TT's Lost in Tokyo — by TokyoTom

────────────── ❦ ──────────────

A Declaration of Independence

from Handhelds

A Modern Civic Broadside • July 2026

When in the Course of Human Events it becomes necessary for a People to dissolve the attentional bands which have connected them to their Devices, and to assume among the powers of the Earth the separate and undistracted station to which Nature and Nature’s Sleep schedule entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all Persons are endowed with certain unalienable faculties, among these Attention, Reflection, Memory, Conversation, Judgment, Responsibility, and the Capacity to stand in a queue without staring at a Screen; that to secure these faculties, tools are instituted among Men, deriving their usefulness from the informed consent of their users; that whenever any Tool becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to silence, disable, uninstall, or otherwise cast it into the nearest desk drawer.

We further hold that Human Flourishing arises not merely from liberty secured but from liberty exercised; that the faculties of Judgment, Communication, Collaboration, Reciprocity, and Mutual Accountability are cultivated only through their use; that Communities endure when their members Participate directly in the work of governing their common affairs.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that devices long established should not be discarded for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer notification overload while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the apps to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of pings, nudges, alerts, recommendations, updates, badges, vibrations, algorithmic inducements, and digital dependencies evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Distraction, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Handheld Dominion.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Users; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems.

The history of the Present Smartphone is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Empire over the Attention of its Users. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

It has interrupted our thoughts with Notifications at times most inconvenient and least necessary.

It has persuaded us that every vibration is urgent, and every silence suspicious.

It has deprived us, in many cases, of the ability to complete a sentence before consulting another source.

It has rendered fleeting curiosities Sovereign over settled Purposes.

It has substituted the Endless Scroll for the happy conclusion.

It has joined with Algorithms unknown to our constitutions, giving their assent to suggestions over which no Citizen has exercised meaningful control.

It has caused us to compare our daily lives against the carefully edited Triumphs of strangers.

It has fostered false divisions among the People, rewarding those passions which inflame for a moment above those affections which bind for a lifetime.

It has encouraged us to photograph feasts rather than enjoy them, sunsets rather than behold them, and children rather than attend to them.

It has made every man his own publisher, every woman her own broadcaster, and every fool his own Authority.

It has rewarded Outrage above reflection, Immediacy above accuracy, and False Confidence above competence.

It has induced citizens Assembled in the same room to communicate chiefly through Distant Servers.

It has inflicted upon us meetings in which participants are present neither in body nor in spirit, but only intermittently in bandwidth.

It has transformed waiting, once a nursery of contemplation, into a condition thought intolerable.

It has filled our hours with headlines, our minds with fragments, and our memories with little.

It has erected, through recommendation engines, innumerable echo chambers and filter bubbles, whereby each Person may be assured that his opinions are universally shared and self-evidently correct.

It has drawn Children into endless contests for approval measured by numerical counters visible to all.

It has delivered News from every corner of the Earth whilst diminishing our acquaintance with our Neighbors.

It has accustomed us to inhabit constructed worlds of endless novelty whilst neglecting the enduring companionship of forests, fields, rivers, gardens, the open sky, and the living creatures with whom we share the Earth.

It has made us perpetually reachable, and thereby frequently inaccessible.

Nor have these Devices been alone in their offenses. Behind them stand vast Corporations, nurtured by Governments and protected by Laws, which have accumulated Powers exceeding those once possessed by many States and resembling those against which free Peoples have long struggled.

Though chartered as instruments, they have aspired to become Sovereigns.

Though created to serve the Public, they increasingly command it.

Though answerable in theory to Citizens and Consumers, they have rendered Citizens and Consumers increasingly answerable to them.

They have gathered unto themselves the habits, movements, associations, purchases, preferences, conversations, curiosities, and secret anxieties of whole Peoples, converting the ordinary facts of human life into commodities of trade.

They have erected systems whereby Citizens are observed continuously whilst the Observers remain unidentified and unseen.

They have joined with Governments in arrangements so intricate that responsibility is difficult to assign though power is readily exercised.

They have effected a union of commercial and administrative Power whereby decisions affecting millions are made by Persons whom no Citizen has meaningfully elected, and no Community can readily remove.

They have concealed from the People the true costs of their conveniences, removing labor, waste, energy, and suffering alike from ordinary sight, that consumption and the concentration of Profits might proceed without reflection.

They have presumed to rank Speech, order Knowledge, elevate Opinions, suppress Inquiry, and determine which Facts shall readily appear before the People and which shall remain obscure.

