over IP issues (esp. copyright), reflecting a long-standing division among libertarians on these issuesSome believe IP rights are a natural extension of traditional property rights and/or a sensible way to incentivize scientific and artistic creativityOthers believe no one has a right to “property-tize” intangible creations or that copyright is simply industrial protectionism There are many views in between24

26. For more information…Please visit The Technology Liberation Frontwww.techliberation.comThe cyber-libertarian group public policy blog21 contributors4,500+ posts since 200416,000 unique monthly viewers25

27. About the Authors Adam Thierer is a Senior Fellow at The Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) & Director of PFF’s Center for Digital Media Freedom (CDMF). Thierer analyzes public policy developments that impact the economic and social aspects of the media industry, including related First Amendment issues. Prior to joining PFF in 2005, he was Director of Telecommunications Studies at the Cato Institute and a Fellow in Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation.Berin Szoka is a PFF Senior Fellow & Director of PFF’s Center for Internet Freedom (CIF). Szoka studies the laws and regulations that govern cyberspace. Previously, he was an Associate in the Communications Practice Group at Latham and Watkins LLP, where he advised clients on regulations affecting the Internet and telecommunications industries.26