Almost Correct? |
| Government is required to regulate corporate actvities because corporations, insofar as they follow capitalist principles, are blind to the moral consequences of their actions. |
| Posted to HotWired 4 Jan 97 How nice to be thought of as "almost correct". It gives me the fibre to maintain my views, nay, even to admit that I am a collectivist, a socialist, or god help me, a liberal. But lables are no substitute for reasoned debate. In my previous post I stated - and most people agreed - that capital is not moral. I also stated - and most people disagreed - that capitalism is not moral. By that I don't mean immoral. What I mean is that capitalism is not a standard for defining "right" or "good" actions. Now why would I say that? For clearly a person can use capitalist principles in order to guide his or her actions. True. But being a guide to actions does not in itself make a system a guide to morality. A roadmap will tell me how to get to New York, and a system of using roadmaps (roadmapism?) will in general ensure that I get where I'm going. But both roadmaps and roadmapism are silent on the question of whether getting to New York is a good thing. The same with capital and capitalism. For example: capitalism will tell us how to maximize our GNP, or how to extract the lowest price for a toothbrush. But it is silent on the question of whether it is good to maximize GNP or lower toothbrush costs. Arguments from outside the domain of capitalism (and of economics generally) may say, in essence, sure, you could do this, but there will be a social or environmental cost which makes it bad. This is the role of government, or as I styled in in my previous post, rule of law. Government is required to regulate corporate actvities because corporations, insofar as they follow capitalist principles, are blind to the moral consequences of their actions. People are very fond of saying governments make bad corporations. On a strictly capitalist analysis, this may be true. Perhaps a corporation could clearcut a mountain more efficiently than a government. But governments are made less efficient (if they are less efficient at all - I haven't granted that point) by the fact that they must weight moral consequences along with economic consequences. (A cynic may say they have to weigh political consequences. Too true. But the cynic implies that this is a bad thing, presumably because it interrupts the unfettered flow of capital. But look at it the other way around. If a government is hesitant to act because there is a political cost, there may be a good argument for saying that such an act is bad, that the people will see it as bad, economics be dammed.) But even if governments make bad corporations, it must be said, corporations make terrible governments. Left unfettered by government regulations, corporations answer to nobody but their customers and their shareholders. This leaves corporations a wide latitude, one which should not be underestimated. It's easy to say that corporations could be regulated by such actions as consumer boycotts. These tactics, if they work at all, work only against highly visible corporations such as McDonalds. But how could a consumer boycott be successful against 107254 Ontario Limited? Or even against a name brand such as Bristol Aerospace? In any case, customer boycotts are useless when the corporation provides an essential service. For my own part, I would love to boycott banks. Like members of the Islamic faith, I believe usury is morally wrong. But I am unable to boycott banks; it is not possible to live in an industrialized society without using their services. The best I can do is to gang up with a bunch of friends and attempt to regulate the activities of banks, aerospace companies, and mysterious numbered companies. This is called politics. It is the art of mitigating the bad caused by corporations who are blind to the concept of good and bad. That is why we need government. If a corporation is not going to care when it hurts me, then by golly I will use government to make it care. Economics be damned. While capitalism is perhaps best served in a free market environment, politics by contrast is best served by cooperative - dare I say socialist? - action. Politics is indeed the art of mass action, of a large number of people moving and acting as one. Perhaps such an unwieldy mass makes for a bad corporation. But it makes a strikingly effective moral agent. The desires of a community often make no economic sense. The park which I can see from my window generates no tax revenue and costs money to operate. But I like the park. And I think it is good that kids can play on the swings for free. Perhaps a corporation, if it ran the park, could make more money than the City. This fact is irrelevant to me. If the City tried to sell the park, or even make a profit doing it, I and everyone else in the neighbourhood would take to the streets to stop them. Corporations may be able to run hospitals more efficiently than government. They can certainly make money doing it. But is this a good thing? In Canada, hospitals are essentially run by the government. Even if they were less efficient that the American corporate system (in fact they are not) or provided a lower standard of care (again, they do not), I would still support government run hospitals. Why? Because when I am gravely ill, I am not in a position to negotiate. I cannot shop around for the best deal. If I am charged a fee, I am faced with the choice of either paying the fee or meeting my maker. When I am in such a situation, I want those people who care for me to be governed by something other than the bottom line. For me, there is a moral element attached to care-giving, one which is not captured by market forces or Adam Smith's invisible hand. It's easy at this point to start with the rhetoric about "command" economies and to harp on the failure of the communist bloc, and to tout the triumph of free market economics. Easy, but misleading. The soviet economy failed not because it was governed by a central authority (Mircosoft is governed by a central authority, but doesn't appear to be failing), but because it failed completely to exercise the moral will of the people, and often, acted against that will. People often talk as though the soviets were not capitalist systems. Nothing is further from the truth. The western nations practised market capitalism. The soviets practised state capitalism. The primary purpose of soviet leadership was to increase industrial output and economic gain. The western nations succeeded where the soviets failed not because they were capitalist, but because they were democratic. A moral force in western nations opposed the excesses of capitalism, a force which did not exist in soviet nations. Which brings us to the Sudan. No moral force protects the little girl. Her country is wracked by civil war - easy to blame government for this one, except that the governments in question are in no way democratic. Leaders on both sides are trying to maximize profits by eliminating the competition by any means possible, and the consequence, especially in the south, is strife and starvation. The little girl in the Sudan can be exploited because there is no agency which stipulates to the employer in question the need to pay staff a living wage. Without allies - without a politically empowered community - the only forces operating in her environs are purely market forces, and these dictate that she works for fifty cents a day. She is powerless to resist; it's either that or starve. It would be nice if her society had better, more enlightened, leaders, or that she and her friends were better organized, but she is not in a position to change this. Asking her to stand up for herself and throw off her oppressors, like the Americans did in 1776, is to ask her to commit suicide. What would be better for her? Here we reach the point of this discussion of morlaity. It would be better were she in school instead of work, better is she were in jeans instead of rags, better if she were in a house instead of a hut. And the point of my argument is: even if it makes no economic sense to house, feed, clothe and educate her, it is still good. The role of government is to see to it that this good is enforced. Economics is a wonderfully abstract discipline. The various discussions of trade deficits, of GNP, of models and systems, all abstract to elimination the pain of this little girl. Economics is, like capitalism, indifferent to the fact that pain is bad. I wish I could share the economists unbridled enthusiasm for the global economy. Even as the average wage increases, the gap between rich and poor widens. Even as GNPs increase, relative purchasing power decreases as that newfound wealth finds intself more and more in the hands of a privileged few. Even while the stock market climbs, the Sahara expands, the rain forest shrinks, the hole in the ozone grows. It's easy to point to numbers and say, "See? It's getting better!" But in fact we have entered into an era of unparalleled human suffering, and against the tears of the little girl in the Sudan the economists' apologies sound like hollow rationalizations. Again - and why does it seem so absurd? - if we are to enter into a global capitalist economy, we must restrain its excesses with rule of law. Couldn't anything be more obvious?
