Liberty is Your Right – No Need to Ask

Recent attempts at defining Free Culture simply enumerate the freedoms that some people feel are unethically infringed by IP law, that should be restored – either per work by the publisher in the form of a license, or at law by abolition of copyright and patents.

The peculiar thing is though, that freedom isn’t defined in a context of repression, as if one is saying “We realise that we need permission for everything, that everything is normally prohibited. However, for these few things we feel we should have freedom.” Or, that “Ethical authors with rightful privileges of restraint over us will restore freedom for these few things back to us, the people.”

That’s a pretty repressed perspective talking there.

The truth is that absolute freedom is what every human being is born with.

And absolute freedom is pretty good as far as it goes, but humans have evolved such a high level of intelligence, that it tends to overrule the natural checks and balances that our instincts would otherwise exert to moderate this freedom into a harmonious existence.

Fundamentally, humans are animals with a primary objective to survive and prosper – within an environment of absolute freedom constrained only by nature (the Earth and all life upon it).

One can conclude from our gregarious nature, an instinct that inclines us to cooperate and collaborate, that collectivism must have evolved as a superior survival strategy to isolationism.

However, the spirit of individualism remains strong, and our disposition to collaborate needs collaborative reinforcement if it is to withstand the whims of wayward individuals or counter-collaborators.

So what we do as a social collective is to say: “Whatever your fundamental requirements are as an individual, they will be respected and upheld by the collective – as long as they do not unfairly conflict with those of other individuals. Conflict impairs our collaboration.”

Individuals require survival and safety, to keep and have control over possessions (including the fruits of their labour) without interference or supervision, that they are dealt with by others in an honourable and truthful manner in all things, and that they have liberty.

Cultural Freedom Suspended, Resumes

Copyright and patents suspend the public’s liberty in order to create commercial monopolies – supposedly in the belief that this is not only an equitable exchange for the people, but that it is more culturally productive than a free market.

Such monopolies are of course commercially advantageous to those that possess them, but at the extreme expense of cultural liberty. They are not actually culturally advantageous. However, when deciding what is good for the people, it is commerce that obtains the ear of the legislature rather than the common people.

It is difficult to undo over three centuries of commercial privilege. Not only is there pressure from incumbents to maintain existing lucrative business models (despite declining viability), but there’s also legislative inertia – even in the minds of the public who’ve assumed the cultural manacles upon their wrists, whilst sometimes inconvenient, have always been necessary.

The only power sufficient to undermine monopolies over communication and control of intellectual works is the global communications infrastructure we call The Internet.

The task before us is not to argue the case for cultural freedom, for cultural freedom is upon us, but to understand once again the natural law that governs it.