Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!ames!pacbell!well!fico2!everexn!karen
From: karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: To be or not to be anarchy (was Re: Results of sci.aquaria vote)
Message-ID: <1989Nov24.224754.5657@everexn.uucp>
Date: 24 Nov 89 22:47:54 GMT
References: <2903@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> <528@panix.UUCP> <36510@apple.Apple.COM>
Organization: Everex Systems, Inc.
Lines: 74

chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:

>Down this road leads the Backbone Cabal, the purpose of which was to give
>the people who were (and still are) paying for this thing we call a network
>a say in where their dollars (and francs and pounds and...) were going.

>Of course, the thought that "he who pays the bills calls the shot" went over
>like a lead baloon with those who like getting USENET services for free...

The idea of having my sysadmin call the shots definitely goes over like
a lead balloon with *me*, though not for your stated reason. 

Your statement leads me to the question, "Is Usenet or is it not an
anarchy?"  In an anarchy, which is what Usenet is supposed to be, 
decisions are reached by consensus, and everyone has a voice.  Do you 
wish Usenet to remain one?  

I have complained that some of the suggestions for improving the
newgroup creation process seem like government by representation, *not*
anarchy--e.g., the notion of a Newsgroup Naming Committee, and the
notion that only system administrators get to vote for a proposed
newsgroup.  But it occurs to me that "government by representation" 
exits only if I get to *vote* on my representative; so these two
processes wouldn't necessarily be government by representation at all.
Having system administrators decide for the people who use the systems
that they administrate could be called a benevolent dictatorship (or,
if he's a total creep, tyranny!).

I have great respect for my sysadmin.  However, he is not my voice.
(Thank goodness, he doesn't want to *be* my voice, either.)  

For me, Usenet as it exists vs. how it would be with some of the 
proposed changes is comparable to the difference between voting on a 
bond issue vs. voting for my Congressional representatives.  When I
vote on a bond issue, I vote directly.  I get to decide.  The bond
issue is likely to require a 2/3 majority--that's fine with me.  If
it passes, it suggests to me that it was truly a Good Thing in the
eyes of most people.  In any event, my actual vote makes an actual
difference.  I feel that my vote means something significant in 
the current newsgroup voting system.  

When I vote for my senator, I don't feel the same connection.  I 
don't get to vote directly on issues any more.  I now am represented
by someone who will not always vote the way I would, so my vote 
doesn't count for as much.  My power is reduced significantly; I'm 
more of a spectator and less of a participant in the voting process 
itself.   

In a dictatorship, it's a total crapshoot, unless I happen to have
a supreme leader who happens to listen to--consensus.  (There's that
word again....)  Here, of course, I don't even get to vote for my
representative.  

To be, or not to be, anarchy? 

If people using Usenet want to move away from the conceptual model
of Usenet as anarchy, they have the right to push for it.  But I
think that they should realize that that is their agenda, and it
should be stated an an explicit purpose.  It's necessary, with 
change, to have a clear picture of where you want to go to, and to
communicate that vision.  

As for government by representation and benevolent dictatorship, 
I'm against it.  

I want to vote--directly.

Karen

-- 
Karen Valentino  <>  Everex North (Everex Systems)  <>  Sebastopol, CA
                    ..pacbell!mslbrb!everexn!karen

     "Something there is that doesn't love a wall."   Robert Frost


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com