|
Looking for the Better Side |
| Let's remember that it was government that brought us the internet. Had we waited for the corporate world to bring us the internet, how long would we have waited? |
| Posted to HotWired 10 June 97 Well here I am on Internet Explorer, almost (not quite) for the first time ever, with its positively weird scroll-bar (who wants a scroll bar that speeds up and won't stop when you release the mouse button?). Thank you, NewBot, for downgrading my internet experience (those software downloads when I hit the Wired site, too -- strange, very strange, to let an internet site install unknown software onto my computer). Anyhow... We tried it the government way and that... sucks Really? Let's turn this over and look at it from the other side. Had we waited for the corporate world to bring us the internet, how long would we have waited? Let's remember that it was government that brought us the internet. Many people still access the net through government sponsored or subsidized sites. While the meaning of the word "sucks" is a bit unclear, I would say that this bit of government intervention does not suck. But - Katz thinks of the internet as a kind of hinterland. The metaphor works to an extent - it is certainly a place. But his answer to corporate settlement - some kind of hinterland revolution - doesn't pan. Revolutions are very rarely - if ever - about principle. Forget the common myth the the American revolution was about freedom. It was about taxes - the kind of bread and butter stuff that all revolution is founded on. The corporate takeover of the internet is not the sort of thing that ferments revolution. What we have to be doing is building alternate channels - links from mainstream media into the vast hinterland that is our internet. Putting links from public forums to our home pages (where's your link, Jon?), and from our home pages to alternative media. Constructing community sites which link all community web pages (and not just the Chamber of Commerce approve sites). And the like. Because there is one thing about Morgan's comment which makes sense: if the alternative is better, that's where people will go. And - for my money - if a corporate site is better than what I'd see in the non-corporate world, that's where I'll surf. I'm here, right? And my Netscape browser is turned to Yahoo. I think that the non-corporate is better than the corporate in many ways. But I've got to say this: it takes work to build a quality alternative. No way around it. Revolutions sounds romantic and grand - but it's only a guise for not wanting to get down, get dirty, and get good.
|
Well, that wasn't my point, but... |
| I am concerned by the double standard expressed by American governments, condemning terrorism on one hand, while using it baldly with the other. |
| Posted to HotWired 26 Aug 97 In the While I'm Here Department, well, yes, I was hoping for a response, but not quite what I got. Silly me. When told that their own government is helping people lob firebombs at inncoents in Havana, I expected American readers to
Well. It wasn't my point, but... Canada is better. Our poverty rate is a tenth that of the United States, our health and education standards are higher, crime is well below American rates, incomes are just as high, life expectancy is longer, and oh yeah, we've got a lot of unspoiled forest too. But that wasn't my point. My point in my previous post was twofold:
The While I'm here entry is something I've been stewing about for some time. My angst here is again twofold:
Please notice that those two points have nothing to do with Canada. As for my own Canadian government, I find it a bit two faced that we declare sanctions against Myanamar (Burma) but not against Indonesia or China. We should be consistent on this side of the border too. We'll get into the commie-pinko-socialist rant some other time. I thought that list of good government programs, a few notes above, was a good one. (BTW a private company built a highway in Ontario recently. The opening had to be delayed because they cut corners on safety. Then the tolling computers wouldn't work properly. Typical corporate snafus. Had a government built the thing we'd be screaming about inefficiency. But more on corporate bungling in some other post...).
|
No Government Incentives? |
| The Star Trek world is a socialist world. All the social programs so hotly debated today are taken for granted in the Federation. |
| Posted to HotWired 21 Nov 97 What we really need in this discussion list is a way of eliminating duplicate - nay, triplicate - posts. But I digress. One comment from Paul Boutin's article caught my eye:
And, notably, there aren't any government incentive programs driving Roddenberry's future space nerds. Federation geeks go to Starfleet Academy and sign up for deep-space duty for the most compelling reason of all: because they really want to learn. Now this is an odd remark. Sure, strictly speaking, nobody got paid to attend Starfleet Academy. But in Star Trek, nobody gets paid for anything (except the Ferengi, and you know what kind of low-life they are). One of the premises of Star Trek is that all your everyday needs are met. Food is free for the asking from any replicator. Quarters are provided on request. Education may be had at the touch of a button. Health care is efficient, effective, and free. The Star Trek world is a socialist world. All the social programs so hotly debated today are taken for granted in the Federation. Money - either as a means of survival or a path to opulance - does not motivate anyone (except Ferengi, and you know...). Picard never gets paid - but he doesn't want to, or need to. In Star trek is the answer to those people who oppose social programs on principle. Such people often argue that social programs destroy people's incentive. That if people are not charged for such things as education and health care, they won't appreciate it. In the Star Trek world, despite having all their needs met, people do not lack motivation. What we see is probably true for the vast majority of us - that, given the chance, we will choose to excel, to achieve our highest potential (sheesh, that probably motivates half the hackers on the net today!).
|
The Role of the State |
| Freedom is the right to pursue one's own good in one's own way, so long as that pursuit does not infringe on another's right to do the same. But one person's good is another person's nightmare. The role of government is to balance these conflicting rights. |
| Posted to HotWired 28 May 98 The irony is, socialists and capitalists might actually agree on this one, at least in broad strokes. The devil is in the details. For example, freedom is good. Both socialists and capitalists agree on this. It is true that the capitalist will accuse the socialist of repressing freedom, but also, in their own way, the socialists argue that capitalists repress freedom. And what is freedom? For the most part, both socialists and capitalists follow the definition proposed by John Stuart Mill: freedom is the right to pursue one's own good in one's own way, so long as that pursuit does not infringe on another's right to do the same. But as is pointed out elsewhere, one person's good is another person's nightmare. As was stated above, a pedophile's definition of good involves molesting young children. Such molestation violates the rights of the child, and so we, quite rightly, agree that the pedophile's behaviours must be limited in this case. The role of government is to balance these conflicting rights. In the case of the pedophile, we assign government the responsibility of preventing, by force if necessary, the molesting of children. The clear cut cases are easy. There is a wide range of behaviours both capitalists and socialists consider repugnant, including but not limited to, murder, cannibalism, rape, theft, arson, and the like. The fuzzy cases are harder. A good example, also cited above, is pollution control. All humans produce waste, even if only in the form of exhaled air, which eventually impacts on another person, even if only in the form of bad breath. But at the other extreme, some humans produce waste which is injurious or deadly to other humans. So clearly some restraint is required, but also as clearly, such restraint should not apply to all cases. How to decide? It is the adjudication of such cases to which we assign government the responsibility. This function, it should be noted, is a distinct function from the identification and prevention of violations, as described in the case above. That function is most properly called the executive function. The adjudicative function we will call the legislative function. None of this is new to any of us. And as I said, in broad strokes, both capitalists and socialists agree on this formulation, to this point. Where differences between the two philosophies occur, they occur in the description of the implementation of each of these two major functions. For example, in the questions of crime and punishment, the domain of the executive function, some people may favour harsh and punative penalties, while others may favour mild and rehabilitative penalities. But this debate usually occurs quite outside the usual capitalism-socialism debate. It is in legislative function where the major disputes occur. On what principle shall we determine where the rights of one person end and another's begin? The principle usually adopted, also from John Stuart Mill, is the 'no harm principle'. Broadly stated, the 'no harm principle' stipulates that, so long as one person's behavious does not harm another, that behaviour ought to be allowed. Capitalists adhere to this strictly. Socialists, however, tend to identify three areas of fuzziness. First, socialists tend to include 'harm to oneself' as harm to another, and hence, tend to argue that persons ought to be prevented from harming themselves. For example, a socialist might be more prone to ban alcohol or gambling. Second, socialists tend to include 'non-physical