OSNews

That is exactly what Wikileaks in fighting for. I don't care what those documents have to say. The release of the information with out the use of proper legal processes (Freedom of Information Requests and Legal Suits in court) constitutes Anarchy and should not be supported by anyone who values civil society.

And since when has anarchy been bad? Anarchy is merely direct democracy taken to its fullest form. USA once had a president who was an anarchist.

This is absolutely a matter of free speech. It is not a matter of "ownership" or other craszy ideas of IP. In a democracy WE are the government (the president as such are merely our elected caretakers). It is about leaking secret government information to the rightful rulers - The People.

Let's look at a picture here. Imagine you were a shareholder of a company, and some of your companys employees were committing crimes in your name without you knowing it. What happens now is that some of the shareholders has found some information in the archives and are now distribution it to the rest of the shareholders while the board is desperately trying to hold the information away from shareholders.

That's what's happening.

We are the people. We are the government. We are entitled to this information.

No, it's not. Anarchy is the lack of order, and direct democracy implies an order that is imposed by the majority. They're opposite concepts. For example: anarchy means your neighbor can blow your head off one night and not worry about getting in trouble, while the majority in a direct democracy would likely consider it to be bad (and worth punishing).


I agree that in terms of trying to shut him up, it's a matter of free speech and he should be allowed to say what he wants, even if i disagree with it. What I don't think is a matter of free speech was getting the secret documents in the first place, which has nothing to do with free speech. That's all about open governance, which is a completely different topic.


The thing is, most of the stuff being revealed isn't related to the crime at all. It seems to be intended to simply cause embarrassment and harassment, there's nothing illegal being exposed. Or at least, nothing that everyone didn't already know was going on behind closed doors.

Thats misleading. Democracy to the extreme is where every single law change is voted on by everybody (government by referendum). Every law can be drafted by anyone, etc. There is no group of people known as politicians, since everybody is one.

In democracy, the majority still dictates, on average, what not only they but also the people who vote against must/must not do. Anarchy is every individual acting independently of each other for their own benefit and with their own set of laws (which not suprisingly, with such diversity, leads to very few laws everyone follows :p).

The difference being that people in a democracy (willingly or not) sacrifice with laws they disagree with from time to time (when they're in the minority) because most of the time the laws they do agree with are passed and they don't have to worry about every single person who disagrees breaking that particular law. It creates a common direction for the state as a result of sacrifices by the individual.

I am, however, a supporter of Wikileaks. Although this latest release makes you think that maybe the damage (very likely reduced communications between embassy's, and less communication is never a good thing!) maybe, _possibly_, outweighs the benefit.

Absolutist positions like all informaion is free, free speech, etc etc sound great in isolation but, like with all absolutest positions, break down in the real world. There IS a reason that no government divulges the identities of spies, for example.

Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with you in just case, I'm just rambling

Edited 2010-12-02 08:32 UTC

How about me and couple of Hells Angels come your house and plung bear pump up to your anus. That's anarchy. What you seem to refer is some kind leftwing fairyland reality, wake up time to die.

Anarchy is NOT direct democracy. Direct democracy has rules and structure. Anarchy is simple mob rule and whomever rules the mob rules. There are no laws under Anarchy and civil society cannot exist without rules. Even the most basic tribal civilization has rules. Anarchy does not fit into the picture of Human society.

But we never had an anarchist government.



We are not IN a Democracy.



No, that comparison does not work. A corporation is more like a dictatorship or a monarchical heirarchical government, not anarchy, not democracy. Even the shareholders in most modern corporations have specific self-interests in the boards on which they sit.



No we are not. We elect people we hope will make the right decisions FOR us. We have no say in the day-to-day operation of our governments, not without rebellion.

Anarchy, or could wikileaks be more for accountability?

Given the past actions of Governments - around the world - having everything in the open allows for people to hold their governments responsible for their actions and this is very important in systems of representational democracy.

For too long there have been nasty enterprises carried out in the name of the people and the people have been unaware due to lack of transparency and the use of state secrets. No more. Let us see the emperor and his shiny new cloths.

Anarchy (absence of oppressive Govt) != Chaos
Check your premises.

Anarchy is absence of Government but that does not mean absence of oppression.

A strong, centralized government is essential to maintain order. Neither communism, democracy nor anarchy can work in this world. In SMALL groups, perhaps yes, but not in large groups of people.

Well said.