This month, I also delivered an article on the "pervasiveness" doctrine for Reason magazine and am finishing a briefing paper on Net anonymity for the Cato Institute.
Writing for The Spectacle, as always, is the most rewarding writing I do, because the feedback is instantaneous and comprehensive and then goes on for years-I am still getting responses to articles that were in the Spectacle's first issue in January, 1995. About thirty thousand unique domains have been hitting The Spectacle every month; I don't know how this number translates into individual readers (aol.com counts as one domain) but assume it may mean there are as many as forty or fifty thousand actual readers in a month.
As always, you're invited to email me at jw@bway.net .
Jonathan Wallace
Paul McMasters pmcmasters@freedomforum.org
I read your articles in the latest Spectacle with great interest, as I have long had some thoughts of my own as to how game theory can be applied to some problems of free speech. But I found your explanations quite disappointing.
I couldn't make much sense out of your Prisoner's Dilemma piece. Sorry, it was just shot through with dubious assumptions and outright wrong statements. Socrates, Jesus, Gandhi and King were not killed as "responses to speech". Gandhi and King weren't intellectuals writing away in some corner. They were leaders of mass resistance, which while it might have been non-violent, was very direct and extensive action. Socrates wasn't a dotty philosopher as is the popular image, he was an active wartime collaborator. Even Jesus had a violent side, remember the driving of the moneychangers from the Temple?
When you write: "If we keep it up long enough and are successful in renouncing force, at some point we will stop regarding each other's utterances as betrayals, ...". Said who? Why? Sure it'd be nice if that happened, but it's hardly inevitable.
As far as I can make out the point being made, in an extremely foggy and roundabout way, is that IF we believe that a) speech should only receive speech in response and b) good speech drives out bad, *THEN* free speech is the best (cooperative) response.
But, in a word, "So what?". The whole free-speech debate is about assumptions such as the above. Taking them as true in the first place is no trick at all. It seems you're trying to use the Prisoner's Dilemma as a way to give them backing, but all along you're actually assuming what you want to prove.
In your
What game theory tells us is that, when it comes to people
making decisions, in groups ranging from the very smallest (the
two-person Prisoner's Dilemma) to arbitrarily large (the community
Tragedy of Commons), each individual pursuing their self-interest can
produce overall disaster for everyone. This is a deep and profound
insight, often hard to articulate and use in a discussion because it
contradicts business propaganda. It implies that markets can fail, the
"invisible hand" that supposedly aligns interests may be paralyzed,
and most heretically, that government intervention can result in
everyone being better off. These are such shocking statements that
some people will simply scream in rank denial that it can't be so.
But with all theories, there is always a tendency to try to force
everything into that framework, to think that the wonderful ideas
explain everything. I think what happened with the fight-censorship
list had very little to do with anything that needs prisoner's dilemma
or tragedy of the commons to explain it, and more to do with what
perhaps might be called the problems of any undefended community (I'd
call it a problem of anarchy in the classical sense, but too many
people don't know the older meaning of the word). Two big aspects of
its decline can be traced directly to poisoners and proselytizers.
Poisoners (aka "Trolls" in net parlance) aren't in any sort of P-D or
T-O-C situation. Trying to view them as some sort of early-defectors
is simply extending the theory beyond its applicability, since they
aren't playing the same game at all. In fact, that's the whole point,
their goal is just to wreak as much havoc as they can, for their own
payoff. The proselytizers (on the net, these are usually Libertarians,
but the phenomena isn't limited to them) are out to hijack every
resource for their own cult purposes, and drive away anyone else. To
have a commons poisoned by an enemy, or looted by a band of religious
fanatics for their crusades, is surely a tragedy, but this shouldn't
be confused with the meaning of "tragedy of the commons".
Seth Finkelstein sethf@MIT.EDU
Garret Hardin certainly coined a compact phrase
(the "tragedy of
the commons") which packs punch.
Unfortunately the historical premise doesn't hold water - no one has
produced good evidence that the 'commons" which were a part of the rural
economy in England were ever overgrazed and hence became unsustainable.
What there is is considerable evidence of hype. The process of enclosure.
by which the medieval 3-field system - 3 areas broken into individually
held strips plus a common area -- were consolidated into parcels enclosed
by barrier fences, hedges or walls - involved parliamentary debate,
enclosure by enclosure. These debates are either transcribed, or described
by contemporary observers; each enclosure had to be voted on and the
parliamentary members had to convinced - that's where the hype came in
because -- as far as the commons were concerned the process was a land
grab, the title was granted to the larger landholders, while the commoners
were dispossessed of their grazing rights.