harm' as harm to another, and hence, tend to argue that various forms of speech and other behaviours ought to be prevented. For example, a socialist might be more prone to prohibit hate literature or foul language. And third, socialists tend to include 'social harm', that is, harm to society as a whole, but not to any identifiable person, as harm to another, and hence, tend to argue that such social harms ought to be prevented. For example, a socialist might be more prone to promote animal rights or environmental protection. Obviously, there is considerable cross-over. Many capitalists include instances of at least some of these three categories of wrongs. And many socialists do not include all instances of these three categories of wrongs. It is the role of the legislative function of government to determine where in this range of possible offenses the line ought to be drawn, and to determine the means and amount of force required to enforce those decisions. Government, properly conceived, ought to express the will of the people themselves with regard to those determinations. For example, in determining whether self-harming behaviours in general, and, say, drinking in particular, ought to be legal, government must consist of the method by which we sample the opinion of the people, and on that basis, express their will. Both capitalists and socialists agree that the best method of doing so is democratically. This is what distinguishes capitalists from fascists, and socialists from communists. But given that this will ought to expressed democratically, the question arises: how? Most countries' populations express their wills in two major ways: first, by electing representatives to speak for them and to vote in legislative assemblies, and second, by purchasing goods and otherwise supporting agencies they agree with (some naer-do-wells combine these methods, by purchasing votes, but this is generally frowned upon by both capitalists and socialists). A socialists will tend to argue that only the former should prevail, that is, that the only instrument of public policy ought to be the vote. A capitalists will argue that both should prevail, that is, that a person's purchases are equally expressive and ought, in many instances, to be used instead of the vote (a pure capitalists will argue that the vote is not necessary, and that purchases themselves will determine the will of the people). Importantly: insofar as capital, and not the vote, is used as a means of expressing the public will, the role of the vote, and hence of the legislative and executive function of government, is lessened. Hence, in the context of a capitalist-socialist debate, when the question is asked, what is the role of government, the question is in fact, how much of the public will ought to be expressed by the vote, and how much ought to be expressed by the spending of capital? This is why each side accuses the other of being anti-democratic, and anti-freedom. The socialist argues that capitalists undermine freedom and democracy by undermining the power of the vote. This allows some people to harm others in ways others cannot. The line between harm and non-harm is not set at a fixed point for all people. This is clearest in the fuzzy cases. For example, consider the case of pollution. If the limit is set by legislation, then all people ahve the same right to pollute. However, if the limit is set by capital (as, for example, in the purchase of pollution credits), then some people are permitted to pollute while others do not have that right. This distinction expresses itself also, but in a different way, even in the case of criminal prosecutions. A person who can spend capital to hire a good lawyer can get away with more than a person who cannot. In some cases (the name O.J. springs to mind), a person with enough capital can get away with murder. In civil cases, especially where non-physical harm is involved, the influence of capital over a person's rights is evident. On the other side, capitalists argue that the socialists' approach restricts their rights. Insofar as the socialists is generally willing to include harm to oneself, non-physical, and social harms as harms (and insofar as people keep voting to include such in their jurisdictions' laws) capitalists see themselves as unreasonably limited by government. A strong capitalist, for example, would argue that such matters as suicide, alcohol consumption, gambling, vulgarity, inflammatory speech, and the like ought most properly to be beyond the domain of government. And matters of social good promoted by government, such as schools, hospitals, roads, and even military or police, ought to be governed not by legislation but by private investment and capital. The reasoning in all such cases is similar: if all such laws were removed from the books, in consequence no person would be harmed, and therefore, laws governing such matters are beyond the domain of government. Indeed, they continue, it is the obligation of the socialist to show how harm is prevented by any of these laws. The onus is not simply to show that more people voted for a piece of legislation - for that is irrelevant, since the vote is only a mechanism for expressing a will, like a poll - but rather, to show that some person's rights are or are not protected by a given piece of legislation. And in fact both capitalists and socialists agree on this. They agree that the vote is not the final arbiter. They agree that no matter what the will of the people, one's rights cannot be violated. And as a consequence most countries encode these bodies of rights in such documents as the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But the history of such documents is an odd one. For charters of rights arise in the people's historical desire to protect itself from government, especially the non-democratic kind. In more democratic climes, charters of rights have also evolved to protect people what what Mill termed the 'tyranny of the majority'. In the end, charters of rights are restrictive documents. They identify what harms a people will, under no circumstances, tolerate. And in some cases - such as the right to bear arms, or the right of assembly - they specify what they people may do in the protection of those rights. As the capitalist approach to government is a minimalist approach, capitalists tend to view charters of rights as definining the role of government. If an action does not violate a right as set out in the charter of rights, they often argue, then government ought not enact a law restricting that action. Socialists, by contrast, see charters of rights as starting points. Other restrictions not envisioned by the charter of rights are permissible, if identifiable harm (broadly conceived) may be found. The socialist, indeed, sould take this argument a step further. Charters of rights typically restrict only the actions of government. They do not restrict the actions of people. Thus, even given a charter of rights, people are not protected from the harm caused by other people. That is why additional legislation is required. For example, while the Bill of Rights may protect Americans in their freedom of speech, it does not prevent companies from restricting the speech of their employees. A corporation is not directly governed by the Bill of Rights. A separate piece of legislation, explictly aimed at such instances, would have to be drafted in order to give employees the freedom of speech, particularly in their workplace. Moreover, insofar as a charter of rights is only intended to prevent the government from doing harm, it does not express in a wider sense the sorts of harm from which a person ought to be protected. For example, the provision of an education falls outside this category. Hence, in typical charters of rights, the provision of an education is not a right. Hence additional laws must be enacted requiring that an education be provided. In fact, both capitalists and socialists agree that additional legislation, to some degree, is required beyond the charter of rights. For example, both sides agree that a corporation's purchasing power ought not extend to permission to kill people, or plant plutonium in the city square, and the like. Both capitalists and socialists agree that there ought to be some legislation enacted to protect people from each other (as opposed to merely protecting people from government). One (minimalist) proposal: that the charter of rights be extended to include all people, not just government, and that the role of government be restricted to enforcing the charter (as interpreted by the judiciary). But which charter? The U.S. Bill of Rights is a very minimal document. The Canadian charter is more inclusive, but includes an opt-out clause. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a sweeping document, however, one which people would consider too generous if applied to all people, and not merely all governments. The Mulit-Lateral Agreement on Investment is a similar document, however, one which does not extend itself to the protection of citizens. The truth - as always - lies somewhere between the extremes. What is needed is a more sweeping charter of rights and freedoms, trhan currently exists, one which explicitly limits the power of both legislations as expressed by the vote, and freedoms as expressed by the expense of capital. It ought to include the right to at least a minimal amount of self-expression, and the right to at least a minimal amount of capital. These minimums will in turn enable each person the right to participate in both forms of decision-making, and to be protected from both forms of repression. Once such a document is in place, then the full and proper role of government can be defined as enforcing the charter - in effect, to a significant degree, terminating the legislative function of the government, expect for such minimal maintenance as the charter would require over the years. And that - both capitalists and socialists can agree - would be a good thing. Right?
