Do you find the DDOS attacks on AMZN, VSA, & MCD as *just*in libertarian philosophy?

[Sentient Void]

Do you find the DDOS attacks on AMZN, VSA, & MCD as *just*in libertarian philosophy?

Why?

I don't believe they are just. I believe Anonymous and other 'hacktivists' are misguided in such attacks.

Perhaps when PayPal was under the DDOS attacks for freezing Assange's access to his own funds, then those were justified - but such funds have been released to him.

We *all* know that Amazon, PayPal, Visa & Mastercard have been threatened by the US Govt in some way, directly or indirectly, leading to dissolution of service with WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks is *not entitled* to services by these companies, regardless. Saying they are entitled to such services is vehemently *anti*-libertarian.

If there should be any DDOS attacks, the only *just* attacks could possibly be on Govt websites, *not* companies being bullied around by the Government. Anonymous et al are simply engaging in the same bullying that the government does - and that makes them no better.

DISCUSS!!!

 

[Guitarzan]

I'd say no, but it's a weak no.

These companies were obviously threatened by the gov't, and they shouldn't have buckled imo. I'm not so sure that what Operation Payback is doing would be considered "violence". If they caved under gov't pressure, is it such a poor idea to make them aware that there will also be consequences from the public? Maybe the next company will think twice when they get a call from Leiberman's office. THAT...I would love to see.

What I can say with confidence is that all of this is very interesting and entertaining. I'm thoroughly enjoying it.

 

[jmdrake]

I wish this poll had a 3rd option. "No. But I don't limit myself to just libertarian philosophy".

 

[Sentient Void]

I wish this poll had a 3rd option. "No. But I don't limit myself to just libertarian philosophy".

I was particular about it in regards to libertarianism because it seems to be a debate of interest in libertarian circles right now, and I believe there is some misguidedness going on.

Of course, if you don't have libertarian leanings you're not a libertarian or aren't concerned with libertarian justice in regards to this question, you don't have to vote neither

 

[jmdrake]

I was particular about it in regards to libertarianism because it seems to be a debate of interest in libertarian circles right now, and I believe there is some misguidedness going on.

Of course, if you don't have libertarian leanings or aren't concerned with libertarian justice in regards to this question, you don't have to vote neither

LOL. Can you have "libertarian leanings" without being fully constrained by them? Is there such a thing as a "pragmatic libertarian"?

 

[torchbearer]

LOL. Can you have "libertarian leanings" without being fully constrained by them? Is there such a thing as a "pragmatic libertarian"?

hannity would probably consider himself a pragmatic libertarian... meaning he's libertarian except for when he is not libertarian.

 

[sailingaway]

No, because it is private property. If they don't want to carry wikileaks, they don't have to unless their contract terms say they have to.

 

[Sentient Void]

LOL. Can you have "libertarian leanings" without being fully constrained by them? Is there such a thing as a "pragmatic libertarian"?

Well, I didn't mean libertarian 'leanings' so much as meaning *libertarian*.

Admittedly, my own fault for not being clear as to what I meant

 

[MN Patriot]

I consider the DDOS attacks akin to breaking windows. Not really a productive way to get your point across, and perhaps even counter productive.

A more productive way to protest would be putting up mirror sites and ads to publicize them. Get the secret files into as many computers as possible.

 

[Cowlesy]

No. They're private corporations and if they don't want to do business with Wikileaks, that's their choice, no matter how hard I contort government/corporate intertwining.

 

[jmdrake]

hannity would probably consider himself a pragmatic libertarian... meaning he's libertarian except for when he is not libertarian.

Hannity calls for government action to do what he wants. And I don't think he considers himself libertarian at all. I could be wrong though.

 

[torchbearer]

No, because it is private property. If they don't want to carry wikileaks, they don't have to unless their contract terms say they have to.

mastercard and visa is as private as the federal reserve.

 

[Sentient Void]

I consider the DDOS attacks akin to breaking windows. Not really a productive way to get your point across, and perhaps even counter productive.

A more productive way to protest would be putting up mirror sites and ads to publicize them. Get the secret files into as many computers as possible.

Absolutely. That, and I think the best way to counter stuff like companies buckling under government pressure (VSA, MCD, Amazon, etc), would be to point the right people to smaller competitors that could do the job just as well or even at least almost as good.

 

[Sentient Void]

mastercard and visa is as private as the federal reserve.

Now *that* is quite the stretch.

 

[torchbearer]

Hannity calls for government action to do what he wants. And I don't think he considers himself libertarian at all. I could be wrong though.

actually he has called himself libertarian on many occassions, and in his mind, he steps outside the principles whenever it makes sense to him through whatever justification- just being pragmatic.

 

[torchbearer]

Now *that* is quite the stretch.

in what way is it a stretch? are they not considered too big to fail?
do these entities enjoy a government protection that none of us do?

 

[Vessol]

No, but I'm not going to stick my neck out and defend Paypal, Visa, or Mastercard.

 

[OrigSEOH]

Well, MasterCard and Visa send me stupid card offers after I have repeatedly asked them not to. Like others have said, these large credit card corps, enjoy lots of gubmint protections and may as well be labeled "nationalized", imo. Not to mention, this is like a public test as to the company's ability to avert a simple DDOS attack. I found it interesting the Amazon and PayPal seem to weather the storm much better than these legacy multi-billion dollar credit card companies' that catalog so many people's personal information. This really makes me wonder what, if any other, security issues they have. I have more trust in Amazon now. And really, why can't a libertarian society test the integrity of a private corporation, by non-destructive means? If they were prepared, they would not have been down for hours. There are tools to mitigate these attacks and others that are even worst. What else are they not ready for?

 

[cswake]

First, you need a definition of just (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/just):

1. done or made according to principle; equitable; proper: a just reply.
2. based on right; rightful; lawful

I'd argue if it is #1, then the DDoS "attacks" might be just. It could be argued that corporations and their employees have a moral obligation to the society they exist in, which includes upholding its principles. They violate those principles, then Anonymous is just in conducting their DDoS on the principle of reinforcing a society's principles.

Obviously #2 violates the laws, but I'm debating whether a DDoS in these circumstances might qualify under the right to peaceful assembly.

 

[TonySutton]

Without being privy to the TOS between WikiLeaks and these other companies it is impossible to make a true determination on libertarian grounds.