The intellectual arrogance in this post is nauseating. It is extremely rare that a 22 year-old is qualified to speak so authoritatively on such a deep topic as ethics, and this post demonstrates that Aaron Swartz is not one of them.

1) I've never seen a more clear example of Nietzsche's "inversion of values." I'm not a libertarian, but this is straight out of Ayn Rand - the good, the strong, the responsible, owe a moral debt to the weakest, poorest, least able people in the world -- regardless of how they came to find themselves in such a parlous state.

2) Like any totalitarian ideology, it complete ignores the reality of human nature. Instead, it attempts to conform reality to simple, preconceived theories and assumptions. In this case, the assumption is that all humans are equal autonomous individuals, and the theory is that disparate individual or national outcomes are caused by the strong oppressing the weak. It ignores that a community's, society's, or nation's character is an expression of the collective nature of the people who compose it. It ignores the interlocking responsibilities - both wanted and unwanted, asked and unasked - that enable society to work.

3) His entire system of "ethics" is based upon making oneself feel superior to others. It completely ignores the problem of incentives, as Tichy mentioned - what happens when you apply Kant's Categorical Imperative to these prescriptions? There is literally no incentive to do anything productive, because a more-moral person is probably going to unilaterally decide that you, as a filthy kulak, are not morally worthy of possessing the fruits of your labor.

Truly a repugnant philosophy.