|
The Case Against Guns |
| When an item is deemed to be excessively dangerous to the public safety, then governments ought to ban, or at the very least, severely restrict, ownership of that item. |
| Posted to NewsTrolls February 11, 1999 One of the problems with arguing with the NewsTrolls crowd is that they start from such a wide array of political views. For example, in order to make a case for the regulation of guns, I need to make the case for regulation of anything, for there are some people in this community who believe that government regulation of anything is wrong. And no matter what I say, there are elements within that crowd who are not going to sway on that point. To expect further success, in the area of gun ownership, would be unreasonable. Therefore I am going to take it as at least a given that one of the proper roles of government is to regulate those things which are demonstrably dangerous to public health and safety. This is why all governments have laws prohibiting the private ownership of nuclear weapons. It is held - reasonably, I think - that the risk to the public of either an accidental or deliberate detonation justifies the restriction on personal freedom. Laws of this sort become necessary when the consequences of misuse are too great to expect some measure of reasonable compensense. How would we punish a person who accidentally detonated a hydrogen bomb in lower Manhatten? No amount of criminal sanction could ever undo such a deed. We restrict the ownership of hydrogen bombs for the precise reason that we do not want it to be possible for someone to commit such a crime. Now it is true that there are some readers - such as Jet - who would demur at the though of restricting private ownership of nuclear weapons. He would point out - quite reasonably - that placing such weapons in government hands, rather than individual hands, does not diminish individual responsibility for their use. True, and in the case of hydrogen bombs, I would see this as a good reason for banning them altogether, illegal for either private or public party to possess. But Jet's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, there is a distinction to be drawn between private and public ownership of nuclear weapons. In the case of public ownership, people who, as it were, have their hands on the trigger, are subjected to a measure of public scrutiny, either through the electoral process, or though the screening of military personnel. I would be the first to agree that such screening is inadequate (and hence, that hydrogen bombs ought to be banned altogether), but it seems clear to me, that some screening is better than none. Therefore I am going to take it as a given that one of the proper roles of government is to regulate the private ownership of nuclear weapons, and that the reason for such regulation is that the risk of private ownership is too great to allow even the possibility of misuse. If you argue that such a ban ought to extend to public agencies as well, I concur, and need not deny the point to make my case. If you argue that the government ought not restrict the private ownership of nuclear weapons, well, then, I will respect your position, but ask you to defer argument for your lonely stand to another thread. Of course, not all items in the world are as dangerous as hydrogen bombs. And while a general ban on the private ownership of hydrogen bombs might be in order, it may be arguable that a ban on the ownership of less dangerous items, such as Siberian tigers, would not be in order. Clearly, nobody could devastate a significant portion of New York City with a Siberian tiger. Thus, the potential for widespread death and injury is significantly less. And in fact, I would consider an outright ban on the ownership of Siberian tigers to be unreasonable, even in the face of the fact that they are unarguably dangerous. But does that mean that I would want everyone to be able to be allowed to own - if not actually own - a Siberian tiger? Well - one Siberian tiger may not pose a threat to lower Manhatten, but I would suspect a million of them would be considered outright dangerous. Were the public ownership of Siberian tigers to be commonplace, they would be found on every block in the city, stored in apartments and garages, sometimes lost and sometimes let lose. Sometimes they would be used to inflict harm on others - especially burglars - but just as often they would inflict harm on their owners, who through ignorance or neglect, accidentally freed the dangerous animals. Stories of random Siberian tiger attacks in city streets would be common. Every week, a number of small children would be mauled by the family Siberian tiger. As the death toll mounted, citizens would cry out, almost as one, Something must be done! Just as it is common for towns and cities in more frontier regions to take steps to repel dangerous predators, the Siberian tigers of lower Manhatten would be rounded up and either destroyed or sent to less urban climes. Indeed, it is arguable that the unleasing of a million Siberian tigers in lower Manhatten would result in a death toll, over time, almost as high as the detonation of a nuclear bomb. Over the decades of predation, the death toll would mount into the tens of thousands. True, the crime rate would probably be reduced - who wants to be a night stalker when Siberian tigers are lurking? - but the cost of such a reduction would be seen as greater than the benefits. Moreover, were somebody to propose that Siberian tigers be imported on a masive scale as a means of private protection, they would quite rightly be ridiculed. No city administrator would sign into law a measure which allowed - much less encouraged - the use of Siberian tigers for personal defense. No politician would ever be elected on a pro-tiger platform. The public, along with its elected representatives, would argue that Siberian tigers are far too dangerous to the public safety, and that their ownership, if not banned outright, ought to be heavily restricted by law. In general, when an item - either on its own, as in the case of the hydrogen bomb, or as an aggregate, as in the case of Siberian tigers - is deemed to be excessively dangerous to the public safety, then governments ought to ban, or at the very least, severely restrict, ownership of that item. And in fact, when we look at the array of items that it is possible to own, we find that government has in fact imposed a corresponding array of regulations on ownership, varying from none (as in the case of lolipops, milk cartons, or household furntiure) to limited (as in the case of dogs), to restrictive (as in the case of cars, alcohol, explosives, or pornography) to comprehensive (as in the case of hydrogen bombs). We could debate at length the merits of any particular set of regulations. But if it is agreed (or stipulated, as above), that government ought to regulate some dangerous things, then such arguments boil down only to the question of (a) how dangerous is the item in question, and (b) how restrictive should legislation be regarding items which are that dangerous. We could use existing laws as a starting point for such a discussion, and with the exception of the issue at hand, a reasonable starting point. I have already described above how dangerous I believe Siberian tigers are, and I have argued above that the ownership of Siberian tigers ought to be restricted, in fact is restricted, and would continue to be restricted were such a measure put to any electorate. I now want to argue that guns are as dangerous as Siberian tigers, and in the same way. A single gun, while significantly dangerous, particularly in the hands of a deranged or irresponsible person, is nonetheless not a general threat to public safety. True, a single gun could cause a lot of death and injury, but it by itself could not dramatically affect the social order or general public peace of an entire nation. However, unleashing a million guns in lower Manhatten would have - and I argue,has had - roughly the same effect as unleashing a million Siberian tigers in that urban area. At first glance, the statistics appear to support this contention. In a much cited study by Kellermann and Teay, it is argued that guns kept in the home are 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance than an intruder. The National centre for Health Statistics reports that Every day, 15 American children are killed with guns, and that U.S. children are 12 times more likely to die by gunfire than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. And comparisons with other countries seem to point to a relation between guns laws and gun slayings. This appearance is misleading. Not all studies support the conclusion that guns are dangerous. A number of the studies cited in Gary Kleck's comprehensive work show no co-relation between guns and crime rates, and J. Neil Schulman's site argues in some detail that guns do not even pose a significant risk of accidental death. David B. Kopel disputes a number of the statistics cited above, noting that "the overall fatal gun accident rate for the American population has been declining faster than the rate of most other types of accidents". As Schulman concludes,
Quite so. The argument against guns must run deeper than mere statistics, and indeed, if founded on statistics, would eventually founder. Consider again the case of Siberian tigers. Were ownership of these pets legalized, as I suggest above, the crime rate would drop. Moreover, as people adapted to an environment where Siberian tigers were common, the incidence even of accidental deaths would decline over time. People would learn better to handle Siberian tigers - especially in nations with high military populations where tiger-ownership was encouraged and tiger-training was essential - and people would learn to protect themselves from tigers, either by purchasing their own tiger or by staying out of places where tigers might likely be found. Indeed, it would be arguable - and probably argued - that the rise in crime which would result from the criminalization of Siberian tigers would cause more deaths than the current rate of tiger-related crimes. Yet no society would legalize Siberian tigers, even knowing that it could adapt, and even knowing that some country has adapted, and even knowing that there would be a reduction in crime. Why? To put the answer slightly dramatically: people would not want to live in a society where they, and not the tigers, are living in cages. Two examples, from personal experience, illustrate my point:
Perhaps Americans do not see their own country the way outsiders do. Perhaps they are used to the Siberian tigers in their midst, so much so that most of them seem to have one, and everyone suspects everyone else will unleash a tiger at any instant. But America from the point of view of an outsider is a nation of walled cities (or at least, gated commnities), no-man's-land, hostile encampments, fear, and apprehension. Even were crime in America lower, even were guns only a minor cause of accidental death - and we would bandy the statistics about - it seems to me that the imprisonment of an entire society seems to me to be far too high a price to pay for that. For, in the aggregate, guns are as dangerous as Siberian tigers, and just as it would be an intolerable threat to public safety to allow tigers to roam in society at large, so also it is an intoleable threat to allow guns to flow through the community. For even if guns reduce crime, and even if people have learned to thrive - or at least, survive - in such a society, the ongoing existence of such a threat forces people to live in fear of their neighbours and fellow citizens. For such a society to retreat from its precarious existence and into the realm of civilized intercourse, nothing less than a complete transformation would be required. Not easily will Americans part with their weapons - as in any armed stand-off, the person who puts down his weapon first is defenseless in the face of a hostile enemy. Probably the only solution for the United States is a gradual weaning, one which foussed as much on healing the sickness in society as it did on disarming hostile camps. But nations can be disarmed. It was done in Nicaragua, and is being done in Northern Ireland, and continues as an evolutionary process in such countries as Canada, Great Britain and New Zealand. But such a disramament is possible only when a substantial proportion of the population rises up and states, No! We will be prisoners in our homes no more! In the United States, that could be a very long time. More's the pity.
