Jackie Danicki

Apologies for the amount of context which precedes the actual topic for this post. If you want to skip to the first numbered point, that’s where the meat begins.

Someone (whom I won’t name, because he’s expressed his desire to drop the matter) tweeted this in the wee hours of Thursday morning:

If Twitter is worth $500 million, we, the public, should buy them, and make the firehose a free public commodity.

My response:

why are you so passionate about collectivism when otherwise you are such a champion of the individual? puzzling.

What followed from him were a few tweets which he later deleted (so I can’t quote them) and an email he sent to me designated as private and not for sharing. I’ve decided to honor what I am choosing to consider a request (sending an unsolicited email and demanding its content remain private is not exactly how it works). So I can’t cite that communication either. If the following makes you wonder exactly what kind of arguments I’m replying to, I only wish I could share. (The ad hominems were a hoot, too, so I’m sad I can’t blog those either.) But here are a few basic points which are begging to be made:

1. Public ownership has zero to do with a public offering of equity in a private company.

An IPO is merely an invitation for investment which is accessible to the public. The owners’ equity is still privately owned and remains so after the IPO. This is not a nationalization. The fact that companies’ shares are traded openly on a stock exchange doesn’t change the fact that each share is owned privately by an individual or an institutional investor.

2. “We” don’t “own” anything through the government.

Lots of things are owned by the government or state - roads, schools, hospitals, etc. Just because they’re paid for by taxpayers does not mean we own them - coercing “investment” from the public is merely a guaranteed funding model carried out with legally-backed force. (That is to say, if you don’t pay for the government’s stuff, you go to jail and/or they take your money. It ain’t an opt-in payment mechanism.)

If you claim this mad arrangement is ownership, then you must also believe that we as individuals “own” our data on Google or Facebook. Or that we “own” our data through the TSA and other government databases.

3. Individual autonomy is not about personal glorification or fame.

But try telling the victims of Stalin or Lenin that collectivism and socialism will make them more memorable. Perhaps - but for all the wrong reasons.

That said, individuals are motivated to create and innovate - in part - by the desire to have their good works recognized. This is accepted universally as a basic component of human nature, not some bizarre theory developed by cranks.

4. Individual autonomy is sacrosanct.

If you disagree with this, then we really have bupkes to talk about, let alone argue about. Nothing could be more pointless.

5. Who owns Twitter should be up to those who currently own Twitter.

Period.

One last note on conversation: If someone (say, me) asks you how one of your views adds up in light of contradicting opinions you espouse, that’s not an accusation of idiocy or hypocrisy. If you choose to go through life regarding people and their curiosity this way, that’s all you. Like I said, I am in favor of individual autonomy. Life is a lot more interesting on the inquisitive and open-minded side, though.

Filed under: Life