Although the argument you make is well put, the flaws in its foundational premise, that economic and political power are distinct, serve to occlude some other issues concerning power abuse. No doubt, one of the key points that is being clouded over by an obsessive focus on objectionable corporate behavior is the potential for government mischief - you'll get no argument from me there.
However, taking the opposite track and absolving corporate practices of data harvesting as innocuous equally fails to recognize a danger. Though Ayn Rand's often-times eloquently expressed ideas carry much persuasive power, they are a little too simplistic when applied to many concrete situations, this being one of them.
Speaking generally, the corporate and governmental expressions of power are not nearly as monolithic as you would have us believe. Multitudes of examples abound: the Exxon Valdez, Shell's collusion in the oppression of natives in Nigeria, the Union Carbide chemical explosion in Bhopal (due to extreme corporate negligence, not purely accident).. and not to mention the combined malfeasance of the tobacco industry, the environmental impact of heavy industries, and the questionable labor tactics of the sweatshop contractors employed by clothing and footwear manufacturers. On the flip side, Government also creates: subsidies for energy research & development programs, the space program that spun off so many technological developments that are now used in commercial products, and not to mention the percursor of the Internet, DARPANET.
Specifically, in this case, I think that operating myth in your argument makes it easy to gloss over (or at least not consider) the potential negative power for corporations to yield with data about private citizens. What if an insurance company cross-referenced data to come up with a profile of a person that indicated an "unhealthy" lifestyle (which some people would include being gay under), or worse yet, the existence or predilection towards a medical condition? Thousands could be refused coverage - hardly qualifies as using that information to better serve the consumer. Albeit, this example doesn't involve the deprivation or violation of institutionalized rights per se, but the very moment a subsection of the population sharing similar characteristics is willfully excluded from something afforded to the rest, IT BECOMES POLITICAL (whether it was intended that way or not), and your neat distinction collapses again. And, exclusionary tactics comprise just one angle - there are also the politics of targeted marketing. Low-income and low level of education? Better yet, not a native speaker of english? Here's a loan offer (don't bother to read the fine print - its says how we're going to jack you). In many cases a fool undoubtedly makes a deal with the devil - but, the devil is still the devil.
You're right - there are a lot of nasty things that the government can do with personal data. But to assume that it is only the government that is threatening, and propagating that idea, fails to miss the larger point: organizations, be they private or public, shouldn't be exchanging personal data of their constituents/customers without their permission. PERIOD.
To paraphrase Foucault, power, at its core, is ALWAYS politcal - economic power is simply a specific incarnation.
Those that take umbrage with the Matrix for inadequately addressing philosophical or otherwise critical (in the theoretical sense) issues seem to be holding to an extremely unfair standard. Let's not miss the basic premise here: it is a *movie*, and as such, why not judge it according to that context? OF COURSE it is going to pale in comparison to treatises by the likes of Marx, Hegel, Plato, Nietzsche, etc. How deep do you think an idea can go in 2 hours of visceral action compared to thousands of pages of text, that also has the unwritten tradition and history of intellectual thought buttressing it?
Yet, it stands as a great movie precisely *because* it unfailing invokes and evokes those very same traditions, both in its story and in the impassioned reactions of those who have seen it and those who have at least a passing familiarity with the vast body of philosophical thought. Undoubtedly, many of those notions are watered down or much more superficial in the movie - but a movie does have other considerations than pure transmission of the philosophical concept. It has to reveal it within a story, intersperse with action, deal with character development, etc. (not to mention the time limitations of the media format). Yet, it seems that no other film in recent memory has managed to get people to draw parallels to so many philosophical concepts. I have heard it analogized to the Kierkegaardian leap of faith, Plato's cave, the Nietzschean will to power, Heideggerian authenticity, Descarte's Deceptive Demon, etc. And, on top of that, there are the varied religious allegories that people see in the movie.
Just because a someone who is entranced by Trinity's skintight outfit, mesmerized by the special effects, and thinks the plot line is cool and wonders "Wow! What if this is not reality? It really makes you think, doesn't it?" believes the movie is thoughtful and good for all the wrong reasons (i leave the definition of wrong reason to the critic), doesn't mean that the movie fails on those accounts. Just like you wouldn't dismiss the Grand Inquisitor section of Brothers Karamazov on someone who thought that it was cool that Jesus ended up kissing a man at the end.