Resources: (Note: these resources represent both sides of the debate. Although nothing like a comprehensive collection, they are a sampling of some of the more cogent essays and articles).
|
The CRTC's Decision |
| The CRTC's decision to hold online hearings, and their capacity to listen and learn from what was said, marks a watershed in government. It's enough even to give us some hope. |
| Posted on NwsTrolls 19 May 1999 The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced Monday that it will not regulate the internet in Canada. "The CRTC will not regulate new media services on the Internet," making Canada one of the first industrialized countries to take such a stand, said CRTC chairwoman Francoise Bertrand at a news conference. The announcement - which sent a ripple of relief through the Canadian internet community - is singular not only for its wisdom, but also for the process of consultation leading up to the report. The CRTC is Canada's version of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Like the FCC, it regulates all aspects of telecommunications and broadcasting in Canada. It allocates spectrum, monitors content, and coordinates development. In traditional CRTC hearings, a panel is convened, suits from the radio and television industry state their case, and the verdict is rendered. The process, although ostensibly public, is tilted toward large industries who have the time and resources to make formal submissions. In the case of the internet hearings, however, the CRTC and the McLuhan Institute at the University of Toronto convened a parallel online discussion as part of the formal process. The forum, open for three months last fall, attracted 375 responses from an estimated 200 individual authors. And while the forum did not attract the major players (who presented their opinions to the Board in person, as usual), most industry types subscribed to the list server and kept track of the ongoing discussion. When they started, the hearings attracted widespread cynicism and concern. The CRTC wielded a heavy hand in Canadian broadcasting, enforcing Canadian content regulations, language policies, formats, and more. Sceptics pondered the implication of Canadian content regulations on the internet. One company set up a parody "Canadian Internet Licensing Board". Columnists across the country argued that a CRTC decision to regulate was inevitable, and that the only questions concerned the nature of that regulation. But in the online forum, while some participants expressed concern over hate literature, pronography and SPAM, the vast majority of participants argued against regulation of any type. Few were as eloquent as a Bay Street lawyer, but they made their point:
date: Nov.22/98 message: Leave the internet alone !!!! The last thing Canada needs is another beaurocracy wasting countless dollars on regulations that are totally uncalled for. The CRTC is an abomination and a complete waste of money as it is. It serves no useful purpose other than forcing the views of the members onto the public, and in the case of TV, shows that in many cases are not what we want to see. Leave it alone, Stay out of our lives. Yours Truly, E. Ayley Slowly, the tide turned. The commission began to learn about the industry. They began to question applicants, asking technical questions, demonstrating a knowledge unexpected in a bureaucratic body. As the Ottawa Sun's Rob Hall wrote,
Every single commissioner had some questions followed by an in-depth discussion with us. This alone gives me hope that the issue may be properly decided. The primary issue is whether the Internet is broadcasting. If it is, then it falls under the CRTC jurisdiction.... In the end, the CRTC decided that some aspects of the internet - for example, video streaming or web radio - were in fact broadcasting. But even so, they decided to leave it alone. To leave it unregulated. Now this decision does not mean that Canadians suddenly have a free hand to do what they want on the internet. The usual laws of the land apply. Injunctions against hate literature, for example, or child pornography remain in force. But there will be no special provision for the internet, no content regulations, no language provisions, no licensing restrictions. The internet is now wide open for development in Canada, and as the CRTC observed, Canada - which already provides five percent of all internet content - is in a good position to take advantage. Perhaps the story of the CRTC's decision isn't big news around the world (it received only a small notice on CNet and was completely ignored by Yahoo news). But it should be. The CRTC's decision to hold online hearings, and their capacity to listen and learn from what was said, marks a watershed in government. It's enough even to give us some hope.
Further reading (all sites accesed May 19, 1999):
|
The 67 Commandments |
| So the American government sanctions the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools.Anyone who has actually read the Bible knows there are many commandments, not just ten. In fact, there are 67 of them. |
| Posted on NewsTrolls 17 June 1999 So the American government sanctions the posting of the ten commandments in schools. I have long wondered about the ten commandments, and in this case again, wonder about their restraint. Anyone who has actually read the Bible knows there are many commandments, not just ten. In fact, there are 67 of them. Here they are (my comments in red):
It's all very nice to say that this is a nation founded on God, and that His laws should be posted and obeyed. But let's cut the crap. You know and I know that this nation has only a nodding acquaintance with religion as it is actually professed, and that the laws which are followed are those which are convenient, not those which are ordained. If the government wants to endorse a Christian morality, let's see the laws against usury enforced, let's see a lot more executions for minor transgressions, let's purge some witches, let's see some blood sacrifices (especially during the holy month of Abib), let's get those holy wars on the road. Or maybe - let's show a little common sense and let people choose for themselves which creed they wish to follow. Hm?
|
Public Attitudes Toward Online Government |
| A PricewaterhouseCooper's survey of Canadian internet usage states that an overwhelming majority of Canadians thought that a single web site which allowed them to access a broad range of government services would be helpful. |
| Posted to MuniMall Newsletter, 12 January 2000. Just released, a PricewaterhouseCooper's survey of Canadian internet usage states that an overwhelming majority of Canadians thought that a single web site which allowed them to access a broad range of government services would be helpful. The survey reports that while only one third (32 percent) of Canadian internet users currently access government services over the internet, almost all respondants (86 percent) thought that online government services would be useful. The same survey shows that 36 percent of internet users bank and invest online while 22 percent shop online. Most users of government websites (82 percent) are looking for information on government programs and services. More than half (54 percent) are looking for phone numbers or addresses, while a similar percentage (52 percent) are looking for jobs or employment opportunities. Internet users access government websites because it's faster (58 percent), because the government office is too far away (28 percent), because they needed to access the office after hours (14 percent) and because it's easier (10 percent). The same survey reported that just under half (43 percent) of Canadians have access to the internet at home. Of those that do not have internet access, 20 percent intend to obtain access in the next year. Most Canadians (66 percent) access the net via telephone dial-up, but a significant percentage takes advantage of high-speed access and many more (25 percent) intend to obtain high speed access in the future.
Read more at here.
|
S2000 - Conclusion |
| Government will transform itself; it won't become obsolete or irrelevant, as some commentators suggest, but rather, it will become the great arm of society, acting as an enabler rather than a regulator, an agent of empowerment rather than an agent of control. |
| Smart 2000 was an odd convention. Despite high profile speakers and a compelling agenda, the delegates rattled around the spacious Telus Convention Centre like pebbles in a drum. The two or three dozen of us who listened to Diane Francis, for example, probably benefited a great deal. But seldom have I ever seen a cabinet minister from a (popular) government speak to so few people. Ironically, I think what happened with this convention is that the organizers violated the very principles which were expressed throughout the conference: - They aimed the conference at the "decision makers" – CEOs, university Deans, cabinet ministers and deputy ministers – and yet the knowledge is not hierarchal, the best informed person at a school, as one delegate commented, is not the principal. - The created 'silos' of information. Four days; days, four distinct themes. Many people attended for one day and then left. Yet the very important cross-pollination which should have happened, did not The 'official' conference document will probably say something like this: - In e-commerce, everything is customer-centered - In e-learning, everything is learner-centered - In e-professions, everything is client-centered - In e-government, everything is citizen-centered And while those observations are perfectly true, we need to think about the implications: - In e-commerce, monopolies and artificial constraints, such as copyright, no longer work - In e-learning, central administration, like acceditation and government management of learning, no longer works - In e-professions, a monopoly of information – or of processes, such as genetic manipulation – no longer works - In e-government, regulation and legislation no longer work But, as I said, getting from here to there is hard: - Copyrights and patents reward innovation and effort; we need alternative business and income distribution models - Accreditation and government curricula are intended to ensure that people are educated; we need alternative educational models - Regulations and restrictions in the professions are needed to protect people from quacks, or from killing themselves through self-misdiagnosis; we need alternative information distribution mechanisms - Regulations are needed to protect citizens from market failures and excesses (including such things as crime, war and poverty); we need self-government mechanisms That's the bad news. The good news is that we will get them because we need them. Politics, policy and government in the future will be about who implements these models and who governs them, if anyone. The near future is going to focus a lot more on developing protocols for an information-based form of communication and in building a substratum of information transmission running across – and through -society. Government will transform itself; it won't become obsolete or irrelevant, as some commentators suggest, but rather, it will become the great arm of society, acting as an enabler rather than a regulator, an agent of empowerment rather than an agent of control.
|
Response to CAUT |
| The canadian Association of University Teachers gives the government report on online learning an F. A very undeserved F. |
| As you may know, the Canadian government's Advisory Committee for Online Learning recently release a report urging that government and post secondary institutions more aggressively pursue online learning. This report is available at http://www.schoolnet.ca/mlg/sites/acol-ccael /en/ and the best summary thus far is offered at The Node at http://www.node.on.ca/networkin g/february2001/briefs.cfm#ACOL The report was informed by a broad range of input, including a background paper by Terry Anderson and myself, available http://w ww.schoolnet.ca/mlg/sites/acol-ccael/en/resources/ Report_Anderson_Downes.doc, and proposes some common sense recommendations (as summarized by the Node):
The report also recommends the formation of a pan-Canadian online learning service which would:
So basically the report is saying that online learning is here to stay, that we should adapt our infrastructure to enable student access, and that we should begin to create an online learning industry in Canada in partnership with educational institutions and private industry. These are sound recommendations. The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) disagrees. In a scathing press release, they gave the report an 'F' (a cute way of implicitly indicating their academic superiority to the mere authors of the report). They argue that "the Committee ignored a growing body of research that casts doubts on the so-called benefits of virtual education." But CAUT's position is short sighted and wrong, their 'research' (if we could call it that) misleading, and their conclusions based more on preserving an established power structure than in their stated objective of increasing accessibility. According to the CAUT press release, "The Committee bases a lot of its recommendations on the belief that online education will improve accessibility," said CAUT president Tom Booth. "In truth, we know that a lot of web-based courses cost more and that a substantial number of students fail to complete their online courses." The phrasing of "cost more" is deliciously vague, and is probably based on observations of development costs for new and adapted courses offered in pilot mode or to a limited number of students. It certainly does not refer to mass market courses, such as those offered by Ziff Davis (see http://www .elementk.com/home.asp) or to studies such as offered in Tony Bate's Managing Technological Change, which describes a more production oriented budget for online learning. Early work, software development and pilot projects will of course be more expensive, however, as colleges and universities standardize software and design approaches, and as they begin to use reusable objects, these start-up costs will fall. But even this implication of "cost more" takes a decidedly one- sided approach to the issue. Even if, for online students, tuition is slightly higher, tuition represents only a small percentage of a student's educational costs. Online learning offers students savings in travel, accommodation, lost income, child support, and so much more. It is unlikely that CAUT calculated these savings into the equation; if they had, they never would have reached the conclusion they did. Of more concern is the rate of failure to complete courses, a phenomenon which has historically dogged distance and online learning. We have learned from experience that completion rates are increased by offering students local support, support services, and alternative forms of instruction: exactly what the government report proposes. Simply pointing to a problem is not enough: it needs to be shown why the solutions proposed will not solve the problem. But the major objection posed by CAUT is their concern about accessibility. They write: Booth also noted that recent research shows that low income groups, minorities, and people with less education to begin with are less likely to have access to computers or services needed to study online. This phenomenon is known as the 'Digital Divide' and is rapidly being bridged. The CAUT writes should be aware that internet access in Canada now costs a little over $30 per month (including telephone charges; OECD http://www.oecd.org/dsti/sti/it/cm/sta ts/isp-20hrs.htm) and that internet capable computers can be purchased new for less than a thousand dollars: in sum significantly less than one year's tuition. And Canadian internet access is widespread and growing; ACNielson reports that 13 million Canadians (out of a total population of about 30 million) already have access from a home PC (h ttp://www.eratings.com/news/20000907.htm) and many more have access from work, school or via a local cybercafe or community access point. Indeed, the percentage of Canadians with access to the internet is already higher than the percentage of Canadians with access to a university education, so one wonders what sort of accessibility CAUT really ought to be concerned about. Moreover, the CAUT release completely ignores that the government report proposes that steps be taken to close even those last few gaps in the digital divide. The government report, for example, proposes to
One wonders what sort of a divide will remain after the completion of this program, and what reason CAUT would have for opposing it! On top of all this, the report proposes that students' technology expenses be defrayed or otherwise support students' technology expenses (pp. 91-92). The CAUT release is silent on this item. The CAUT release is also concerned that online learning is ill-suited to the sort of student currently excluded from Canada's post secondary system: "Students traditionally excluded from post-secondary education are the most dependent on face-to-face interaction and the least able to deal with the frustration and isolation of web-based distance education," said Booth. "If education to date has been the great equalizer, technology-based education could be an engine of inequality." One wonders what sort of picture these university professors have of university access. Do they really believe that people are unable to obtain a university education because of learning deficiencies? The many single parents, aboriginals on remote First Nations reserves, shift workers and other 'deficient' students I have met in my work as a distance and online educator would belie that. Moreover, though technology remains a frustration (though less so every year), there is little to indicate that online learners are isolated. From personal experience with online teachers and learners, I have seen that the perception of interaction and connection is greater. Empirical evidence supports this: this VCSU report is typical, showing that online learning increases feedback opportunities and increases interactivity and feedback. http://community .vcsu.edu/facultypages/kathryn_holleque/OLsurvey/R eport.html My feeling is that the professors at CAUT should do their research before arguing based on erroneous assumptions. Indeed, online learning is able to meet the learning needs of just those students disenfranchised by the current university system: it allows them to study from remote locations, at odd hours and with varying schedules; it provides greater support and feedback, and it offers them membership into a community to which they had hitherto been excluded. Online learning is demonstrably exactly the oppose of what CAUT claims it to be, and CAUT should know better.