They have substituted Engagement for judgment, Metrics for wisdom, Optimization for the common good, and Convenience for liberty.

They have persuaded Men and Women to seek fulfillment through Stimulation rather than contemplation, Consumption rather than cultivation, Possession rather than stewardship, and Novelty rather than belonging.

They have encouraged us to surrender Self-Government in exchange for comfort, Independence in exchange for convenience, and Privacy in exchange for entertainment.

They have diminished local institutions whilst extending their dominion into every household, school, workplace, pocket, and waking hour.

They have transformed Citizens into Users, Neighbors into Networks, Traditions into Content, Attention into Revenue, and Human Character into Behavioral Data.

They have reduced public life to spectacle and private life to data.

They have persuaded free Peoples to mistake visibility for influence, expression for power, and consumption for citizenship.

They have accustomed the People to receive decisions rather than participate in making them.

They have transferred the work of common life from neighbors, congregations, voluntary associations, and civic institutions unto distant Authorities.

They have fostered the illusion that social order may be engineered from above without the labor of communication, trust, reciprocity, shared responsibility, and common purpose from below.

Nor are these Offenses confined to Devices and Platforms alone. Artificial Intelligences, lately introduced among us, promise to compose, summarize, generate, recommend, predict, and decide. Though useful in many particulars, they present temptations no less significant than those which preceded them.

They stand ready to remember what we once remembered.

They stand ready to write what we once wrote.

They stand ready to discover what we once discovered.

They stand ready to judge what we once judged.

They stand ready to persuade before we have deliberated, to recommend before we have inquired, and to conclude before we have understood.

They stand ready to answer Questions before Wisdom hath had an opportunity to develop them.

They encourage many to mistake generated answers for Understanding, fluent Language for Wisdom, and borrowed Intelligence for cultivated Judgment.

They enable Men and Women to borrow the appearance of Learning without the labor of study, the appearance of Eloquence without the discipline of writing, and the appearance of Wisdom without undergoing the experience by which Wisdom is acquired.

They tempt the Student to forsake study, the Writer to forsake composition, the Teacher to forsake instruction, the Manager to forsake judgment, the Statesman to forsake deliberation, and the Citizen to forsake reflection.

They encourage institutions to substitute efficiency for judgment, scale for responsibility, and prediction for deliberation.

They risk creating a society in which the People are analyzed rather than consulted, predicted rather than persuaded, managed rather than represented.

They threaten to leave Men and Women not as Authors of their destinies but as subjects of models trained upon the traces of their former selves.

They promise liberation from effort whilst quietly eroding the faculties that make liberty possible.

At every stage of these Oppressions We have petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: by disabling alerts, by imposing screen-time limits, by purchasing paper notebooks, by undertaking digital sabbaths, by rediscovering neighborhood associations, and even, in extraordinary cases, by leaving telephones in other rooms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by new features.

We, therefore, the Users of Analog Inclination and Friends of Human Agency, appealing to Common Sense for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by Authority of all persons who have ever closed a laptop and felt immediate relief, solemnly publish and declare:

That Human Beings are not Data.

That Citizens are not Users.

That Communities are not Markets.

That Attention is not a natural resource to be extracted.

That Self-Government is not a service to be consumed, but a responsibility to be practiced.

That the purpose of Technology is to serve mankind and not to govern it.

We further affirm that a free People are not spectators of their common life but Authors of it.

That self-government is not merely a constitutional arrangement but a learned practice.

That Liberty survives not through its Declaration alone, but through its daily exercise.

That the arts of listening, deliberating, persuading, cooperating, compromising, and holding one another accountable cannot be delegated to Experts, Platforms, Corporations, Bureaucracies, or Machines.

That no Algorithm can substitute for Citizenship.

That the Habits of Liberty are learned first among Families, Neighborhoods, Congregations, Associations, and other small Communities before they may safely be entrusted to larger Institutions.

That no Artificial Intelligence can relieve Human Beings of the responsibility of governing themselves.

And that these Persons are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent from the perpetual demands of Handheld Devices; that they are Absolved from all allegiance to notification streams, social feeds, engagement metrics, behavioral modification engines, algorithmic nudges, and systems of continuous observation; and that as Free and Independent Persons they have full Power to Read books uninterrupted, Converse without glancing downward, Walk without earbuds, Dine without photography, Become bored without panic, Govern themselves in Community, and perform all other Acts and Things which autonomous Human beings may of right do.

We further declare ourselves free from every System, whether commercial, bureaucratic, algorithmic, or artificial, which seeks to reduce independent Persons to predictable subjects of observation, manipulation, optimization, and control.