Ultimately, and on the contrary, the Matrix seems to have inspired quite a bit of thinking - both insightful and not. And many people loved it, and many people hated it, but on both sides, there are many intelligent reasons for those opinions. And, as movies go, that's always been the definition of a great movie.
Slashdot Mirror
However, taking the opposite track and absolving corporate practices of data harvesting as innocuous equally fails to recognize a danger. Though Ayn Rand's often-times eloquently expressed ideas carry much persuasive power, they are a little too simplistic when applied to many concrete situations, this being one of them.
Speaking generally, the corporate and governmental expressions of power are not nearly as monolithic as you would have us believe. Multitudes of examples abound: the Exxon Valdez, Shell's collusion in the oppression of natives in Nigeria, the Union Carbide chemical explosion in Bhopal (due to extreme corporate negligence, not purely accident).. and not to mention the combined malfeasance of the tobacco industry, the environmental impact of heavy industries, and the questionable labor tactics of the sweatshop contractors employed by clothing and footwear manufacturers. On the flip side, Government also creates: subsidies for energy research & development programs, the space program that spun off so many technological developments that are now used in commercial products, and not to mention the percursor of the Internet, DARPANET.
Specifically, in this case, I think that operating myth in your argument makes it easy to gloss over (or at least not consider) the potential negative power for corporations to yield with data about private citizens. What if an insurance company cross-referenced data to come up with a profile of a person that indicated an "unhealthy" lifestyle (which some people would include being gay under), or worse yet, the existence or predilection towards a medical condition? Thousands could be refused coverage - hardly qualifies as using that information to better serve the consumer. Albeit, this example doesn't involve the deprivation or violation of institutionalized rights per se, but the very moment a subsection of the population sharing similar characteristics is willfully excluded from something afforded to the rest, IT BECOMES POLITICAL (whether it was intended that way or not), and your neat distinction collapses again. And, exclusionary tactics comprise just one angle - there are also the politics of targeted marketing. Low-income and low level of education? Better yet, not a native speaker of english? Here's a loan offer (don't bother to read the fine print - its says how we're going to jack you). In many cases a fool undoubtedly makes a deal with the devil - but, the devil is still the devil.
You're right - there are a lot of nasty things that the government can do with personal data. But to assume that it is only the government that is threatening, and propagating that idea, fails to miss the larger point: organizations, be they private or public, shouldn't be exchanging personal data of their constituents/customers without their permission. PERIOD.
To paraphrase Foucault, power, at its core, is ALWAYS politcal - economic power is simply a specific incarnation.
Those that take umbrage with the Matrix for inadequately addressing philosophical or otherwise critical (in the theoretical sense) issues seem to be holding to an extremely unfair standard. Let's not miss the basic premise here: it is a *movie*, and as such, why not judge it according to that context? OF COURSE it is going to pale in comparison to treatises by the likes of Marx, Hegel, Plato, Nietzsche, etc. How deep do you think an idea can go in 2 hours of visceral action compared to thousands of pages of text, that also has the unwritten tradition and history of intellectual thought buttressing it? Yet, it stands as a great movie precisely *because* it unfailing invokes and evokes those very same traditions, both in its story and in the impassioned reactions of those who have seen it and those who have at least a passing familiarity with the vast body of philosophical thought. Undoubtedly, many of those notions are watered down or much more superficial in the movie - but a movie does have other considerations than pure transmission of the philosophical concept. It has to reveal it within a story, intersperse with action, deal with character development, etc. (not to mention the time limitations of the media format). Yet, it seems that no other film in recent memory has managed to get people to draw parallels to so many philosophical concepts. I have heard it analogized to the Kierkegaardian leap of faith, Plato's cave, the Nietzschean will to power, Heideggerian authenticity, Descarte's Deceptive Demon, etc. And, on top of that, there are the varied religious allegories that people see in the movie. Just because a someone who is entranced by Trinity's skintight outfit, mesmerized by the special effects, and thinks the plot line is cool and wonders "Wow! What if this is not reality? It really makes you think, doesn't it?" believes the movie is thoughtful and good for all the wrong reasons (i leave the definition of wrong reason to the critic), doesn't mean that the movie fails on those accounts. Just like you wouldn't dismiss the Grand Inquisitor section of Brothers Karamazov on someone who thought that it was cool that Jesus ended up kissing a man at the end. Ultimately, and on the contrary, the Matrix seems to have inspired quite a bit of thinking - both insightful and not. And many people loved it, and many people hated it, but on both sides, there are many intelligent reasons for those opinions. And, as movies go, that's always been the definition of a great movie.