Some Cures are Worse than the Disease

"An entire range of federal regulations is going to be necessary if the Internet is to be kept usable"

No one is more personally opposed to spam than I, a longtime sufferer. Yesterday, I deleted over 300 spam messages -- 90% of which wanted me to grow a larger penis. I agreed with Howard Owens that spammers should be shot. I even went further with the idea -- suggesting crucifixion as a way to fix the problem. And we would not have to fell that many trees to supply the crosses; a mere two hundred spammers are responsible for 90% of the spam. (Amazing how much damage can be done by so few people; it reminds me of what I saw in Berkeley.)

But the Weekly Standard's case for enlarging tyranny is worse fare than any penis enlargement scheme cooked up by the spammers. Here are their thoughts about the Internet:

[A] no-tax, low-regulation regime was devised for the Internet. It was market Rousseauianism, and for several years, the Internet economy has allowed us to conduct a long experiment on how the noble savage comports himself in cyberspace. Libertarianism has proved an attractive creed for the Internet generation in its lifestyle variant of live-and-let-live. But as a market system it has proved a flop.

Social necessity? Read their inanities for yourself. What the "Standard" is worked up about is not spam per se, but the content of it. Now that bothers me, because while I don't like seeing hundreds of offers to grow a larger penis (and I have complained about them repeatedly), penis content is not my principal objection to the spam. I just don't like the hassle of having to delete it. But now that I see the control freaks calling for "draconian" regulation, using the penis content as an excuse, well, that makes me almost feel like paying the penises some lip service. As Churchill said, " If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

To my mind, the problem with spam has nothing to do with the fact that it is "filthy" -- only that it is unsolicited and deceptive. But even if the filth offends you as much as the deception and the nuisance, the fact is that these messages can be deleted. Once Big Brother is in there with a tax scheme, no deletion is possible -- now or in the future.

One cent per email. (Really now, that's not much more than the Stamp Act...) Sounds like a minimal intrusion, right? How do you think the bastards are going to collect and enforce this tax? BY KEEPING TRACK OF EACH AND EVERY EMAIL YOU WRITE.

Why is it that they never target the people who are causing these problems? By the Weekly Standard's own figures, 200 spammers are sending 90% of the spam. So why should we all have to suffer for it and be made to literally pay for it? (Meanwhile, the spammers head to another country where the taxing authorities won't reach them; most of the scam spam originates in Nigeria.)

The Weekly Standard's Senior Editor concludes that "the decision to leave [the Internet] unregulated was a serious, ideologically driven mistake."

There you have it. Freedom is an ideological mistake.

At least we know where their unelected Highnesses stand.

Let's see….

200 spammers already slated for crucifixion….

Don't crosses come in Standard sizes?

(I'm sure glad we have blogging, because if there's one thing I can't stand it's the supreme arrogance of liberal media!)