Jeffrey Tucker on Liberty.me and How the Internet Undermines the Nation-State

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Jeffrey Tucker on Liberty.me and How the Internet Undermines the Nation-State

HD Video Download

"I really think the nation-state's not relevant anymore in a digital age," says Jeffrey Tucker, publisher of Laissez Faire Books and the creator and CEO of Liberty.me, a "social network and online publishing platform for the liberty minded."

For nine dollars a month, participants of the website can access a library of libertarian classics, privately message members without interference from the National Security Agency, learn from professors teaching classes on everything from Bitcoin to firearm safety, and more. 

"We are so fortunate in this generation to have access to tools our forebearers didn't have. We have the digital cloud. That's a place where we can migrate… a zone of freedom that unleashes creativity."

Tucker recently sat down with Reason TV's Nick Gillespie to discuss Liberty.me, how the site embraces "spontaneous order," and the benefits to providing both public and private spaces on the platform.

6 minutes. Edited by Joshua Swain. Shot by Swain and Todd Krainin.

Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new videos go live and scroll down for HD, Flash, MP4, and MP3 versions.

Comments

[Christophe]

privately message members without interference from the National Security Agency

Citation needed. I appreciate that they intend for this to be the case, but it's not exactly easy.

[Brandon]

Given the general level of incompetence in government, I don't think it's exactly hard.

[Jeffrey]

True. For example: How can a government that spies on everyone in the world and knows more about you than you do not locate a downed airliner for weeks?

[Tamfang]

Maybe they don't want it found.

Btw: Bowties are cool.

[ace_m82]

Spoilers

[Christophe]

I wish I could be so optimistic. They've got:

- A budget bigger than all the private security and crypto research combined.
- The ability to cajole/force companies to install whatever backdoors they need (and keep quiet about it).
- Complete immunity for any crimes they commit and any harm they cause in the course of their work.

All I'm saying is, any system that relies on a trusted third party to ensure secrecy is vulnerable to that third party being compromised or coerced.

[Dammit, not again]

I really think the nation-state's not relevant anymore in a digital age," says Jeffrey Tucker

Can I presume, then, that he doesn't pay ~30%-40% of his income toward an entity that's irrelevant? What a moron.

[Freddy B]

That's the comment which caught my attention. Whether we like it or not the people with the guns are in fact relevant.

Recently I made a mistake that might be considered in the 'relevancy' arena. I'd always paid quarterly my taxes, but made the decision last year to pay my taxes when I filed. Nothing nefarious, I naively thought my quarterly withholding was something I'd done voluntarily and why not keep those funds earning for me? I'm sure at the time I started paying I'd known better, but time passes and one forgets. My CPA brought me back to reality, informing me of the penalties and that withholding is not optional.

Why would I have possibly assumed anything about the tax code is voluntary?

[antisocial-ist]

Jeffery Tucker reminds me of Hans Hoppe. He sees anarchy everywhere, even sometimes in some very statist things.

[Jeffrey]

Except Hoppe has a nifty accent.

I have a love-hate relationship with Tucker. Sometimes he seems pretty cool (in a nerdy kind of way). Sometimes I think he's a dweeb.

[Freddy B]

I think his excitement and seeing the silver lining is fine, but I'm just too pessimistic to really enjoy what I feel is the real premise - that the internet can restrain government. He made his nation state comment rather boldly and without qualifier, even comparing it to migrating out from under despotism.

Listening makes me want to check out the Liberty.me and see what's being published, which is probably the real point of the interview.

Thing is these 'spaces' are with a simple nod destroyed by government if it gets too free and really starts influencing anti-government sentiment.

[Christophe]

Not quite destroyed. It can move onto the dark net. Unfortunately, that would probably make it unusable for 80% of people.

[MegaloMonocle]

We have the digital cloud. That's a place where we can migrate... a zone of freedom surveillance . . .

[Cytotoxic]

Not with encryption and keys held by the users.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

You still have key exchange. You'd need something provably secure like a quantum channel to ensure that your keys weren't intercepted and substituted.

[JFree]

What nonsense. The internet may have once had the potential to undermine something. But the moment that everyone agreed to give up their privacy in order to get free content sponsored by global advertisers, it merely turned us all into complacent vegetables. If the nation-state declines because of this, it will only be replaced by a global totalitarianism.

[wwhorton]

Global advertisers? Wha?

I'm not sure how my voluntarily signing up for free email where I don't write anything I wouldn't shout down a public street is linked to some sort of nightmarish 1984-esque dystopia.

[JFree]

And once you provide the initial info (and far more important - the ongoing tracking of you and combining of that info with other info), then that is their property not yours. And they have proven repeatedly that they are simply handing it over to every government which asks (or not) - because you don't matter. Their relationship with government does. Governments which all, btw, view 'libertarian' leanings as evidence of proto-terrorism.

How do you think the NSA is getting most of their info? By coopting the large corporate sector. That way, the state gets the 'voluntary acquiescence' to totalitarianism - and companies get to eliminate 'competition'/'inefficiency' and the unpredictability of the free market.

[wwhorton]

Any information I provide to private companies I do so in full knowledge that such information has ceased to be private. My address is public record, as is my political party affiliation, etc. Anything I need to keep private never goes over email, snailmail, phone, or anything else.

The Internet is just a vehicle. Companies that offer services over the Internet are still just companies. Look at the uproar over NSA surveillance, and then look at both Yahoo and Google announcing that they're going to be incorporating RSA encryption into webmail. Markets still work, and they're responding to demand for secure, private communication.

If some dope posts something private on Facebook, a public site made to broadcast information, that person is their own worst security threat. Privacy is a practice, not a service you buy; you give it away or keep it based on your own actions, not the decisions of an executive. Email was never secure, any more than the postal service or anything else. If you want privacy, you have to behave in a private manner. If you depend on external agencies to preserve your privacy for you, you're doing it wrong. The WWW is and always has been a public forum, and I don't understand why people are surprised that information they send across it isn't as private as a personal conversation in a closed room.

[WDATPDIM?!]

Please tell he didn't actually say "forebearers."

[MSimon]

Jeffrey Tucker Shot by Swain and Todd Krainin?

How is Tucker doing?

[alaamiah]

generation to have access to tools our forebearers didn't have. We have the digital cloud.

[judithrjohnson]

my best friend's step-mother makes $82 /hr on the computer . She has been fired for nine months but last month her pay was $13237 just working on the computer for a few hours. go to the website ...

============ http://WWW.JOBSPUG.COM