Re: Govt & cyberspace

[snip]
>"tech envy"-- what impact is this going to have on our
>government? it's becoming a huge issue. it may be a
>really great opportunity for a populist movement to
>truly reform the government in the process of upgrading
>their computers.

Even better, this is an opportunity to choke off all, or certainly
increased, funding in order to hasten its collapse.

>I suspect that the "groupware" technology
>that is just getting started will have major influence
>in these areas. as private companies find increasingly
>sophisticated ways of managing themselves, the obvious
>question will arise, "why can't we have an efficient govt
>when our private industries are"? the answer is, we
>can!!

Don't improve it, remove it!

>
>I've written about "electronic democracy" repeatedly. many
>people object to the idea. but when it is phrased in terms
>of groupware, it becomes more palatable. imagine a small
>company humming along with its groupware application that
>allows it to make company-wide decisions using a democratic
>process. moreover, the software is robust and scales well.
>why can't the same principles be scaled up, up, up? I predict
>that they will be in a rather extraordinary revolution.
>
>a new "velvet revolution"? comments anyone?

Democracy is not without its significant shortcomings. If you doubt this
read Tocquevelle.

--Steve

Steve writes:

>Democracy is not without its significant shortcomings. If you doubt this
>read Tocquevelle.

Or Hayek. Democracy, after all, is majoritarian rule. Living under a
homogenous majority, with its whims and desires as law, would be more
oppressive than living under a benign dictatorship.

-Declan


-------------------------
The Netly News Network
Washington Correspondent
http://netlynews.com/

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Steve writes:
> >Democracy is not without its significant shortcomings. If you doubt this
> >read Tocquevelle.

> Or Hayek. Democracy, after all, is majoritarian rule. Living under a
> homogenous majority, with its whims and desires as law, would be more
> oppressive than living under a benign dictatorship.

I wish for once and for all someone would delineate this "democracy"
thing from a true, distributed democracy, where every individual is
required to participate equally, and no narrow interests can co-opt
the vote the way they do in the kind of "democracy" Declan mentions.

Wouldn't it be better when people mention a one-word political
philosophy such as democracy, that they make the definition
more precise by using two or three words instead?