Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!mnemonic
From: mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Missing mission
Message-ID: <36647@ut-emx.utexas.edu>
Date: 29 Aug 90 00:29:14 GMT
References: <11446@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <1990Aug26.063940.29357@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> <1151@fornax.UUCP>
Sender: news@ut-emx.utexas.edu
Reply-To: mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Lines: 60

In article <1151@fornax.UUCP> miron@fornax.UUCP (Miron Cuperman) writes:
>cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar) writes:
>
>>My point is that Cyberspace, the Net, or whatever you choose to call
>>it, may not be the same thing as property.  Why shouldn't the
>>elctronic world be public, just as the real world is?  Why shouldn't
>>the cost of keeping network links up be a part of the function of
>>government, just as the cost of maintainig roads is today?

>It seems contradictory to me that you want to fight government
>oppression and yet you want to enlarge the public sector.  Why should
>everything be privately owned?  Compare west Germany and east Germany.

In West Germany, the government owns and regulates many things. Ofer's
not talking about state ownership of everything or even state ownership
of the Net, so far as I can tell.

There is no doubt that government involvement in the networks, as in
anything else, entails inefficiency. It is not clear, however, how much
greater that inefficiency will be than that of the private sector. And
it is also unclear whether government involvement might bring benefits
that outweigh the inefficiencies.

>The government will either spend too little or too much on 'public'
>goods (for example - networks ).

As opposed to the private sector, which always spends "just right"?
Do we really want to analogize the government to Papa Bear and
Mama Bear?

>And by letting the government have control over the networks, you will
>let it censor the traffic.

I've made several phone calls today, using a government-regulated service,
and--amazingly--no one censored me, even though (knowing me) I almost
certainly said an objectionable thing or two.

>Communism is dead.  I wish that people would start learning from history.

And I wish people would learn enough from history to see past the archaic
communism-versus-capitalism paradigm. We're about to enter the 21st century;
must we carry ideological and rhetorical baggage from the 19th?

Ofer doesn't advocate communism in any case. While I'm not sure Ofer's
suggestion is the best solution or even a workable one, he deserves a 
little more consideration than red-baiting. He compared the Net to
streets and highways, and I think it's comparison that's worth considering.
And, after all, the government owns streets and highways, yet we are not
a communist country, by most people's standards.



--Mike



Mike Godwin, UT Law School  |    "We need a new cosmology.
mnemonic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |     New Gods. New Sacraments. 
(512) 346-4190              |     Another drink."
                            |          --Patti Smith