Netizens-Digest Thursday, April 10 2003 Volume 01 : Number 485 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] More or less democracy Re: [netz] Question for Jay: Economic as well as political Re: [netz] More or less democracy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:34:01 -0400 From: Mark Lindeman Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy Lou, OK, and it's good to have you and I agreeing that we are suspicious of any process that suspends elections. (Which doesn't necessarily mean that we're opposed to participatory democracy!) We collectively seem recently to be pretty befuddled about abstract questions such as whether we are a "technical" list or a "social" list. Meanwhile, the Net faces new challenges and offers new opportunities. Maybe it would clarify my question to Jay a bit to emphasize your word "co-workers." It's great to hear Jay's ideas on participatory democracy, but it would also be great to have more contributions, all around, on many issues raised by Howard and others that seem to be more immediate. Netizens are co-workers. What are we working on? Mark Luis De Quesada wrote: >Hello Mark: Jay and I have been co-workers and friends for many years, he knows >where I stand when it comes to representative democracy as I was a member and fan >of the Autentico Party in Cuba, which stood and still stands in exile, for >representative democracy. Him and I differ on that and various other politcal >issues, yet I am a netizen and we are the best of friends and co-workers and I am >certain my "netizenship" is not in peril because of my belief in representative >democracy. I would like though to learn more about participatory democracy. > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:14:59 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Question for Jay: Economic as well as political - --part1_142.ed94aed.2bc6e473_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/9/03 10:08:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes: > > > >There is something called the Frankfurter Brief > >that was offered to the US Supreme Court under > >Frankfurter documenting the benefit of shorter > >hours on a society. > > > >Ronda > > Shorter compulsory hours, perhaps. I still find that many creative > people spend 60 or more hours a week in doing what they believe to be > most socially productive and personally satisfying. That's a very > practical reason for my wanting a representative -- I don't want to > have half my time committed to detailed governmental supervision. I > want to be able to delegate detailed work to a representative, still > monitoring and affecting that position, just as I will delegate tasks > on any project I manage. I retain responsibility for the projects I > manage, just as I retain responsibility for my role (or apathy) in > government actions. > > It is interesting how the 'personal responsibility' theme continues, although indirectly, to evince itself. I am referring to the last sentence above. Basically my argument has been, a dissatisfaction with political results proves that there is an inadequacy somewhere in involvement or participation. Realistically it is true that it is a hardship to participate in the local governance process. Perhaps shorter hours of work will help as per the Frankfurter Brief that Ronda was talking about. I mean, if you cannot trust your elected representative, you have to do what you have to do. But does it logically follow, that people will employ some of this extra time that they have toward the management of at least local governance? I honestly believe that they will be using this time to pursue more employment. I don't understand this concept. Of course I am talking about this totally ignorant of what the Frankfurter Brief is, but nonetheless, I see an inequity in productivity that would naturally occur, simply due to human nature. There will be some country or region that will unlawfully exploit this inequity in productivity. I am taking it as an assumption that such compulsory regulation must be meted out internationally. While you are sleeping, the other guy will be working feverishly 'with the lights out.' He'll be crafty enough to distribute the labor so that it appears as though he is conforming. Ultimately, you lose competitiveness. Moreover, people will be forced unofficially to take their work home. At which point this happens, we would probably see an exploitation of labor that has been unprecedented in history. Since we are not an industrial economy anymore, it is all about the creation and exploitation of intellectual capital. It becomes difficult to prove what is work and what is leisure activity. Working masses taking classes at night to 'enhance one's skill set' might look like a personal initiative, or is it? There is no easy solution here. We might want to try looking somewhere else. There is no getting around it. If something is truly important to you, you will make the time to do it. If you have good reason to believe that your elected representative is not trustworthy, you are going to have to make the time to effectively 'look over his shoulder.' I have already articulated examples of 'how.' I really think life is a lot simpler than we construct it out to be. Why do you think Socialism failed? Lofty and fanciful armchair wit succumbed to the gravity of reality. Many assumptions were constructed about human behavior that were grossly unrealistic. On the other hand, Capitalism is more visceral. It effectively employs assumptions of human behavior that are realistic. Let's make assumptions about human behavior that are realistic. People are always looking for 'arbitrage opportunities,' i.e., getting something for nothing. We must find a way to clearly express to the masses how even the minuscule divergence of some of their leisure time toward the management of local governance will result in an enhanced improvement in quality of life. Advances in information production and communications technology such as the Internet might possibly be able to assist in this endeavor. Consider that new and advanced technology that enhances communications is occurring without this need to shorten the workday. For example, there is a glut of communications capacity and computing power out there. Technology companies are fighting for ways of adding value. We get a lot of cheap trinkets along the way. For example, professional quality multimedia applications that allow people to communicate more effectively, would not be accessible to the consumer were it not for this glut of communications capacity and computing power. Computer industry manufacturers such as Microsoft and Sun Microsystems are empowering us to be information producers and providers so that we may fill up this communications capacity and 'envalue' the Internet infrastructure. They have given us the capability of even burning our own CDs and DVDs -- intimate access to these technologies was once not available to the average consumer. Who would imagine, ten years ago, that everyday consumers would be today editing videos on a laptop computer -- Musicians making their own CDs? The software is becoming cheaper and cheaper to the point that it is being integrated into the operating system. Netizens can use these trinkets to more effectively persuade and to inform. And the speed of the processors allow us not only to run apps, but to run them effortlessly. The only time spent is in developing an idea; the 'mechanical' production, processing, and post-process distribution of the idea is practically instantaneous. The technology itself is already enhancing our leisure time with which we can use to participate in government. This circuitous problem solving is becoming confusing. The solution is simple. Let's first take some personal responsibility regarding our political destiny. Figure out what moves the people, manipulate that passion, and get them involved on a more than last-minute seductive level. The Internet can help. We had been discussing representation issues and solutions for the last month or two. I do not think working out of the system is helpful, if that is what 'participatory democracy' is about. The goal ought to be to improve communications between the people and representatives -- working within the system. I want some results here (banging gavel precipitously). No more analysis paralysis. Danke. Larry - --part1_142.ed94aed.2bc6e473_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/9/03 10:08:21 AM Eastern Daylight= Time, hcb@gettcomm.com writes:

>
>There is something called the Frankfurter Brief
>that was offered to the US Supreme Court under
>Frankfurter documenting the benefit of shorter
>hours on a society.
>
>Ronda

Shorter compulsory hours, perhaps. I still find that many creative
people spend 60 or more hours a week in doing what they believe to be
most socially productive and personally satisfying. That's a very
practical reason for my wanting a representative -- I don't want to
have half my time committed to detailed governmental supervision. I
want to be able to delegate detailed work to a representative, still
monitoring and affecting that position, just as I will delegate tasks
on any project I manage.  I retain responsibility for the projects I manage, just as I retain responsibility for my role (or apathy) in
government actions.



It is interesting how the 'personal responsibility' theme continues, althoug= h indirectly, to evince itself.  I am referring to the last sentence ab= ove. 

Basically my argument has been, a dissatisfaction with political results pro= ves that there is an inadequacy somewhere in involvement or participation.
Realistically it is true that it is a hardship to participate in the local g= overnance process.  Perhaps shorter hours of work will help as per the=20= Frankfurter Brief that Ronda was talking about.  I mean, if you cannot=20= trust your elected representative, you have to do what you have to do. =

But does it logically follow, that people will employ some of this extra tim= e that they have toward the management of at least local governance?  I= honestly believe that they will be using this time to pursue more employmen= t.

I don't understand this concept.  Of course I am talking about this tot= ally ignorant of what the Frankfurter Brief is, but nonetheless, I see an in= equity in productivity that would naturally occur, simply due to human natur= e.  There will be some country or region that will unlawfully exploit t= his inequity in productivity.  I am taking it as an assumption that suc= h compulsory regulation must be meted out internationally.

While you are sleeping, the other guy will be working feverishly 'with the l= ights out.'  He'll be crafty enough to distribute the labor so that it=20= appears as though he is conforming.  Ultimately, you lose competitivene= ss.

Moreover, people will be forced unofficially to take their work home. =20= At which point this happens, we would probably see an exploitation of labor=20= that has been unprecedented in history.  Since we are not an industrial= economy anymore, it is all about the creation and exploitation of intellect= ual capital.  It becomes difficult to prove what is work and what is le= isure activity. 

Working masses taking classes at night to 'enhance one's skill set' might lo= ok like a personal initiative, or is it?

There is no easy solution here.  We might want to try looking somewhere= else. 

There is no getting around it.  If something is truly important to you,= you will make the time to do it.  If you have good reason to believe t= hat your elected representative is not trustworthy, you are going to have to= make the time to effectively 'look over his shoulder.'

I have already articulated examples of 'how.' 

I really think life is a lot simpler than we construct it out to be.  W= hy do you think Socialism failed?  Lofty and fanciful armchair wit succ= umbed to the gravity of reality.  Many assumptions were constructed abo= ut human behavior that were grossly unrealistic.  On the other hand, Ca= pitalism is more visceral.  It effectively employs assumptions of human= behavior that are realistic.

