The debate goes on
Legal Affairs is hosting a debate between Derek Bambauer and Richard A. Epstein, the Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. Monday Legal Affairs published Derek's article, Cool Tools for Tyrants. In his article Derek argues that the United States government needs to restrict a company's right to sell products that might be put to anti-democratic use, as in the case of China. Epstein started the debate yesterday, saying that "most of what you say I agree with, so I'll just nip at you around the edges."
The core of your claim is contained in this sentence. "By taking advantage of market freedom and selling products to repressive regimes, however, these companies undermine another fundamental freedom: the ability of individuals to speak and think without fearing government retribution." The source of my uneasiness with this claim is that it places the freedom to trade in conflict with the freedom to speak, in ways that hint at some deep structural weakness in the pro-market position. I don't think that this is the case.
Legal Affairs posted Derek's response this morning:
I think we agree generally: negative externalities justify regulation. I don't think this resolves the free markets/free speech tension for technology sales, though, for three reasons....
What do you think? We'd like to hear from you - email your response to amichel AT cyber.harvard.edu.
The core of your claim is contained in this sentence. "By taking advantage of market freedom and selling products to repressive regimes, however, these companies undermine another fundamental freedom: the ability of individuals to speak and think without fearing government retribution." The source of my uneasiness with this claim is that it places the freedom to trade in conflict with the freedom to speak, in ways that hint at some deep structural weakness in the pro-market position. I don't think that this is the case.
Legal Affairs posted Derek's response this morning:
I think we agree generally: negative externalities justify regulation. I don't think this resolves the free markets/free speech tension for technology sales, though, for three reasons....
What do you think? We'd like to hear from you - email your response to amichel AT cyber.harvard.edu.