We affirm that Attention shall remain our own.

That Judgment shall not be delegated without necessity.

That Friendship shall not be mediated without purpose.

That Responsibility shall not be surrendered to Machines.

That Self-Government shall not be exchanged for convenience.

That Technology shall remain our Servant, and never become our Sovereign.

That Prosperity shall be measured not only by what we consume, but by what we cultivate — in ourselves, in our Communities, and in the Earth entrusted to our care.

And that the Future shall be shaped by free Citizens acting together in mutual accountability, rather than merely predicted for them by Algorithms.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on one another’s ability to remain offline for at least an afternoon, we mutually pledge to each other our Attention, our Presence, our Agency, our Common Purpose, and our remaining Days.

Signed:

The Ghost of Henry David Thoreau, Present but Unreachable
Jacques Ellul, Witness Against the Dominion of Technique
Lewis Mumford, Defender of Human Scale
E. F. Schumacher, Advocate for Technology as if People Mattered
Ivan Illich, Patron of Convivial Tools
James C. Scott, Defender of Local Knowledge
Wendell Berry, Advocate for Neighborliness and Place
Jane Jacobs, Champion of Living Neighborhoods
Elinor Ostrom, Defender of Self-Governing Communities
Alexis de Tocqueville, Champion of Local Self-Government
Neil Postman, Defender of Civic Communication
Jaron Lanier, Opponent of Behavioral Modification Empires
Nicholas Carr, Defender of Deep Reading
Sherry Turkle, Defender of Human Presence
Jonathan Haidt, Advocate for Childhood Unplugged
Jean Twenge, Observer of the Great Rewiring
Cal Newport, Advocate for Deliberate Attention
And Numerous Others, Temporarily Out of Coverage Area

Neither Monopolies of Commerce, nor of Information, nor of Intelligence.

Done at a Quiet Table, on a Day Fairly Free from Distraction, in the Year of Our Attention Two Thousand and Twenty-Six.

By Thomas J.

—a Doubting Thomas

Author’s Note

This essay was inspired by Emily Sneff’s Handheld Declaration of Independence, whose ingenious revival of the Declaration as a handheld broadside suggested the possibility of replying in kind. It owes an obvious debt in its title and form to Thomas Jefferson and, in its pamphleteering spirit, to Thomas Paine. The named “signatories” are offered as an imaginative tribute to later thinkers whose ideas have informed my own reflections on technology, liberty, community, stewardship, and human flourishing.

I would like to bring readers’ attention to Edwin G. Dolan’s “Science, Public Policy and Global Warming: Rethinking the Market Liberal Position“, from the Fall 2006 issue of The Cato Journal: www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n3/cj26n3-3.pdf.  Dolan examines libertarian, “market liberal” reactions to climate change and walks through Lockean provisions that he believes require further consideration and elaboration by libertarians in the context of climate change.

FWIW, Dolan was the editor of the Austrian classic, The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics (Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, 1976)(online here: http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/NPDBooks/Dolan/dlnFMAContents.html), and author of the classic pamphlet TANSTAAFL: An Economic Strategy for the Environmental Crisis (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1971), which outlined Dolan’s chief perspective:

The fundamental principle on which this strategy is built may be expressed in a simple slogan—There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, the “TANSTAAFL principle,” for short. The TANSTAAFL principle is closely related to the fundamental theorem of ecological economics, that everything depends on everything else. Everything worthwhile has a cost. Whenever you think you are getting something for nothing, look again—someone, somewhere, somehow is paying for it. Behind every free lunch there is a hidden cost to be accounted for.

The task of ecological economics is to figure out how to restructure the economic system so that these hidden costs will be brought out into the open, with the ultimate aim that no one who benefits from the use of the environment will be able to escape without paying in full. The rest of this book is devoted to working out specific applications of this general strategy in order to deal with specific problems.

In the interest of assisting readers, I take the liberty of excerpting liberally from Dolan’s Cato article below.

First, Dolan suggests that many libertarian climate skeptics are acting quite as if they are “conservatives” of the type condemned by Friedrich Hayek.  Dolan cites Hayek’s 1960 essay, “Why I am Not a Conservative” (1960), in which Hayek identified the following traits that distinguish conservatism from market liberalism:

• Habitual resistance to change, hence the term “conservative.”
• Lack of understanding of spontaneous order as a guiding principle of economic life.
• Use of state authority to protect established privileges against the forces of economic change.
• Claim to superior wisdom based on self-arrogated superior quality in place of rational argument.
• A propensity to reject scientific knowledge because of dislike of the consequences that seem to follow from it.