Let's make assumptions about human behavior that are realistic. 

People are always looking for 'arbitrage opportunities,' i.e., getting somet= hing for nothing.  We must find a way to clearly express to the masses=20= how even the minuscule divergence of some of their leisure time toward the m= anagement of local governance will result in an enhanced improvement in qual= ity of life.

Advances in information production and communications technology such as the= Internet might possibly be able to assist in this endeavor.  Consider=20= that new and advanced technology that enhances communications is occurring w= ithout this need to shorten the workday. 

For example, there is a glut of communications capacity and computing power=20= out there.  Technology companies are fighting for ways of adding value.=   We get a lot of cheap trinkets along the way.

For example, professional quality multimedia applications that allow people=20= to communicate more effectively, would not be accessible to the consumer wer= e it not for this glut of communications capacity and computing power. =

Computer industry manufacturers such as Microsoft and Sun Microsystems are e= mpowering us to be information producers and providers so that we may fill u= p this communications capacity and 'envalue' the Internet infrastructure.&nb= sp; They have given us the capability of even burning our own CDs and DVDs -= - - intimate access to these technologies was once not available to the averag= e consumer.  Who would imagine, ten years ago, that everyday consumers=20= would be today editing videos on a laptop computer -- Musicians making their= own CDs?  The software is becoming cheaper and cheaper to the point th= at it is being integrated into the operating system.

Netizens can use these trinkets to more effectively persuade and to inform.&= nbsp; And the speed of the processors allow us not only to run apps, but to=20= run them effortlessly.  The only time spent is in developing an idea; t= he 'mechanical' production, processing, and post-process distribution of the= idea is practically instantaneous.

The technology itself is already enhancing our leisure time with which we ca= n use to participate in government.

This circuitous problem solving is becoming confusing.  The solution is= simple.  Let's first take some personal responsibility regarding our p= olitical destiny.  Figure out what moves the people, manipulate that pa= ssion, and get them involved on a more than last-minute seductive level.

The Internet can help.  We had been discussing representation issues an= d solutions for the last month or two.  I do not think working out of t= he system is helpful, if that is what 'participatory democracy' is about.&nb= sp; The goal ought to be to improve communications between the people and re= presentatives -- working within the system.

I want some results here (banging gavel precipitously).  No more analys= is paralysis.  Danke.

Larry - --part1_142.ed94aed.2bc6e473_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:33:11 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] More or less democracy - --part1_161.1e7c6bfd.2bc6e8b7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/9/03 8:28:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jrh@umcc.ais.org writes: > That I feel is the great promise of the net. I hope the cat is out of the > bag. I feel, given the chance and the encouragement, people will choose > self representation and that will prove a greatly improved system from the > representative republicanism that perhaps was historiaclly necessary. The > net makes possible the availability of all opinions and sources of > information, with time to absorb them, most people will be quite capable > of contributing meaningfully in the decision processes and the decisions. > Then those decisions will much more thoroughly benefit the mass of people > who participate in making them. > With some issues perhaps does self representation make sense but I argue against it in a general sense. You cannot make legislation convenient. It has to be a lugubrious protracted process that you 'suffer' with many levels of governmental consideration and 'paper' and time involved to at least demonstrate that each issue has been deliberated upon fairly. People have to be forced to 'more than virtually' argue with others with differing opinions face to face in order to begin to truly understand that there are realistic ramifications for taking a chauvinistic point of view. Larry - --part1_161.1e7c6bfd.2bc6e8b7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/9/03 8:28:11 PM Eastern Daylight=20= Time, jrh@umcc.ais.org writes:

That I feel is the great promis= e of the net. I hope the cat is out of the
bag. I feel, given the chance and the encouragement, people will choose
self representation and that will prove a greatly improved system from the representative republicanism that perhaps was historiaclly necessary. The net makes possible the availability of all opinions and sources of
information, with time to absorb them, most people will be quite capable
of contributing meaningfully in the decision processes and the decisions. Then those decisions will much more thoroughly benefit the mass of people who participate in making them.


With some issues perhaps does self representation make sense but I argue aga= inst it in a general sense.  You cannot make legislation convenient.&nb= sp; It has to be a lugubrious protracted process that you 'suffer' with many= levels of governmental consideration and 'paper' and time involved to at le= ast demonstrate that each issue has been deliberated upon fairly.  Peop= le have to be forced to 'more than virtually' argue with others with differi= ng opinions face to face in order to begin to truly understand that there ar= e realistic ramifications for taking a chauvinistic point of view.

Larry - --part1_161.1e7c6bfd.2bc6e8b7_boundary-- ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #485 ******************************