The Advisory Committee is recommending that governments and industry ensure that all post-secondary institutions are linked through a high bandwith "learning network" by the end of the year, that a fourth granting council becreated to support "learnware" development and research into online learning, and that students be encouraged to save more for their education in order to offset anticipated higher costs in the future. By conjoining two separate points, the CAUT release suggests that if only we did not spend money on high bandwidth connections, students would enjoy lower costs. There is no ground for conjoining these statements, and good grounds for keeping the points separate. Tuition increases began in Canada in the mid-1980s, well before the internet came to the fore. These increases are caused in part my increased university spending (the CAUT release correctly points to declining government spending as another cause). But in any case, students are encouraged to save not because of the high cost of technology but because of the high cost of education, even under the current system. As the government report observes,
The government recommends that students be given tax breaks and incentives to help them save for both a post secondary education and for life long learning - how could CAUT be opposed to this? Or do they envision some magic future where the cost of education will drop to affordable levels simply because we have cut our investment in technology? One wonders what CAUT would say if the information were conjoined differently - if, say, we conjoined the value and increases in professor salaries with tuition increases, or if, say, we conjoined the amount of money spent on academic research with tuition increases. It is easy - but stupid - to even suggest that the cause of rising tuition is a rising investment in technology. According to CAUT, the recommendations ignore the real problems facing colleges and universities after years of governments cutbacks, and would see "badly-needed funding diverted from the core operations of institutions."Leaving aside the fact that the committee was not given a mandate to address the health of universities in general, the CAUT report is seriously in error when it says that spending on online learning distracts from the "core operations" of universities. Teaching is a core function of a university, and explorations into online learning are explorations into how to better perform that core function. It would be a mistake to confuse a core function with a specific mode of learning, or with a specific structural configuration. Moreever, if it is - as I would argue - possible that spending on online learning could ultimately reduce the cost of teaching, then the investment would be well spent indeed. True, this may result in a lowering of spending on academic salaries, and would perhaps change the role of the university professor, but we must recognize that students - and the public - do not financially support the educational system merely to support a professor's income and way of life. The fact is, if we are to approach anything like a widely accessible university and college system, the current funding and spending structures are unsustainable. And while it will always with public funding be possible to support university education for an elite, if we are to make it widely available we must change our model of teaching and learning in any case. The authors of the CAUT release themselves demonstrate the need for an improved education system when they resort to such academically unsound arguments as the following: The recommendations are not surprising, added Booth, given the composition of the Committee. The Committee was chaired by David Johnston, president of the University of Waterloo, and included senior representatives from AT&T Canada, IBM, the Bank of Montreal, Lucent Technologies, and Bell Canada Enterprises. No representatives of student groups or university and college teachers were included. It is first worth pointing out that the sample of the committee members offered by the CAUT release is unrepresentative; of the 19 authors of the report, 13 are university or college presidents, rectors or directors while only 6 represented the corporate side of the house. Moreover, this assessment ignores the wide input sought by the committee. But in any case, educated people have long since learned that reasoning through guilt by association is unsound, and seek instead to address the merits of an argument rather than to attack its author. That said, I would indeed call for wide representation on such a committee, and I expect that the Minister will call for a second body to review the recommendations, one more widely inclusive than the aforementioned panel of experts. But I would recommend that such a committee be genuinely representative: instead of the insular in-house committees, so many of which I have been a part, consisting only of existing academics and students, I would call for such a committee to also include representatives from the wide range of Canadians currently excluded from such deliberations by their exclusion from the Canadian college and university communities: I would call on such a committee to include farm workers, seasonal laborers, single mothers, First Nations, welfare recipients and the unemployed. And let us ask them whether they would see a benefit in widely accessible online learning, even if it meant inconveniencing some university professors. Finally, perhaps CAUT sees some argumentative value in name calling: "The members of the Committee clearly have a vested interest in promoting online learning," said Booth. "It's a cheerleading squad. But we don't need more cheerleading. We need a more broad-based consultation and careful consideration of the complex issues involved with online learning." It would cheer me greatly to learn that 13 college and university presidents felt that they had a vested interest in online learning. And quite frankly, the thousands of people today working in online learning in Canada could use some cheerleading. In many cases working with little or no funding, moving from short term project to project, subject to the scepticism and indifference of the very community who should support us the most, we have nonetheless in five or six years shown the feasibility of online learning, demonstrated its effectiveness, offered university courses in communities where previously such education was just a rumour, and founded an industry which is rapidlybecoming a major sector of the economy. The men and women working in online learning - often for little or no additional pay, and certainly at significant cost in time and energy, deserved better from CAUT. They certainly deserved at least the merit of a fair hearing, and a criticism informed by fact rather than dogma. Nobody more than those practitioners of online learning are aware of its challenges and shortfalls, and no community in academia is working harder to improve its practice. One final note: CAUT has observed, and expressed concern about, what it calls the "creeping privatization" of the university system. They are concerned with the increase in sponsored research and concerned with the failure of government funding to keep up with enrollment increases (http://www.caut.c a/english/publications/review/Education%20Review%2 03-1.pdf). If they would look beyond the boundaries of their own institutions, they would see, in the educational system as a whole, not creeping privatization, but rather, galloping privatization. We see, for example, the rise of the private online university in New Brunswick, Lansbridge (formerly Unexus) (http://www.lansb ridge.com/), the accreditation of DeVries in Alberta (http://www.caut.ca/english/p ublications/now/20010206_alberta.asp), cost-recovery and for-profit mode degree offerings from institutions such as Athabasca University, and more. We see large corporations such as Thompson moving in on academic publishing and online learning ( http://www.munimall.net/scripts/downes/clist/topic list.cgi?topicid=975432685), and emerging academic service brokers such as Hungry Minds and UNext http://www.munimall.net/scripts/downes/clist/topic list.cgi?topicid=964806397). We have seen the rise of corporate online learning and saw the contract for American military training awarded to lead contractor PricewaterhouseCoopers. Were we to adopt the CAUT mode - business as usual, but more money please - then we would be effectively surrendering the field to these corporate providers. And if indeed online learning is efficient and effective - as I argue it is (and as corporations and the U.S. military seem to agree), then in our non-action we are essentially surrendering all management and control of post secondary education to the corporate community. As I have argued in the past, we must recognize that education has a social dimension over and above the economic dimension, and it is this fact which requires a public investment in education and a public say as to its outcome. To surrender this involvement is to surrender our identity as a culture and a society. Moreover, it is to surrender the very institution of the publicly funded university and college system itself. As the government report authors argue: The issue is much more than markets gained or lost. It is a question of the continued health of our post-secondary institutions. Some analysts believe post-secondary institutions that do not adapt to this e-learning challenge could lead to declining enrolments, smaller grants from government and thus less capacity for institutions to fulfil