Comment by 1001101 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1001101 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Julian said this to Forbes in 2010:

"It's not correct to put me in any one philosophical or economic camp, because I've learned from many. But one is American libertarianism, market libertarianism. So as far as markets are concerned I'm a libertarian, but I have enough expertise in politics and history to understand that a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free.

WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical."

So, core principles: open information, ethical capitalism.

His influences and associations with people like Noam Chomsky (ethical political economy), Gavin MacFayden (open information) and others, seem to reinforce this.

I'm not sure that Russian oligarchy, and restrictions on press freedoms/speech etc. would really jive with Julian's worldview. He does seem to have a particular bone to pick with US imperialism, so I wouldn't rule out accepting help from the enemy of his enemy.

> WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical

So somebody would imagine that he will publish Russian data as well, to make Russian capitalism more free and ethical...

This comes up every time Wikileaks is mentioned, and it is ridiculous every time.

Assange has stated, very clearly, that Russia is not the source and that if they had leaks related to Russia they'd publish them. But they don't. Probably because Wikileaks isn't necessary for Russian leakers: it arose because western newspapers were so reluctant to publish leaked material from western governments. But those same newspapers are desperate to publish anything that makes Russia look bad. So why go via Wikileaks, when you could go directly to the NY Times or the Guardian.

The whole "Wikileaks = Russia" line just comes off as delusional. There's no evidence, it has been explicitly denied, and the supporting arguments are very weak.

Sorry, your defensive arguments are very weak. Like "if they had leaks related to Russia they'd publish them. But they don't. Probably because Wikileaks isn't necessary for Russian leakers" - really?

What kind of an answer is that? Do you have evidence that they have leaks they're sitting on? If so, why would the leaker not just send their materials elsewhere? The point of Wikileaks is to publish, after all. You're arguing that they have lots of material they refuse to publish, and the people who provided that material oddly don't use other channels, yet you have no evidence.

> The point of Wikileaks is to publish, after all.

So how many anti-Putin materials were published there?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com