This has nothing much to do with the internet, but you could have said
what you said without leaning on Garret Hardin's phrase.
cheers
MichaelP papadop@PEAK.ORG
I fail to see how you can lump together the likes of Bill Clinton with
Presidents Nixon or Grant.
Nixon never committed adultery, killed his enemies, or stonewalled, but
only wanted the truth to come out.
Grant was a great Civil War general who served selflessly for a cause
he believed in.
To put it simply, you compare apples to oranges.
Theo Szurek theoszurek@yahoo.com
As a non-American I have been intrigued by the lurid fascination that US
tabloids seem to have with the president's sex life. Who cares? It has no
bearing on whether or not he is a capable leader. Of course, he may not be
a capable leader but that is a completely separate issue.
An Australian newspaper summed up the issue some years ago with regards a
Prime Ministerial candidate. Said the paper, "We are voting for the leader
of our country, not for father-of-the-year".
Cheers.
Anna Stokes astokes@mercy.com.au
I read "An Auschwitz Alphabet" and did an entire five page research
paper on Dr. Josef Mengele using your work as my primary source of
information. It was well written, well thought out, and very moving.
One thing disturbed me, however, as I was reading "What I Learned from
Auschwitz." You have decided that there is no God. All I know is that
God gave humans free will. Without Him, what reason could there
possibly be for the people at Auschwitz to want to live? There is a
page I would like you to visit. The address is
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Villa/1674/rose.html. If it
wouldn't be too much of a bother, please read it and the first of the
links at the bottom of the page. Then, if you would read the second
link and consider what it says. After that, I would be much obliged if
you would visit the third link and tell me how there cannot be a God
where there is love like that shown by Night Owl towards Kaci and by
Kaci towards her daughter. Thank you.
Karen R.
I am writing a research paper about Auschwitz and your "Auschwitz Alphabet"
is my main source and the basis of my paper. I was hoping you'd be able to
respond. I actually do have one question..........I read almost the entire
alphabet, but are you a survivor? Or are you writing from information, or a
relative of a survivor? I'm so sorry to ask, you don't have to feel obligated
to respnd. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Hello. I am a 15 year old high school sophomore. I have been interested
in the Holocaust for many years, ever since I first read The Diary of A
Young Girl. I now read everything I can get my hands on about that time.
It is "horribly fascinating", as I like to call it. By that I mean that it
is not good that it happened and I don't support it in any way, but I find
it interesing, unbelievable how they could do such a thing.
I read your introduction and think the idea of a third pathway to put
people in the shoes of an inmate is a very good idea. However, I also
understand your hesitancy.
Keep up the great work!
Sincerely,
delusional@csufresno.edu
I am glad WebSense doesn't decide what I can read. I feel quite able to
do that myself.
Anthony Mournian mourniann@acusd.edu
Hi! I am gentile with Jewish blood relatives. I have been to the Holy
Land on two separate trips for the Israeli government. (1974 & 75) I am
a Christian and as such love all people. (A true gift from God) To
hear someone say that the Jews killed our Lord is rubish. It shows how
little people know about Christianity. God sent Jesus to die for our
the remission of sins for those who believe that He came to earth for
that mission.
(To die for the sins that we commit, both of ommission & commission).
All sinners, which means ALL who have lived, had a part in the death of
Christ. This means that everyone who ever lived contributed, as well
as all who will be born. To be technical, the Romans were the ones who
actually, physically crucified Him. Everytime I hear the comment that
the Jews put Christ to death, I have to set the record straight. Sin
killed Christ.
Don't know if you have heard this before, but I needed to say it for
you. Ever read the book, Betrayed, by Stan Telchin? It is about the
conversion of an entire Hebrew family, and makes mighty fine reading.
I've read it three times. Try it. May God Bless you and that you
discover the Truth, which will set you free.
Ken A. Brock scubadaddy@sprintmail.com
Happened on your archived piece on
Philip K. Dick. I had an odd
personal letter from Phil that gave a weird insight as to his ethical
workings. He was living in a security high-rise in the poverty-stricken
barrio, and he'd met the local priest, who told him that the parish
church had no funds for their social services program. Phil happened to
be flush at that moment and wrote him a whopping great check to cover
the cost of it for a whole year. Then he took a nap, and had a horrible
dream that he'd given away a huge amount of money, and woke up
terrified, all in a sweat.
