In a long essay, Charli Carpenter revisits Julian Assange and continues to find her kid's argument the better. She is, I thought, wrong about the insight of her wise child, full of grace though it undoubtedly is. One of her current complaints about Assange is equally wrong-headed. Building on others' essay about what Assange thinks, as opposed to reading Assange himself, she argues that Assange is not consistent in his arguments for transparency and at different times deploys different justifications that fall into three main categories: information wants to be free, transparency will lead to reform, and rendering states and governments so paranoid that they cannot continue to function. I am not sure why this is a problem as none, as far as I can tell and she doesn't show that they are, are contradictory. It is not clear why offering three effective justifications for an action is problematic.
She also notes that states and governments can function secretively and yet effectively because it is difficult to prosecute for genocide. Guess what? It is difficult to prosecute for lots of things and the difficulty of one of the more difficult is not an argument against what Assange is doing.
No comments:
Post a Comment