The law of diminishing returns applies to government control. At some point, the investment of time, money, and energy in “controlling information” becomes more expensive than it’s worth.

 This is the moment when the government stops reading every word of your private diary, and shows up on your doorstep with guns to haul you off to the concentration camp. You’ve probably already posted your private diary online, anyway, and have successfully lobbied for free Internet access for all, including criminals. Therefore, I’m sure you’ll have no problem blogging about privacy rights right up to the point when you’re describing yourself naked and in chains, and all the particularities of that funny odor.

Privacy is a corollary of the right to private property. So, it’s legitimate in the sense of, “This is my shit and I’ll show it to you if I want to.” What I find ironic, though, is that so many of these so-called “privacy advocates” are the rebels who tell you that “information wants to be free”. (See the editorial staff of Wired.)

The loudest “privacy advocates” are a proud bunch of walking contradictions: essentially, they’re socialist anarchists. They’re against every government, except that hunky-dory benevolent dictatorship they see painted with blurry lines within their own minds. It’s a land where everything is free, and individual rights live together happily with property that’s been set free from the rights of individuals.

Yeah, other people’s information wants to be free. Yours wants to remain in the creepy confines of your own bedroom. What we need is a “consistency advocate”. Where the hell are they? Knowing the world we live in, they’re probably in a chat room somewhere espousing the virtues of inconsistency.