Poor old nutcase! I did agree with the observations in your article
pretty much.
Aussie Meyer aussie@compassnet.com
I read your article on Vicki Weaver
in The Ethical Spectacle. Thank you for expressing the issue so
clearly. Living in Idaho, this story is particularly important to us.
Obviously, the federal government is out of control. I don't know if anything less
than a genuine revolution -- at least in thought -- can stop it.
Keep up the good work.
--The Mystic
Your bio is particularly moving; your newsletter, site, whatever you
choose to call it, intelligent, thoughtful, impressively concerned with
the quality of life here on our difficult planet. I call myself one
concerned with similar issues of tolerance, compassion, and ethics, but
currently do little to manifest that concern other than at the most
local of levels, in relations and conversations with friends and
co-workers. Your activity in producing this site is most impressive,
and is, I hope, one more spur to get me off my jaded buttocks and back
into the world.
Thanks for keeping the flame of ethical thought and action alive. That
light is enough to be an encouragement at least here, in one tired gray
corporate cubicle in the Heartland.
Best wishes & continued success in all your endeavors,
Robert Devendorf rdevendo@spss.com
Right now, I have about reached a half way point in a web site designed to approach both social and technical issues, from computer systems design to corrections and capital punishment. In passing, I refer to the case of Jesse Dewayne Jacobs; probably the most clearly dubious (in all senses) execution since Gregg v. Georgia. Your web page has the best synopsis of the case I have seen. Since your use of frames for the "Ethical Spectacle" suggests you may not want your articles directly "hot-linked", I would like your permission to link to this one.
Yours, J. G. Spragge spragge@umich.edu
Are you a journalist sir? I ask for a variety of reasons. My name is Glynn
Rocka and I live in Texas, about 40 miles from the Walls Prison Unit, where
Texas executes those on Death Row.
The thing of it is, I don't believe
Karla Fay should have been
executed. Did you know she was married? She was married to a man named Dana
Brown, whom I do know. He never got to touch his wife while she was still
alive. The State of Texas would not let him hug or kiss or even say good-bye
face-to-face. The first time he got to hug her, she was already dead.
RKTMAN163@aol.com
You have a very interesting web site. When I have some more time, I will
peruse it at a more leisurely pace. I noticed that you have the read the
Bible through in your search for God. I wonder, have you ever read "Mere
Christianity" by C.S. Lewis?
David C. Jamison dcjamison@toad.net
i just read your article on the book
1984and its influence on your
life, i must say, i agree with your article on all but one point...not
everything passes (at least not quickly)
i believe that democracy will be the form of government in america for
at least another 1000 years. the american system is the single most
perfect idea ever wrought by mortals. the reason for this opinion?
flexibility. in america, if we don't like the government, we get rid of
it.
sincerely,
I just want to thank you for The Ethical Spectacle and let you know that
I am really moved by the way you express yourself. I especially like
the essay, Who Are You?
In my own little way, I am the change that I
wish to see in the world, and after discovering you, I am more sure of
that now than I ever have been before. You see, it has been four years
since I gave up my career as an engineer to pursue a life devoted to
doing something about protecting our environment. It truly is one thing
to say, "We must change," versus "I am going to change it myself."
Thank you again and best wishes.
Dear Mr. Wallace:
Bill Clinton
Dear Mr. Wallace:
Dear Mr. Wallace:
An Auschwitz Alphabet
Dear Mr. Wallace:
Dear Mr. Wallace:
Melanie L.
Dear Mr. Wallace:
Sara
Censorware
i can see that reading all the law books and obviously skipping a serious education has left you confused, what the hell is wrong with a totally optional program, cybersitter, filtering out some material from a personal computer if the end user deems that necessary. you are horribly misguided and your pathetic attempt at wrapping yourself in the constitution and the flag screaming free speach is an obvious sign of your illogical thinking.
Good for you for pointing out the Federal judges have been judged by WebSense as not capable of deciding what to read.
Miscellaneous
Dear Mr. Wallace:
Dear Jonathan:
Dear Sir:
http://www.unquietmind.com
Quest of the Unquietmind
...a webjournal of thoughtful dissent
Dear Mr Wallace,
Dear Mr. Wallace:
Dear Sir,
Dear Mr. Wallace:
Dear Mr. Wallace:
Nicholas J. Reisinger
Dear Mr. Wallace: