Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!isishq!doug From: doug@isishq.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) Newsgroups: comp.society.futures Subject: Re: Big Brother (Was Re: Who Controls The Network?) Message-ID: <1085.23BB8DF2@isishq.FIDONET.ORG> Date: 29 Dec 88 14:13:14 GMT Organization: International Student Information Service -- Headquarters Lines: 125 NT> From: nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) NT> Since there has been no traffic in this group lately I shall take the NT> opportunity to follow up the comments from Jeff Daiell and Doug Thompson NT> on the Big Brother issue. I know that what follows is only vaguely related NT> to comp.society.futures but c.s.f. was where this debate started. NT> In reply to my earlier posting Jeff states NT> > ... I equate every Government on Earth with Big Brother ... NT> Doug's response was NT> > ... Ok. That's a good starting point ... NT> In the opening paragraph of The Federalist No. 1, Publius NT> (on this occasion NT> Alexander Hamilton) says NT> > It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have NT> been reserved to the NT> > people of this country [the USA!], by their conduct and NT> example, to decide NT> > the important question, whether societies of men are NT> really capable or not NT> > of establishing good government from reflection and NT> choice, or whether they NT> > are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on NT> > accident and force. NT> Jeff and Doug obviously believe that the verdict (200 NT> years on) is that such NT> good government cannot be established and Jeff further NT> suggests that the group NT> of accidents to which we ascribe the collective term 'free market' are NT> actually to be preferred. I am deeply worried by such sentiments - the NT> freedom to express which only exists because of the imperfect democracies NT> which protect them. Some of us have been lucky enough to inherit NT> representative forms of government from our forebears and like most NT> inheritances it is easy to be complacent about them and attribute little NT> worth to them. A democratic form of government is probably NT> the least stable NT> and most easily overthrown form known to man - we must NT> always be on our guard NT> lest we lose it. If Jeff's views are common then I think that democracy in NT> the USA is on a very slippery slope. If the US Government really is NT> subordinate to the free-market anarcho-capitalists then it is probably NT> too late to save it. I shall watch your wretched, poor and hungry with NT> great interest as you 'laissez-faire'. I think such sentiments, and sentiments that are related, are disturbingly common. More than half the US electorate did not vote in the last election. I am a member of a political party. I have run for office and even been elected a couple of times (way back when I was young and foolish). I did so with a deep conviction in the ideals of public choice, democracy, and "the people's virtue". I got involved in the last Canadian election too. BUT . . . my enthusiasm for and belief in the democratic institutions is all but dried up. That's why I can relate to the "anti-big-government" sentiments of Libertarians. I see little good produced, even by my own party, or for that matter *even by myself as an elected official* because of the huge millstone of of big bureaucracy that was hung around my neck the moment I was elected. I have grow extremely disenchanted by the public-opinion wars, and the way you have to sell yourself like a bloody commodity to get elected. NT> Doug equates this laissez-faire approach with feudalism. He does not go NT> far enough. Even in a feudal system the powerful individuals will recognise NT> that they have responsibilities that extend beyond their NT> own selfish desires NT> and freedoms. The large corporations which would be the equivalent of the NT> feudal lords would have no such sense of responsibility. You're quite right Nick. NT> Witness the vain NT> attempts of the current British government to persuade the business world NT> to inject private funding into education. There is no NT> profit. How could these NT> companies justify such philanthropy to their shareholders? No, once again NT> the 'libertarian' argument boils down to the law of the jungle. Well, the justification is that the factory floor needs drones with a certain level of literacy, therefore they should support schooling for the peasants at least until the fourth grade. What we are finding in Canada is that the University's efforts to get industry to support them are paying off rather well. The university is selling itself to business and students alike as a "factory" to produce a "commodity" that is in high demand, skilled workers for industry and job-tickets for unemployed youth. You must remember that a corporation is not a feudal institution, but a democratic one. The shareholders *elect* their boards of directors. So the Board members are not free-agents, but representatives of the shareholders. A Feudal Lord is generally accountable to no one but himself. However, I think the democratic flavour of corporate politics would quickly be lost in the anarcho-capitalist ideal Jeff presents such that a few big actors (Conrad Black, Whatsisface Trump, etc.) would end up with sole control of such vast resources that they could do whatevery they damned well pleased. That would result in some nobless oblige and patronage of the arts, and a sense of Feudal superiority. Heck, even southern US slave-owners in the early 19th century often thought they were doing their "niggers" a favour! NT> The Anarcho-Capitalism which Jeff dreams of may well provide an ideal NT> environment for him to excel in (although I doubt it) but NT> it would certainly NT> not give any succour to the weak. Jeff's three small NT> children had better not NT> be weak if they are to inherit his kingdom. Of course, remember that after a very few years of operation an anarcho-capitalist model would result in the weak being 98 per cent of the population and the strong being about 2 per cent. Even among that 2 per cent there would be struggling. We are talking about a kingdom here, and in mot kingdoms there is only one king, and the power of that king is nearly absolute. The king is strong, and everyone else had better like it or go hang! What makes this all all relevant to c.s.f is the idea that computer communication, like this, might do something to that society-wide process of public-opinion shaping which has become, in our age, completely corrupt and/or arbitrary. The public will support its democratic institutions if the public has a meaningful way of getting and being involved. I think the argument has been made that societies need collective institutions. I think the argument has also been made that current devices for public accountability and responsiveness are seriously lacking. Maggie Thatcher, Ronnie Raygun, and Brian Buloney are three of the stupidist, meanest, nastiest, most mentally incompetent and completely dishonourable politicians that history knows of. Yet they all won re-election in three of the world's greatest and oldest democracies. That is sobering! Brian squeaked in through a three-party split with 40-odd per cent of the vote (75 per cent turnout). Ronnie got in with 50 and a bit on a 50 and a bit per cent turn-out. I don't have the stats for Maggie handy, but my bet is that in the multi-party British system she got a good deal less than 50% of the votes cast. That too is sobering when you thing about the basic democratic principle of "majority rules". In Canada and the US we have governments/leaders that the majority of the people voted against. (Probably in britain too) The crisis lies in the inability of constitutions and electoral procedures to come up with a way of translating that into a defeat of the government. Call it fractured and divided opposition. In America a majority of voters stay home on election day. In Canada, the majority of voters divides its ballots among too many parties letting the government survive even a decisive public rebuff. That has to lead that majority to wonder about the "meaning" of democracy. Of course there is another propblem, the complexity of some of the issues presented to the electorate. Foreign Policy, Economic Policy, etc. etc. When such issues are discussed in the campaigns, they are dealt with as a small body of rather meaningless slogans. Most voters readily admit being somewhat confused about the issues. Few really believe that their choice is really *informed*. Mass media (esp. TV) rewards "leadership" qualities, and the tough guy image. Thus the one with the best tough guy image wins the election. If you want to win election in a modern democracy, project yourself as a tough guy. Will computer communication media help to change that? Will it make content a little more important than image? That is where this all leads in my mind. TV mass media are busily destroying democratic institutions in a very indirect way by corrupting the process of political campaigning. I'm looking for ways to rescue it. =Doug -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fido 1:221/162 -- 1:221/0 280 Phillip St., UUCP: !watmath!isishq!doug Unit B-4-11 DAS: [DEZCDT]doug Waterloo, Ontario Bitnet: fido@water Canada N2L 3X1 Internet: doug@isishq.math.fidonet.org (519) 746-5022 ------------------------------------------------------------------------