With Liberty and Stuff for All

My significant other calls me a radical. Dr. Suesse says I am not. Of his stories, The Lorax is my favorite.

The Lorax is the fable of an entrepreneur, the Once-ler, who lustfully pillages resources until none are left. Upon introduction to The Lorax, "who speaks for the trees, for the trees have no tongues," the Once-ler dismisses The Lorax's ethical concerns, insisting he serves a higher purpose through the production of Thneeds. "A Thneed's a fine something That-All-People-Need!" While The Lorax is not impressed, the Once-ler taunts him, "You poor... guy! You never can tell what some people will buy."

No you really can't. Americans have access to anything money can buy. This includes stuff like Jesus Freak bumper stickers and Spider Man Adult XL Sissy Diapers. And sustenance like cereal bars, first and second ingredients sugar and corn syrup, respectfully, and chicken nuggets made of corn, rib meat, corn syrup and salt.

Many Americans feel the ability to purchase is fundamentally representative of their rights. New Yorker's complained when hydrogenated oils were removed from their french-fries, they want the option to ingest this unnatural substance. Liberty and freedom are linked to an individual's ability to own. But, Americans expect privacy in addition to choice. 1984 scares us.

The Libertarian Party says it understands constituents need to live private lives, unfettered by omniscient figures who take notice of all personal movements. In a speech entitled "The Invisible Hand is a Gentle Hand," Sharon Harris highlights the superiority of the Libertarian free market standard in securing well-represented citizens. Spread like seed throughout the speech, the comment, "The gentle hand vs. visible fist of force" is intended to remind readers that while government ruthlessly coerces property from intimidated constituents; the free market gently brokers trade agreements with willing consumers.

Harris' description of bad government, provided by political theorist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, way back in 1849, is poignant. "To be governed is to have every operation, every transaction, every movement noted, registered, counted, rated, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, refused, authorized, endorsed, admonished, prevented, reformed, redressed, corrected." Absolutely, these lurid activities jeopardize citizens' privacy, and should face objection in any society of free people. Nevertheless, Business is currently collecting and synthesizing all customer activities, in addition to trading this highly sensitive information. The "gentle invisible hand" of the free market now has in its grasp all the information warned against by Proudhan.

An article, "To Aim Ads, Web is Keeping Closer Eye on You", written by Louise Story, elucidates the quality of information collected. The amount of factual data amassed in the name of advertisement is flabbergasting. Some of the inexhaustible info collected on consumers "...might include the person's Zip code, a search for anything from vacation information to celebrity gossip, or a purchase of prescription drugs or other intimate items." In the article, privacy expert Marc Rotenberg explains, "[Web companies are] recording preferences, hopes, worries and fears." In responce to privacy worries, web companies sound like the Once-ler's peroration, "Now listen here, Dad! All you do is yap-yap and say 'Bad! Bad! Bad! Bad!"

Google, innovator of innocuous espionage, argues that the cache is necessary because consumers demand information relevant to them. Additionally, access to consumers past web activity allows Google, and similar Web companies, to create more personalized filters that are able to predict individual tastes. Therefore, advertisement strategies are much more proactive. This is especially important in servicing their true customers, advertisers purchasing services to promote their products. "These companies use that information to predict what content and advertisements people most likely want to see. They can charge steep prices for carefully tailored ads because of their high response rates." Advertisers expect measurable rewards for their investment. The Once-ler would say this arrangement "[is] what everyone, Everyone, Everyone Needs!"

Tracking the specific effectiveness of individual advertisements has been seamlessly woven into the today's techno-media dominated society. Web companies are paid only when they succeed, i.e. when they arouse enough interest that a surfer clicks on an ad. Linking to potential consumers requires onerous surveillance. Fortunately, the computer provides all the tools necessary to track, record indefinitely, and decipher all exchanges because digital storage has made it virtually non-cost for online gatherers to gently grab and tally all stops and clicks along an internet search. The internet's effective and facile compilation provides accurately expanding profiles of most of Americans' three-hundred million constituents.

According to the article, "Five large Web operations- Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, AOL, and MYSpace- record at least 336 billion transmission events in a month, not counting their ad networks." This unbelievable number represents "every transaction, every movement" of every person online. Accordingly, new software applies algorithms to make sense of the lackluster data, and in turn predict which advertisements will work on which consumers.

Let's assume, for a moment, Google, and other information gatherers, really do have our "best interests" in mind, that they really do care about whether or not we are able to find our limited edition Mickey-Mouse-Sponge-Bob emblazoned spatula (we just need it so badly), and that they are not using the information they gather for any less-than-nice reasons. Even if this were the case, the potential to use the information for not-so-nice reasons astounds. Even if consumers don't mind subjugation to advertisers incessant attention grabbing tantrums, once the government lays legal claim to the information, we will be at the mercy of a governmental big brother.

Still, I believe that when a people is manipulated by a process designed to give a few individuals domination of resources, the people do not care whether the bully is a government agent determined to seize land and control actions, or a corporate entity determined to ordain money and create unnecessary need.


The Lorax ended with the Once-ler's revelation, "UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing's going to get better. It's not." If we don't mind an institution that systematically compiles information about those it is meant to serve, let's keep on buying. However, if we are citizens before consumers, we must demand liberty before stuff. Our privacy must be worth more than some executive's green lust for money.



Harris' speech can be found at: http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/InvisibleHand.htm

Story's insightful article can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/technology/10privacy.html?ex=1362888000&en=b4c...