PFF's Magna Carta and the new netserfs

rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore)
> Cyberspace and the American Dream:  A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age
> Release 1.2 // August 22, 1994,  Progress and Freedom Foundation
> Analysis By:       Richard K. Moore       20 January 1995
> [...]
> It also spells the death of the central institutional paradigm of modern 
> life, the bureaucratic organization. (Governments, including the American 
> government, are the last great redoubt of bureaucratic power 
> [  Corporations, as a seat of bureaucratic power,
> [  manage to escape notice here. Ah well, so many
> [  details, so little time...

I've never figured out why governments are made out to be so bad; guns, ok,
but the problems of privacy we face on this list have little to do with that.
Corporations can be at least as bad - extreme government leads to socialism,
which often retains some form of citizen-participation in decision-making;
the corporate state, though, is exemplified in fascism, inherently much less
concerned about citizen's rights.

> Clear and enforceable property rights are essential
> for markets to work. Defining them is a central [...]
> If this analysis is correct, copyright and patent
> protection of knowledge (or at least many forms of it)
> may no longer be unnecessary...

As many of us have argued, in what is sometimes called a 'post-capitalist'
economy, (intellectual) property rights will not be enforceable. They may
be respected often - but then that requires no laws; after all no one had
tried to rob Phil Zimmerman of his (only recently trademarked) 'PGP'. Those
who depend too much on enforced rights will not survive. I've discussed in
my column, Electric Dreams, and on this list the shift in economic structure
that will have to take place - cooking-pot markets, knowledge exchanges etc;
concept patents enforced by net.cops are most certainly 'Second Wave thinking!'

> The current Administration has identified the right
> goal: Reinventing government for the 21st Century

Praise from Gingrich the Newt's pet think tank...

> This said, it is essential that we understand what it really means 
> to create a Third Wave government and begin the process of transformation.

'Third Wave' is such a lovely phrase that it is all too easy to hand wave 
opposing beliefs and concerns - "that's Second Wave thinking." Reminds me of 
the Freudian defense against Jung - "Ah, Jung was sexually repressed as an 
infant and therefore jealous of his mentor's open emphasis on id..." - 
solipsism is great for argument, but does little to elicit the truth.

> That is why obstructing such collaboration -- in the
> cause of forcing a competition between the cable and
> phone industries -- is *socially elitist*. To the

FOL! That competition and distributed ownership is elitist has long been
held true by communists; the reason we prefer it this way is that monopolies
end up being elitist too - benefiting those within them.

> [  There you have it. The American Dream and frontier
> [  competitiveness lead us inevitably to the following
> [  mandate for cyberspace:
> [        (1) strong private property rights
> [        (2) infrastructure to be owned by an
> [            unregulated private monopoly
> [        (3) investment to be written off rapidly

Those who remember their history will note that the original Magna Carta was
not a pact that distributed power from a King to the people, but to a feudal
nobility - the rest of us, netSERF on!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Electric Dreams subscriptions and back issues, send a mail to
rishab@arbornet.org with 'get help' as the message Subject.

Rishab Aiyer Ghosh          rishab@dxm.ernet.in           rishab@arbornet.org
Vox +91 11 6853410 Voxmail 3760335       H 34C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA

> I've never figured out why governments are made out to be so bad; guns, ok,
> but the problems of privacy we face on this list have little to do with that.
> Corporations can be at least as bad - extreme government leads to socialism,
> which often retains some form of citizen-participation in decision-making;
> the corporate state, though, is exemplified in fascism, inherently much less
> concerned about citizen's rights.

Extreme government leads to totalitarianism, not socialism.

Governments as a whole are seen to be "bad" because they invariably undermine
the right of the individual to make choices for themselves.

> As many of us have argued, in what is sometimes called a 'post-capitalist'
> economy, (intellectual) property rights will not be enforceable. They may

And why should they?  After all, property rights are founded on a belief in
scarcity, which is a total fear-based illusion.

> be respected often - but then that requires no laws; after all no one had
> tried to rob Phil Zimmerman of his (only recently trademarked) 'PGP'. Those
> who depend too much on enforced rights will not survive. I've discussed in
> my column, Electric Dreams, and on this list the shift in economic structure
> that will have to take place - cooking-pot markets, knowledge exchanges etc;
> concept patents enforced by net.cops are most certainly 'Second Wave thinking!'

And there are certain areas of society that this scares, and who are already
making steps to stop it and clamp down. Where do you think all the scare
stories about "kiddie porn" and such on the net are coming from?

