A most solemn duty

Social contract theory states that we humans sow discord and reap government. A government whose most solemn duty is to set the standards of accepted behavior and wield its monopoly on violence solely to maintain them. In our brave new and slightly shallow world of the internet governments are trying to establish the mores of digilife.

Now the newest and bravest among us would have the internet be a free-for-all where anything goes, and the only limits imposed on your online experience be bandwidth and latency. However, I think this belittles and underestimates the task of government to maintain a standard of propriety that allows full deployment of one's capabilities while safeguarding the rights of others. Property rights are a famous example of a terrain thoroughly plowed by one-click copying, and an area where governments are scrambling to determine new and proper delineations of mine and thine online. It is permissible and indeed proper for government to be much stricter than necessary in the realm of online property rights. Their duty is to uphold a universal standard both online and offline.

No individual is unformed by society. The most rebellious alternative is as defined by the mainstream as it's adherent. This implies that society is responsible for establishing many of our basic tenets, our internal sense of right and wrong. As society's appointed conscience a government is duty bound to set some standard throughout it's purview by which we can judge our deeds and those of others. A government allowing the online experience to be wildly different from life in meatspace is neglecting its duty as the steward of our moral integrity. As such, property rights, the protection of minors and certain, albeit minimal restrictions of the freedom of expression, are things that are and should be dealt with as stringently on the internet as they are in real life.

I know, I can get 'your' mp3 without you loosing it, something that is not possible with a physical object. However, that fact what is yours can so easily be mine does not mean it should be. A digital artifact originated somewhere, some amount of effort and value went into its creation. It certainly represents value to one who wants to have it. To refuse trading value for value and get what you want for free is an affront to common sense and economically destructive. It only works for you as long as you're the one who wants something, and ceases to be an attractive model of property rights as soon as you have something of value to trade yourself. Purposeful free content creation under the GPL or its kin is not a counterexample here, the activity is in many cases it's own reward. Neither is offering your own downloaded music for sharing. After all, something that didn't cost you anything to obtain won't cost you anything to share either.

Allowing all sorts of hate and deviancy online is not a sustainable proposition either. Why would it be all right to go jewbashing online when it would get you instantly and justly reprimanded in real life? Why would it be all right to watch intercourse between humans and animals online when the difference in power and control make it an immoral act under any circumstances? There can be no double standard. Right and wrong must be made clear and the difference proactively maintained by a society that wants to maintain its integrity. We can't allow a completely free internet for the same reason we cannot allow different standards of behavior at night versus in broad daylight: it dilutes the concept of what is morally objectionable and therefore dilutes the premise that some things are morally objectionable at all. 

As a solid house is built of solid bricks a morally healthy society is composed of morally healthy individuals. We cannot afford total freedom, it will cost us too dearly in people loosing their way and becoming morally compromised by their experiences. To spare the rod is to spoil the child. Locke applies to the internet as much as to real life. We must give up some freedom in order to establish a framework in which to enjoy the rest of it responsibly.

As a laissez-faire capitalist in the economic pane admitting the necessity of government intervention anywhere is something I do with great reluctance. However, the redeeming function of government is precisely in setting and maintaining standards that allow and enable ethical behavior. As such I see it's intervention in online property rights and very limited censure as its proper function and most solemn duty.