But it's totally different to have someone appoint himself, with no accountability, to make decisions for other people, particularly when he isn't willing to apply the same standards to himself. Julian Assange isn't subject to any institutional checks at all, and neither are the acolytes in his network. And frankly, if he isn't willing to have the likes of me make decisions about what sort of world he should be living in, I don't see why I should have to accept his dictates, either. Or those of his fellows. (I'm using him as the symbol, but my points apply equally to the faceless anonymous crowd behind him.)
And the alternative isn't inertia. For those who don't like the status quo there are plenty of avenues for trying to change it that don't involve appointing oneself as satrap over others. They might not be quite as satisfying for the ego, nor are they sufficient for the megalomaniacal, but petition drives, political fundraising, public interest litigation, opinion publishing, community involvement and myriad other activities are perfectly honorable ways to advance a cause. Of course that means one has to persuade, and that's not what Assange had in mind -- persuasion is grubby. No, he wanted to act unilaterally in accordance with his own vision, to bend reality to his will irrespective of what others think. And I'm sorry, but I don't find Julian Assange an appealing leader, nor do I see any reason to submit to Anonymous or whoever else is behind wikileaks. They are no more deserving of having their will imposed than I am. The difference is that I respect other people's wishes and I follow the rules.
Here's the acid test: if you accept self-appointed decisionmakers you agree with, are you prepared also to accept self-appointed decisionmakers you don't agree with? Because if you aren't, you don't have any recourse -- and that's not due to the disagreement, it's due to the self-appointment.
BTW,
here is where this hero is living at the moment. Very countercultural of him.