> > This said, it is essential that we understand what it really means 
> > to create a Third Wave government and begin the process of transformation.
> 
> 'Third Wave' is such a lovely phrase that it is all too easy to hand wave 
> opposing beliefs and concerns - "that's Second Wave thinking." Reminds me of 
> the Freudian defense against Jung - "Ah, Jung was sexually repressed as an 
> infant and therefore jealous of his mentor's open emphasis on id..." - 
> solipsism is great for argument, but does little to elicit the truth.

The so-called "Third Wave" has nothing to do with government and everything to
do with the empowerment of the individual.  Some seem to not recognize that.

> > [  There you have it. The American Dream and frontier
> > [  competitiveness lead us inevitably to the following
> > [  mandate for cyberspace:
> > [        (1) strong private property rights
> > [        (2) infrastructure to be owned by an
> > [            unregulated private monopoly
> > [        (3) investment to be written off rapidly
> 
> Those who remember their history will note that the original Magna Carta was
> not a pact that distributed power from a King to the people, but to a feudal
> nobility - the rest of us, netSERF on!

This has always been the case throughout history - the forces of dark, of
disinformation, have always attempted to keep true power from the hands of
the people.
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG    			Ed.Carp@linux.org, ecarp@netcom.com
801/534-8857 voicemail			801/460-1883 digital pager
Finger ecarp@netcom.com for PGP 2.5 public key		an88744@anon.penet.fi
                       ** PGP encrypted email preferred! **

Cop: "How many beers have you had tonight, bro?"
Suspect: "Seventy."  -- from the TV show "Cops"

From: "Ed Carp [khijol Sysadmin]" <erc@s116.slcslip.indirect.com>
    Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 01:07:21 -0700 (MST)
    
    > I've never figured out why governments are made out to be so
    > bad; guns, ok, but the problems of privacy we face on this list
    > have little to do with that.  Corporations can be at least as
    > bad - extreme government leads to socialism, which often retains
    > some form of citizen-participation in decision-making; the
    > corporate state, though, is exemplified in fascism, inherently
    > much less concerned about citizen's rights.

    Extreme government leads to totalitarianism, not socialism.

This statement, as well as the one to which it is a response, confuse
decision making forces in government and government control of
economic forces.  Democratic socialism, totalitarian socialism,
democratic capitalism and totalitarian capitalism are all possible, at
least theoretically.  Moving beyond theory, one could easily claim
that no truly {democratic,totalitarian,capitalist,socialist}
society/economy has ever existed.

    Governments as a whole are seen to be "bad" because they
    invariably undermine the right of the individual to make choices
    for themselves.

Unrestrained economic powers (companies, corporations, whatever) have
the same property.  This seemed to me to be a fundamental point that
Rishab was making -- and one that is often ignored in discussions of
economic libertarianism.

			Rick

>     From: "Ed Carp [khijol Sysadmin]" <erc@s116.slcslip.indirect.com>
>     Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 01:07:21 -0700 (MST)
>     
>     > I've never figured out why governments are made out to be so
>     > bad; guns, ok, but the problems of privacy we face on this list
>     > have little to do with that.  Corporations can be at least as
>     > bad - extreme government leads to socialism, which often retains
>     > some form of citizen-participation in decision-making; the
>     > corporate state, though, is exemplified in fascism, inherently
>     > much less concerned about citizen's rights.
> 
>     Extreme government leads to totalitarianism, not socialism.
> 
> This statement, as well as the one to which it is a response, confuse
> decision making forces in government and government control of
> economic forces.  Democratic socialism, totalitarian socialism,
> democratic capitalism and totalitarian capitalism are all possible, at
> least theoretically.  Moving beyond theory, one could easily claim
> that no truly {democratic,totalitarian,capitalist,socialist}
> society/economy has ever existed.

I'm not about to split hairs based on one's particular implementation of labels;
rather, I would say that the labels one gives to government don't really
matter.  The purpose of government is to maximize personal freedom while at
the same time minimizing the curtailment of the personal freedoms of others.
I don't think that you can have a meaningful yardstick other than this - it
covers economic as well as social issues.

>     Governments as a whole are seen to be "bad" because they
>     invariably undermine the right of the individual to make choices
>     for themselves.
> 
> Unrestrained economic powers (companies, corporations, whatever) have
> the same property.  This seemed to me to be a fundamental point that
> Rishab was making -- and one that is often ignored in discussions of
> economic libertarianism.

Agreed, but I don't see that that was the point Rishab was making.  Oh, well..
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG    			Ed.Carp@linux.org, ecarp@netcom.com
801/534-8857 voicemail			801/460-1883 digital pager
Finger ecarp@netcom.com for PGP 2.5 public key		an88744@anon.penet.fi
                       ** PGP encrypted email preferred! **

Cop: "How many beers have you had tonight, bro?"
Suspect: "Seventy."  -- from the TV show "Cops"