Second, Dolan examines whether any of the above “conservative” traits are at work in libertarian positions on climate change.

… We need to address several questions. One issue is what the status is of the privileges and interests of those who are threatened by the possibility of climate change and of those who are threatened by proposed actions to mitigate it. Which of these has the greater claim to the sympathy of market liberals, when viewed in terms of the standards they apply in other areas of public policy? Another issue is what the values are that lie behind the positions taken by various parties to the debate. The issue of values may determine when market liberals can make principled alliances with one of the other corners of the triangle and when they want to make only tactical alliances. Still another issue is what manner of argument should be employed. For example, what is the proper attitude toward the purely scientific element in the global warming controversy? It will be worth taking a closer look at this last issue before proceeding further.

Hayek expresses himself so well on the role of science that it is worth quoting him at length:

Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it—or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. . . . By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts [Hayek 1960: 404](emphasis added).

This passage raises obvious questions for the global warming debate. What lies behind the skepticism of market liberals regarding the propositions that the world is getting warmer at a rate that is unusually rapid in climate history, if not altogether unprecedented, and that this apparent trend is likely the joint product of natural cycles and human activity, rather than of the former acting alone? Are liberals correctly rejecting an inadequately grounded scientific fad? Or are they refusing to acknowledge facts for fear that doing so would upset their cherished beliefs?  …

Fortunately, the supposed dilemma is a false one. Liberals have long acclaimed the market as a way of adapting to change, and climate change should be no exception. … Also, market liberals should know well that effective environmental policy does not have to take the form of heavy-handed commandand-control measures. … The same kind of market-oriented policies should be possible in the case of climate change.

In short, if one takes into account both the market’s potential for adapting to change and market-based policy alternatives, there is no reason for market liberals to be anything but open-minded toward ongoing developments in climate science, whether those developments, as they unfold, reveal indications or counter-indications of global warming.

There could, instead, be another explanation for some market liberals’ apparent close-mindedness toward the global warming hypothesis. It could be that, when taking a position on issues of climatology, they are speaking not from perceived threats to their beliefs, but out of loyalty to conservative interests with whom they have struck some tactical alliance. For example, policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, no matter how carefully market-guided in their design, are likely to undermine the interests of politically powerful producers of carbon-based energy. Equally, they are likely to have a disproportionate impact on the United States relative to other, less carbon intensive, economies. It is understandable that a conservative member of Congress could be pledged to uphold the interests of energy industry workers or shareholders from his or her home constituency. It is also understandable that a U.S. negotiator at an international conference could work to increase the benefits for the United States of a proposed treaty while shifting the costs to other countries. What is harder to understand is why market liberals would see fit to support such positions, unless for the narrowest of tactical reasons. …

(emphasis added) 

Third, Dolan spends considerable time discussing how the Lockean framework of rights and duties applies to climate change, which he frames as follows:

In the case of global warming, the relevant unenclosed commons include the world air-shed, which, in one of its several competing uses, serves as a sink for greenhouse gasses, and the oceans, which serve as a sink for heat generated by the greenhouse effect and a catchment basin for melting ice. (We are still stipulating scientific certainty of these effects.) Whatever adverse impact the Midwestern power plant has on the Bangladeshi farmer are transmitted through the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on these common-property resources. What does a Lockean approach tell us about rights to make use of the global atmospheric and oceanic commons, and about how those rights might be established?

Dolan walks carefully through Locke’s three rights and three corresponding duties, which he summarizes as follows:

Rights:
• to property in one’s own person
• to property in the fruits of one’s own labor
• to property in land and natural resources taken from nature when mixed with one’s own labor

Duties:
• to abstain from harming others
• to abstain from taking property of others
• to leave enough and as good for others when taking from the common

His discussion here is quite useful.

Finally, Dolan summarizes his own analysis of “the proper market-liberal position on global warming,” that is, one “constructed on a sound Lockean respect for the persons and property of others”:

First, market liberals should keep arguments based on comparisons of costs and benefits in proper perspective. The fact that an action produces net benefits, even very large net benefits, does not shield the actor from liability if it also does harm. The relative magnitude of the costs and benefits, or their relative probabilities, is, in this regard, irrelevant. The duty not to harm people in their persons or property is not to be bypassed on the basis of any facile cost-benefit calculus. This is an essential part of what distinguishes the classical liberal tradition from other political theories that would invoke the power of the state to override individual rights in favor of some greater societal utility. This being said, cost-benefit calculations may in some other respects be relevant to the formulation of a market-liberal position on global warming. They may help choose between different mechanisms for implementing climate change policy. They may be relevant to the decision of whether to abstain from possibly harmful actions, or to risk possible harm while accepting a contingent duty of restitution. And they may be relevant to whether harm is better avoided by mitigation of climate change, or instead compensated through investments that help victims of climate change to adapt.

