Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!emory!mephisto!rutgers!bellcore-2!envy!karn
From: karn@envy..bellcore.com (Phil Karn)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Let's get moving gang!!!
Keywords: Implementation, Network Novelties
Message-ID: <1990Sep2.201229.24182@bellcore-2.bellcore.com>
Date: 2 Sep 90 20:12:29 GMT
References: <7686@helios.TAMU.EDU> <737@primerd.PRIME.COM> <1990Aug28.195810.22359@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <739@primerd.PRIME.COM> <1990Aug29.173134.9202@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: usenet@bellcore-2.bellcore.com (Poster of News)
Reply-To: karn@envy.bellcore.com (Phil Karn)
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Lines: 67


Some time ago, I too had the naive notion that we could create a
political utopia by simply using technology to take every issue
directly to the people for a vote.

Since then I've realized that there are some damn good reasons for
having certain mechanisms in our government even though they may seem
clumsy or needlessly indirect given modern technological developments.

Many people seem to think that our tradition of individual rights and
freedoms springs automatically from having a democratically elected
government. A good illustration of this belief could be seen in some
public service spots on TV shortly before the 1988 election. One showed
slow-motion footage of Adolph Hitler addressing a Nazi rally and commented
"Two hundred years ago, our founders came up with a way to keep clowns like
these out of our government." The screen then faded to black, and the word
VOTE came on the screen.

There's only one problem with this commercial: Hitler came to power in
Germany through the democratic process (although he certainly bent the
rules).  And he certainly had the support of the majority of the German
people.

You see, it's actually quite easy to set up a government that does the
will of the majority. Lots of countries do that. The ones that don't
eventually have revolutions.

The problem with "pure democracy" is that the majority is not always
right.  Consider the flap over flag burning. In my opinion, it was an
absolutely perfect illustration of our system doing exactly what it
was designed to do - resisting the gratuitous will of the majority
when the fundamental rights of an unpopular minority are at stake.
That's why we have a Constitution with a Bill of Rights, and judicial
review of laws. I know of no better way to protect against the "tyranny
of the majority". I think it was Justice Douglas who said that the
majority already has two branches of government; the Judiciary is
there for the minority.

So a fundamental irony of our system is that the rights and freedoms
that so many erroneously assume are inherent in any democracy in fact
depend most heavily on the LEAST democratic branch of government, the
courts. Our system goes out of its way to isolate judges from the
effects of public opinion, and for good reason.

Unfortunately, the courts cannot be relied on to protect minority
rights forever; as with any government, ours too would become unstable
if it ignored the will of the majority for too long, even if for good
reason. In many cases, public passions eventually fade and the
majority eventually comes to support, at least implicitly, an
initially unpopular ruling; this *seems* to have finally been the case
with flag burning (unless the Republicans decide to open it up again
as a campaign issue this year.)  But in other cases it becomes very
important to educate and persuade people to support a more enlightened
view.

This is what the First Amendment is all about, and *this* is where
computer networks have their enormous potential. No longer is the
average person limited to seeing the views of a few select newspaper
editors or superstar TV anchors. Anyone who can write coherently
can sit down at a computer keyboard, express his views and have them
seen in a day or two by many thousands of people all over the country
and the world, without censorship of any kind.

The pen is mightier than the sword, and the computer may well prove to
be mightier than the pen.

Phil