Distributed Digital Property Board

[goin fishn]

Alea-It's been a relevant question since the earliest days of the existence of the United States. The original ideas behind the creation of the U.S. come from the writings of John Locke, an English philospher. His writings may be found at

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

Locke said that left to their own devices, without any government to rule them, men would seek to exert power over one another. Anarchy would inevitably ensue. In such a scenario, Locke argued that men could have nothing of great value, because it would always be stolen or wrecked by their fellow men as each sought to achieve power/dominance over the others. Locke also said that any endeavors that required cooperation between groups of people would be impossible in such a world.

It was to remedy this problem that governments were formed, according to Locke. Men gave up some of their personal freedom in agreeing to obey the government in exchange for protections. Locke wrote that governments were created, and men gave up some freedom, to preserve "Life, Liberty, and Property." Jefferson changed property to "pursuit of happiness." Beyond that change, Jefferson's words are almost entirely derived from Locke.

The laws of nature that Jefferson invokes are a belief common to the Enlightenment period, in which science was beginning to play a prominent role in learned men's thinking. After Newton's discovery of the laws of gravity, it became a common notion that if one searched in the proper manner, "natural laws" could be found which governed everything on earth. Lockes writings are his attempt at delineating the "natural laws" which govern human interactions, especially government. It should be noted that parts of Lockes work are derivative of the work of Thomas Hobbes, an earlier philosopher.

Given this premise-supplied by Locke- the founders of the U.S. rebelled because, as they argued, the English government had begun usurping their "Life, Liberty, and Property."

Despite our nation's focus on these principles at it's founding, the issue of which you speak came up almost immediately. During the writing of our constitution, the issue of slavery became a stumbling block to gaining support from southern delegates. It became necessary for a compromise position to be created to which both pro and anti slavery forces could agree. The compromise essentially ignored slavery so as to leave both sides room to accept the constitution. Of course, anti slavery forces argued correctly that it was hypocritical to propound life, libery, and pursuit of happiness while denying those things to millions of people within your own borders.

There are many other examples of the limitation of these rights in our nation's early days. Among them are the Alien and Sedition Acts, Jackson's Native American Policies, the Dred Scott Decision, The Fugitive Slave Act, Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus, Oliver Morton's prorouging Indiana's state legislature, the Confiscation Acts of the Civil War, and the list goes on and on.

In the twentieth century, Japanese Americans were arrested and held simply because of their racial heritage. Currently, some anti drug laws allow for the seizure of proerty upon simple suspicion of it's use in drug related activities.

I think, in truth, that American sentiments on this issue tend to ebb and flow. During times of turmoil, people yearn for strong leadership and someone who appears to be in control of the situation. They will accept at such times, a restiction of personal liberty, in return for feeling safer. Once they have the "strong" leader, however, they see the erosion of personal liberty that happens, and swing back the other way. I think we are in the midst of a swing back from acceptance of restrictions.

It's a delicate balance. How much liberty can be given before the anarchy of which Locke wrote rears it's head? How tight do restrictions have to be before they strangle the best parts of liberty?

It's also a valuable question in the context of the coming use of TPMs. Will they result in a lessening of the anarchy that has plagued the Internet, or will they cause an unacceptable restriction of freedoms? The scales begin to tip again.