why anonymity matters in public discourse

a publius service announcement

there seems to be a profound undercurrent of self-styled "intellectuals" opposing the idea of anonymous speech.

here's why, even leaving aside such basic ideas as "assess an argument on its merits as opposed to upon who made it" and the shallow credentialism and ad hominem it engenders, i think anonymity remains not only important, but vital in our current world:

we live in a technocratic and bureaucratic regulatory state. permission is required for the most mundane of activities from catching a fish to building a house to (most of all) making a living and building a business. you need a permit or license or approval for everything. you need it to operate a restaurant, serve liquor, sell a drug, issue securities, have a bank account, practice law, practice medicine, and even if you don’t, your employer almost certainly does. the list is near endless and the greater your ambition, the more you need permission. you cannot just open a savings and loan or a lemonade stand. such practice requires affirmative assent, assent that can easily be withheld or revoked.

when one reaches a certain point of pervasiveness in this trend, we're all essentially hostages and when the agencies and agents that issue licensure, permission, and prerogative get politicized and weaponized, this puts many of the most astute, educated, and competent people in a real bind.

they face a hobson's choice if they would disagree with whatever narrative finds current currency:

stay silent or lose your livelihood.

look what happened all covid. doctors that spoke out saw their medical licenses threatened and even taken. laws were passed to enable and require this. institutions lined up against anyone internally who bucked or asked questions because they themselves got the message from on high that "if you want to keep being a hospital, you better shut down these ideas."

imagine a debate about a vaccine. imagine you're the CEO or the chief science officer of a publicly traded drug company. you're well positioned to have a valid and valuable take, but if that take is one the state does not like, what will happen? criticizing the FDA is not a path to getting your drug approved. it's likely a way to get it buried. so what do you do?

it's easy for people to say "stand up anyway! adhere to your principles and sacrifice your livelihood and life's work!" but that's always really easy to say about someone else's life, isn't it? and even that is far too limiting.

so this person should allow an unrelated drug with years and 10’s or 100’s of millions of dollars in research behind it, a drug that could save or improve lives, get backbenched at FDA, harming them, putting his or her employees out of work, and harming shareholders and sick people because they wish to speak what they believe is the truth about another topic in which they are expert?

what kind of choice is that?

(it’s certainly not one that only affects the chooser.)

but this is the choice that permission based regulatory states always create the minute they get politicized. the vast class of competent builders is silenced because to speak against the narrative means you cannot build anymore because building takes permission and permission is controlled by commissars loyal to a faction that does not brook dissent.

you think loads of fortune 500 CEOs' think global warming isn't a scam or DEI isn’t drivel? they know it's a scam. but they cannot speak lest they find their businesses under fire. many thought the same about the mRNA jabs. again, crickets. you simply cannot put your business and all those who work for it and depend upon it at risk from a state that practices regulatory lawfare.

this creates a perfect, one sided scenario where the “business leaders” who speak are nearly all “pro regime” and those who oppose it are silenced in self-censorship. they do not need to be threatened directly. they know what happens if you step out of line.

“nice FCC license you got there, be a shame if you opened your fat yap and something happened to it”

“i see you’d like to do an S-1 to IPO your company. let’s check your social credit score!”

“hey, remember that bank account you used to have?”

it’s potent stuff to stifle and silence dissent from the “great and good.”

and anonymity fixes this.

it allow speech to flourish and creates a true market for ideas free from the market breaking taxation without representation of “speak up and lose your license” that has been used to such chilling effect of late as unelected as unaccountable bureaucrats become the guardians of ideological purity and their “forever state” comes to dominate the speech of professions and professionals.

this idea that people grab anon handles so they can lie and cheat is nearly all inversion and projection. mostly, it’s people wishing to speak freely and share such truth as they perceive without having to live beneath the constant hammer of reprisal against their lives and livelihoods.

were the federalist papers published under “publius” a problem or a solution? were they a cowardly subterfuge and refusal to own up to opinion or a brave attempt to move the overton window and build consensus against a regime that would have arrested such authors had they put their names on it?

“if you’re not willing to lose your business due to government depermissioning or face arrest to speak, then i guess you don’t mean it!” is a ridiculous standard and a false trade off and falser framing.

the fact that such a trade off exists in the first place is already proof positive that the permission based system of life and work is pernicious and predatory. who save a tyrant or a demagogue would choose or demand such a system?

“come out where we can shoot you!” said the powerful force to the freedom fighter.

“come sign our government registry to be allowed to speak against the government” is not the most reassuring of offers.

are we really expected to say yes?

sign here for speech rights

“those who debate me must provide proper ID” is the demand of a bully planning to come for you on some other board.

if this is really about ideas and their validity, then why do you need to know who we are?

you can keep your credentials if you like and appeal to them and claim credence is due.

(how’s that been working out for you BTW? lol.)

we the anons are happy to engage from a position of no base trust and earn such respect as we may garner fairly, freely, and openly in the reputation economy.

can anyone really find principled fault with such a course?

after one spends a bit of time out in the agora, it’s not like a pseudonym is any less a brand than a real name. we’re held to the same standards of conduct and receipt checking as anyone else, the same reputation formation and refutation potential.

sure, there are some small accounts that abuse anon to be jerks and harassers, but this is a tiny issue from largely insignificant speakers with little to say and small audiences to which to say it. they are easily and profitably ignored and their threat or inconvenience is minimal especially compared to the terrible pall that cancel culture and regulatory reprisal in a permission culture poses to many sophisticated would be dissidents forced into “your speech or your livlihood” zugzwangs.

who cares what our backgrounds or credentials are?

what does that even add to the debate?

do you care who the CEO of adidas is or do you trust their brand name to provide a certain sort of product of a certain sort of quality?

and do you not trust that if they deviated from this they would lose their commercial and market standing? peddlers whose wares turn shoddy lose share. that’s consumer sovereignty for you.

how is information any different?

here is my body of work. decide upon its value for yourself and modulate your attention and trust accordingly.

this seems a simple and fair ask and i fail to see a counter-case that such reputation formation should not be allowed without a “verified name.”

(and besides, i’ve used my real photo from day 1!)

genuine bad cat

and in the end, if you simply cannot deal with anonymous posters, well, there’s an easy cure for that as well.