Second, the market-liberal position should be distinct from a conservative position that defends unjustly acquired privileges. Liberalism in America, in particular, grew up in a Lockean state of nature where it was really true, or at least seemed true, that homesteaders, loggers, grazers, and industrialists could take what they needed while leaving “enough and as good for others.” What the environmentalist side of the global warming debate is telling us is that we no longer live in such a world. It is not just that we can take no more from the commons; we have quite possibly already taken so much as to have breached our duty not to engross. To be sure, the science of just how much can safely be taken is not yet perfect. We may be way past the limit already or still a bit short of it. But to cry foul because those who have taken the most are now asked to bear a substantial share of the costs is not liberalism.

Third, market liberals should keep a clear head when it comes to the relationship between science and public policy. It is fine to be legitimately cautious when policies are urged on the basis of weakly established scientific fads. One should be vigilant against attempts to smuggle questionable economic or political assumptions into scientific analysis, as is sometimes done in the global warming debate, and also to possible biases in research produced by grant-seeking and public choice considerations. But at the same time, as Hayek warned, any reluctance to accept new scientific theories must itself be rational and must be kept separate from the regret that the new theories may upset cherished beliefs (let alone that they threaten the financial interests of useful allies). This is a fine line to walk, and I fear that the market-liberal camp may at times have overstepped it.

Fourth, market liberals should think about the implications of their principles not just for public policy, but for their personal conduct. It is fashionable in some conservative circles to ridicule environmentalism as a new religion that calls for a personal morality of abstinence (see, for example, Schlesinger 2005). Perhaps market liberals would not want to describe their beliefs as a religion, but all of the great thinkers to whom they pay homage make it clear that the duty not to harm others in their persons or property is not just an abstract guideline for public policy, but a specific imperative of personal morality.  To cede the moral high ground on environmental issues to the left is not just tactically foolish, it is unprincipled. To put it simply, a market liberal should not be ashamed to drive a Prius rather than a Humvee.

These broad outlines of a market-liberal position on global warming leave a great deal of room for debate and discussion. They leave open the whole area of how to design a policy to deal with global warming. Are the flaws of the Kyoto Protocol so serious that it is worse than doing nothing at all? Perhaps so—even its staunchest supporters acknowledge that it has many limitations. Should we act now, based on current scientific knowledge? Or should we wait, while firmly insisting on the principle of contingent liability, being prepared to make restitution should subsequent harm turn out to be greater than optimists think it will be? In formulating global warming policy, should each country act unilaterally, based on a duty to avoid harm regardless of what others do, or is it best to try to negotiate international agreements? If measures are to be taken, what role should be given to market-based mechanisms like tradable permits? How can such market-like devices, if used, be introduced in a way that respects existing property rights? How do such devices relate to Lockean principles regarding enclosure and management of residual unenclosed commons?

By addressing these and other questions, market liberals can make a uniquely valuable contribution to the global warming debate. If, however, they allow themselves to be perceived as ostriches whose only policy in the face of uncertainty is to hope for the best while ignoring the worst, and base their position on climate policy on arguments that they would disdain in any other context, they will end up making no useful contribution at all.

(emphasis added)

I hope others will take the time to look through Dolan’s framework, which I believe is useful as a call for constructive engagement by libertarians, even as it does not examine particular policy suggestions* or claim to be complete.  (For example, as Jeff Tucker has observed on another thread, Dolan’s article does not discuss the competency of the state to address climate change, if it is a problem.)

(h/t Donny with an A: http://mises.org/Community/members/Donny-with-an-A.aspx.  I note also that Sheldon Richman of the Foundation for Economic Education also recommends Dolan’s essay and calls for less wishful thinking and greater engagement by libertarians in the December 8, 2006 edition of The Freeman: The Goal Is Freedom: Global Warming and the Layman, http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=966.)

*  I note that Dolan has previously discussed pollution trading permits in the context of acid rain; his remarks were examined by Robert McGee and Walter Block in their “Pollution Trading Permits as a Form of Market Socialism and the Search for a Real Market Solution to Environmental Pollution,” Fordham Environmental Law Journal, vol. 16 (1994): 58  http://law.fordham.edu/publications/articles/100flspub4011.pdf.