Re: Cool Tools For Tyrants

I disagree with the assertions being made here by Mr. Bambauer and Ms. MacKinnon, to whom I believe Bruce is affording far too much accord. Nations that seek to violate their citizens' human rights need no "help" in doing so, and it's a bit perverse to rake American companies over the coals simply for doing what companies are expected to do in a free market - make money.

Deriding American firms for selling technological products that might be misused or regulated by countries like China or Iran is little different than holding gun manufacturers responsible for the crimes committed by people who willfully misuse firearms. Certainly Taurus is aware that some Americans may use their handguns to murder other Americans. Should we ban these imports from Brazil?

Bruce cites an L.A. times editorial that says, "U.S. companies also have an obligation...to protect basic rights of individuals to express themselves..." Oh, really? The only "obligation" businesses have is to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. They are beholden to the bottom line. Ms. MacKinnon intimates that companies have some moral obligation to the community. Such assertions are mindless derivations that lead to nothing but government regulation of free trade. If companies want what she terms the "long-term trust of users," they are going to provide the best products and services possible. Consumers withdraw their support when their demand for quality service is not met; if the demand for companies to sell only to countries whose leaders meet some standard of human rights is higher than any other demand, then you can be sure these companies will honor such a demand immediately - failing to do so would cost them money.

The only explanation for government intervention in free market dealings is the idea that government knows better than we do what's good for us. Mr. Bambauer makes the inane assertion that "market freedom does not necessarily lead to personal freedom." He couldn't be more wrong. As Milton Friedman observed, "economic freedom is .. an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom."

I explain this in more detail here, but let's consider China's political and economic structure. Though China remains largely communist, it has been increasingly opening its borders to free markets. As the term "People's Republic of China" indicates, any country can claim political freedom - it can give its citizens the right to vote - all the while increasingly centralizing its economy to the point where all individuals become wards of the state. Conversely, a country that becomes increasingly economically free - where individuals are left to pursue their own occupations absent coercion from the state - becomes, by definition, increasingly politically free.

Those who object to the fact that companies like Cisco and Microsoft have expanded sales to communist or fascist states fail to understand that while technological advancements obviously allow a state the opportunity to misuse them, they also provide its people with benefits previously unknown - freedom to share information, to organize, to debate, to plan an uprising against the state. The innovations thereafter are limitless.

Perhaps we should let consumers in China or Iran (or wherever) decide whether they want to take advantage of the opportunity of technology that we seemingly take for granted. Perhaps we should realize that change takes time; that while a tyrant may choose to abuse his authority, his people may increasingly become emboldened to rebel against it.

Let's not become info-bigots and strip the oppressed of the same freedoms - however regulated today - to do the exact same thing we're doing right now, the same way we've cost third-world nations the ability to prosper through our own feel-good regulations on manufacturing, labor, and the environment.