Netizens-Digest Wednesday, April 9 2003 Volume 01 : Number 481 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] Question about the list Re: [netz] More or less democracy Re: [netz] More or less democracy Re: [netz] Question about the list Re: Re[2]: [netz] censorship [netz] Question for Jay: Economic as well as political Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censor... Re[2]: [netz] privatization ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 17:24:40 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Question about the list >Hello Howard: One last thing about the misunderstandings that caused all the >controversy and for clarification. What did you mean when you told Jay he was >"demaning himself" by posting the anti-war article? >Lou D. I never wrote that. It's not even the word I would have chosen had I criticized that post.. I do seem to remember someone else said something along those lines. While I didn't directly criticize the anti-war article, it bothered me that Jay chose only to respond to anti-war issues and did not address any of my other suggested topics. These topics aren't necessarily instead of anti-war, although that would be my personal preference. Please be careful in your attributions of who said what about whom. > >"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > >> >Howard: I do not take any criticism, replies, etc. to what I say as >> >bullyism. I >> >respect criticism, the right to reply freedom of speech, etc. I did >> >object to what >> >you and Mark were doing a few days ago, when Mark I think referred >> >to Jay, Ronda >> >and I because of our postings and even to himself as co-dependents >> >and then you >> >receiving those statements with alacrity and even writing a little >> >comedy about >> >them, something like "would you please press the elevator button for >> >me, because I >> >am mentally unable to", or something to that effect. I regard that >> >as an insult and >> >a lack of respect for the Haubens as myself. >> >> First, my response with the codependent joke was to Mark, not you. >> I'm amazed that anyone will take it seriously. >> >> Second, the quote was more that the codependent gets someone guilty >> enough to push the button for them. That is actually a fair >> statement when considered in the context of Mark and I finding >> ourselves guiltily drawn into discussions we had meant to ignore. >> >> Third, if you regard humor not even directed at you or the Haubens as >> an insult and lack of respect, you have my sincere pity. Someone once >> suggested that the requisite for political correctness is the total >> removal of the sense of humor. >> >> On a very practical basis, the oppressed people of totalitarian >> states have historically made extensive use of humor as a coping >> mechanism. I'm familiar with many such in Slavic and Jewish >> contexts. Most Cubans I've met have been delightful, passionate (in a >> good sense) people, and I suspect there is a wonderful body of >> contemporary political humor there. >> >> >As far as postings are concerned my position is as always. I insist >> >on democracy >> >here at netizens. I have the right to post about salmon cookery or >> >whatever if I >> >want to and if you disagree you can post whatever you like about it. >> >I have made a >> >special request that the name calling stop. >> >> To be perfectly honest, I have not seen anyone calling anyone else >> names. Indeed, I have been extremely careful to avoid any >> descriptors, even when some might be quite acceptable to the subject, >> such as "activist." >> >> Luis, if I intended to insult you, there would not be the slightest >> question in anyone's mind that I was doing so. >> >> >I hope it did and will stop and if it >> >will not, I can also take that, because in a democracy even insults >> >are allowed, >> >however if you resort to them and to making fun of others, then >>expect angry >> >reactions and replies, expect to be challenged. You will not have a >> >last word on >> >that. >> >> >As far as hacktivism, I am not afraid of hacktivism, it is terrorism. >> >> As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between the two. I, >> personally, have the skills to damage infrastructure with high >> explosives or with computer networks. I could cause far more damage >> and be less likely to be stopped or apprehended using hacking. >> >> >I am >> >not afraid of terrorism, computers and servers can be restored >> >> Try telling that to the hospital patients who are endangered because >> their medical records have been altered, or had a denial of access, > > due to hacktivism. The most recent case was in Washington State. >> >> >and many times >> >hacktivists are located and arrested >> >> Extremely rare, unfortunately. >> >> >and tried and the threat of any sort of legal >> >retribution to stop my postings, does not affect me either, because >> >if it did, I >> >wouldn't even be in this forum. As far as workplace pressures I am >> >not afraid of >> >them either, but they do exist. Jay was a victim of them and that is >> >why we are >> >trying to keep the internet free of the fenagling and corrupt >> >bosses. I hope you're >> >not trying to scare me with hacktivism and other retributions? >> >> Listen carefully. I am not trying to scare or threaten you. I am >> trying to establish that I am engaging in what I consider appropriate >> intellectual exchange, and I am trying to show how different >> oppression would be. >> >> >I am not >> >transferring the responsibility of for justifying those services to >> >the Haubens, >> >but I think they're more educated in that area than I am. >> >To finalize this useless debate, I can assure you of one thing, if >> >your intention >> >is to control this list, to mold it to your opinions, you will be >> >replied to and >> >challenged. >> >Luis >> >> If a participant in any list doesn't intend to have their opinions >> have some effect on the list, why bother to participate? Molding it >> to opinion can be a participatory, consensus process. >> >> But if you still want to challenge, I can think of a few responses >> from the "Dirty Harry" movie. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 19:24:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Jay Hauben Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy I wrote: > >But I wonder if we have lost sight of or must reestablish the > >goal. Or perhaps some disagree that participatory democracy should be the > >goal. > Howard responded: > Participatory democracy may be a social goal, but I do not see it as > bound to network-enabled participation. For me netizenship is a taking of responsibility for contributing to the future of the net. But also and by necessity being a citizen of the current societies. For me it would be a narrower goal to seek to foster network-enabled participation, if that didn't include the fight for effective participation in the political decision making process. The net makes self-representation possible and therefore makes possible the replacement of the current systems of political representation. Howard continues: > I am a little hesitant to comment further without a very clear > definition of "participatory democracy." It is very unclear to me > this would work at national levels. I am opposed, however, to > replacing a republican system with a pure democratic system not based > on voting. One of the benefits of a republican system is that it > does allow formal deliberation, and the introduction of expert > opinion that might not be otherwise available. The advantage of the net is that it allows amateur as well as expert opinion so that the range of opinion to learn from is expanded. The challenge is to find the means to incorporate all opinions into the decision making process and to facilitate the deliberation so that concensus is more likely to be arrived at. In that way we might eliminate the expedient of voting. That is where citizenship is needed. If citizens had paid days for political involvement or if we could arrive at a 4:00 hour work day with adequate pay, with the net people could be empowered, if they choose, to influence or better help make the decisions that will effect them. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 19:44:03 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy >I wrote: >> >But I wonder if we have lost sight of or must reestablish the >> >goal. Or perhaps some disagree that participatory democracy should be the >> >goal. >> >Howard responded: >> Participatory democracy may be a social goal, but I do not see it as >> bound to network-enabled participation. > >For me netizenship is a taking of responsibility for contributing to the >future of the net. For me, that is the extent of netizenship, with the caveat that the net should permit extensive political dialogue and representation. >But also and by necessity being a citizen of the >current societies. For me it would be a narrower goal to seek to foster >network-enabled participation, if that didn't include the fight for >effective participation in the political decision making process. The net >makes self-representation possible and therefore makes possible the >replacement of the current systems of political representation. I do not consider that replacement to be a desirable goal. Consensus-based models historically become dominated by charismatic individuals or groups, and do not offer the protections of voting-based systems. If replacing republican system with self representation is the essence of netizenship, then I am clearly not a netizen, and indeed opposed to netizenship. I would rather that the goal of netizenship be less all-encompassing, so we can cooperate on things such as network access and information freedom, rather than having to accept an alternate political system. Since perhaps 1830, no single individual can claim to be an expert in all fields of knowledge. One is, therefore, forced either to accept the opinions of others, or to represent oneself without appropriate knowledge. If the former, how is there difference from the current system? If the latter, it seems a recipe for chaos. > >Howard continues: > >> I am a little hesitant to comment further without a very clear >> definition of "participatory democracy." It is very unclear to me >> this would work at national levels. I am opposed, however, to >> replacing a republican system with a pure democratic system not based >> on voting. One of the benefits of a republican system is that it >> does allow formal deliberation, and the introduction of expert >> opinion that might not be otherwise available. > >The advantage of the net is that it allows amateur as well as expert >opinion so that the range of opinion to learn from is expanded. There is a strong difference between amateurs learning basics, and the level at which legitimate experts operate. Forget about war issues, forget about network access. Tell me, for example, how a consensus model works in medicine. How could surgery be done by consensus? There isn't physical room in the patient for multiple surgeons. Or take an example from medicine. A patient presents with fluid retention, difficulty in breathing, and exhaustion after walking half a block. Initial physical screening reveals bluish nail beds, moderately high blood pressure, impaired kidney function, left ventricular hypertrophy, and a high serum potassium level. What's the consensus here? For the sake of argument, will you assume that a war might, under some conditions, be necessary? At what point does consensus decisionmaking end and authority and responsibility centralize? >The >challenge is to find the means to incorporate all opinions into the >decision making process and to facilitate the deliberation so that >concensus is more likely to be arrived at. In that way we might >eliminate the expedient of voting. I do not consider eliminating voting to be desirable, and do not see consensus based decisionmaking as viable for any large system. > >That is where citizenship is needed. If citizens had paid days for >political involvement or if we could arrive at a 4:00 hour work day with >adequate pay, with the net people could be empowered, if they choose, to >influence or better help make the decisions that will effect them. Now I'm lost. Who pays? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 21:21:33 -0400 (EDT) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: [netz] Question about the list Lou, I downloaded the Netizens digests for the last month and searched for all uses of the word "demean" or "demeaning". As far as I could determine, you were the first one to use the word. However, I imagine that you must be referring to Howard's statement: "Jay, are you able to make a post to the list that does not in some way involve war and anti-war? It seems not, and that's a shame, because it presents an incredibly narrow view of netizenship, in which you diminish yourself by seeming to be unable to consider it in any other context." I also tried to figure out what had inspired your repeated allusions to "accusations against Ronda and Jay about 'destroying the list'". My best candidate is this statement by Larry: "I am not pointing fingers. Maybe we should just not talk about the war anymore; please forgive me. There is a lot of integrity here and I think that this war talk generally destroys thread credibility because we cannot all try to be as objective as Howard and others." Honestly not intending to stir the embers of past conflict, it has been incredibly confusing to have attributed to me (and/or my "buddies") sentiments and actual words that I did not even recognize. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 23:07:37 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: Re[2]: [netz] censorship - --part1_84.e339ec8.2bc4e879_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/7/03 7:52:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > My concern would be that there are so many interactions that the list > would become so busy as to be unreadable. > I concur. Larry - --part1_84.e339ec8.2bc4e879_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/7/03 7:52:56 PM Eastern Daylight=20= Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:

My concern would be that there=20= are so many interactions that the list
would become so busy as to be unreadable.


I concur.

Larry - --part1_84.e339ec8.2bc4e879_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 23:20:38 -0400 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: [netz] Question for Jay: Economic as well as political After thinking about your comments on participatory democracy, it increasingly occurred to me that somewhere, there has to be revenue to produce this process. Even ignoring the highly expensive network infrastructure, what do you see as the source of funding for participation? Several possibilities come to me, and none may be what you have in mind -- a libertarian commons where the participants contribute voluntarily, possibly because the commons agrees participation enables the maximization of value in the free market a Marxist model where funds are redistributed from those who have the most to those who need to be supported in the process. a socialist tax model where the government applies some non-Marxist tax policy and makes transfer payments. Capital formation for network infrastructure seems a quite different model, since it's far too expensive to be funded by individuals. There would also be the question of the disposition of current investment in private networks. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 23:32:45 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: What do you hope is the purpose of the Netizens list: (Was: [netz] censor... - --part1_1d4.71878c8.2bc4ee5d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/7/03 11:37:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > RH>It sounds like you, Howard, have a social purpose, but one that > RH>is a bit narrower than what I consider to be the social purpose > RH>that the netizen is a promise of. > > H>A village is a social system. Somebody has to deal with the roads and > H>sewers. If they get blocked, socialization suffers. I want to keep a > H>level of congruence between social desire and implementation reality. > We need to have a sense of implementation in this list -- period. There are smart people here. Let's do some great things! I am getting exhausted by this soap opera. Larry - --part1_1d4.71878c8.2bc4ee5d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/7/03 11:37:29 PM Eastern Daylight= Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:

RH>It sounds like you, Howar= d, have a social purpose, but one that
RH>is a bit narrower than what I consider to be the social purpose
RH>that the netizen is a promise of.

H>A village is a social system. Somebody has to deal with the roads and <= BR> H>sewers. If they get blocked, socialization suffers. I want to keep a H>level of congruence between social desire and implementation reality.


We need to have a sense of implementation in this list -- period.  Ther= e are smart people here.  Let's do some great things! 

I am getting exhausted by this soap opera.

Larry - --part1_1d4.71878c8.2bc4ee5d_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 07:23:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re[2]: [netz] privatization On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Dan Duris wrote: > LDQ> how's czech and slovakia's economy doing lately? Perhaps you can tell us > Czech economy is doing better than Slovak and it's nothing wrong about > it. Czech rep. was more industrialized than Slovakia since the > beginning of 20th century , so it's just common development. > > I can tell you I am very happy we have democracy and big corporations > are coming here. If we didn't we would still have goverment-owned > telecommunication monopoly. And I can tell you that they are still > doing problems for other companies and so I have to pay for every > minute connected and doesn't have any other alternatives - cable, ADSL > or even wireless internet. It's too expensive and it would stay that > way for next 1 or 2 years. But thanks to BIG corporations all of you in > States could be connected in 4 hours to new telephone line and pay only > monthly fee for local calls. The basis for a good phone system in the US is *not* the free market, but the fact that AT&T, was a regulated monopoly in the US, under government oversight, for many years, and was supported to do advanced technical and scientific research by the government. Bell Labs at AT&T made it possible to develop electronic switching and to solve the very difficult problems of developing the 5 ESS switch. The principle was that advanced technology was needed to keep costs down. Large corporations on their own often squelch advanced technology as they need to protect their present infrastructure. There was a regulatory obligation on AT&T to develop advanced technology. That is responsible for a number of the current advances we have today not only in phone service in the US but also in developments that have made possible the Internet. You can look at the current moment and draw conclusions that are inaccurate if you don't know the background and where the developments are coming from. Ronda ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #481 ******************************