their role as an intellectual resource and educator for provinces, territories and communities. (page 21) And moreover, as we surrender public control, we surrender national control: Now some might argue that such losses would be acceptable as long as market forces in the form of foreign institutions and corporations could fill the gaps. We do not believe these gaps can be so easily filled. Canada's institutions have evolved over the years in response to local, regional and national needs and the priorities of Canadian governments.Our social and economic prospects at all levels are intimately dependent on the health of these institutions. Foreign institutions and corporations respond to the needs of their own domestic communities and only secondarily to global markets. The requirements of Canadian learners, communities and employers will not be of much concern in most cases. We in Canada are at a crossroads. The evidence is overwhelming that online learning is here to stay, and the evidence is overwhelming that a significant private for-profit sector in online learning has arisen, one which is taking advantage of the inaction on the part of Canadian colleges and universities. These private institutions do not run to the government for grants to meet enrollment increases; they achieve their efficiencies throughnew technology and a focus on learning. To accept CAUT's criticisms, and to accept the consequential wane of the public education system (or, to accept the increasingly unsustainable model of funding an increasing student base) is to accept the ultimate loss of public education. This is unacceptable, and if it is necessary to arouse the ire of a few well-heeled university professors to preserve and promote public accessibility to education in Canada, then so be it. |
Broadband Socialism |
| Why the Canadian government should ignore Terence Corcoran and move forward with its plans to provide broadband internet access to all Canadians. |
| According to Terence Corcoran, the government should scrap any plan it has to provide broadband internet access to all Canadians (Broadband Socialism, The Financial Post, 19 June 2001). The government would do well not to listen; following Corcoran's advice would be short-sighted and stupid. In Canada, reliable high speed internet (for example, cable and DSL service) has been available in most major centres for the last three years. Contrary to what Corcoran believes, the foundation for this access was laid by public enterprise, either through Federal programs, such as CANARIE, or provincial programs. In the United States, where high speed internet access has been left to the private sector, customers continue to be plagued by inadequate service and higher costs. According to Corcoran, the authors of the proposal had to "fabricate a national crisis" in order to justify universal access. The authors fabricated no such crisis; they merely demonstrate that they, unlike Corcoran, have an understanding of network economics. What use would we gain from roads if they served only metropolitan areas? How valuable would the telephone system be if it only served the Greater Toronto area? Networks become valuable only when they connect most, if not all, cities and regions. The only justification Corcoran can find for a national broadband network is "to perpetuate and expand the existing national system of transfers from urban to rural." Perhaps, as fellow columnist Lawrence Solomon seems to suggest, we should solve the problem of rural access by depopulating Canada's remote regions. (Coast-to-coast subsidies trap rural Canada, The Financial Post, 19 June 2001) But most rural residents would oppose living their lives in suburbia, no matter how pleasing some Toronto journalists find that environment. But in any case, the justification for a national broadband network extends far beyond rural subsidy. By ensuring broadband access for all Canadians, the government can save hundreds of millions of dollars offering services online, everything from tax filing to enumeration to permits and licenses. Similar savings are realised by corporations, public and private, as they convert billing, ordering and even retail divisions to an online format. For Canadians as a whole, access to medical services, learning and even employment becomes cheaper and easier. The net benefit to Canada's economy far exceeds the government's $4 billion investment. But these savings only occur if most, if not all, Canadians are connected. Otherwise, the government and corporations must offer two sets of services, one for the connected, the other for the unconnected. That makes no sense in anyone's books. Corcoran opposes this investment, partially because it transfers wealth, but mainly because it smacks of socialism. Well, perhaps it is socialism, but even if so, it is far better than the alternative. In a global economy, even such villages as Montreal and Edmonton are considered small markets (Corcoran probably does not read the sports pages either), and as such, last on the list for private sector technology. Leaving the development of such services as broadband internet to the private would condemn Canada to second tier status, slowing the economic advantage we gain from converting to online services, weakening our position in a knowledge economy, and accelerating the departure of information workers and technologists. If Canadian history followed the Corcoran model, there would be no national railroad; all Canadian traffic would flow through Chicago. There would be no national highway system, as blacktop to Wawa is an unacceptable rural subsidy. Canada's telecommunications industry would not exist because our phone system would exist only as an arm of AT&T. And the Canadian information industry, our best hope at diversification beyond farming, fisheries and forestry, would die stillborn. Perhaps that is Corcoran's vision of Canada. It is not mine, nor, I suspect, most Canadians'. |
Resources and References
| Distance Learning Yet to Hit Home The point of this article by Wired is to emphasize the cost and difficulty of providing a quality online education. It's a theory that explains why startups are failing and why online learning has been slow to take hold. But there's more: Wired argues that the theory also explains why there will never be free online edcuation. It's an argument that sounds so reasonable and is so well (if implicitly) stated. But hasn't Wired heard of government funding? Or charitable foundations? Or economies of scale? There's another side to this story, so don't be too easily swept down the path toward high-priced learning as being the only option. By Kendra Mayfield, Wired News, September 5, 2001. http://www.wired.com/news/school/0,1383,45855,00.html?tw=wn20010905 |
| Copywrong? Discussion of a recent U.S. government report on the effectiveness of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Although the report generally favours the DCMA, critics call the act a "disaster" for consumers. By Damien Cave, Salon, August 31, 2001. http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/08/31/dmca_report/index.html |
| Governments Push Open-Source Software Most companies creating online learning software and learning content hope to be the Microsoft of online learning. But they would do well to take note of the rising "free software laws" movement around the world. "Laws requiring the use of free or open-source software give governments 'free rein to do what they want, how they want and when they want it,' said IDC analyst Dan Kusnetzky. 'It's not just the United States government they're worried about but a single vendor exercising so much power over their government operations. A government would not like to be under so much influence from any supplier." By Paul Festa, CNet, August 29, 2001. http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6996393.html?tag=tp_pr |
| Alberta Learning RFPs The deadline is ten days away, so if you produce learning objects, you can still get your bid in. No matter what your role, though, you should take a look at these RFPs as an example of what is expected of at least one set of government sponsored learning objects to be used across the entire province. Fascinating. http://www.learning.gov.ab.ca/ltb/rfp/title.html |
| Projections of Education Statistics to 2011 The United States government expects public school enrollment to increase to a peak around 2005. By 2005, college enrollment is expected to reach 16.3 million, about 1 million higher than in 2001. By 2011, about 17.7 million students are expected on college campuses, about 16 percent more than in 2001. But: these projections do not take into account the impact of distance and online learning (p.25). By Debra E. Gerald and William J. Hussar, National Center for Education Studies, August 16, 2001. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfor.asp?pubid=2001083 |
| WebCT and Tsinghua Tongfang Sign Multi-year e-Learning Agreement for China This announcement, contained in a WebCT, is only the latest (if one of the largest) of a series of online learning initiative in China. It's obviously a trend. But I have to ask: will these education providers toe the line when the government asks them to rewrite a few things? Will they report anti-communist writings to the regime? There's more to investing in China than business as usual. WebCT Press Release, July 30, 2001. http://www.webct.com/service/ViewContent?contentID=4692025 |
| Commerce Department easily hacked ComputerworldHackers working for the General Accounting Office found that security was dismal at the U.S. Department of Commerce, with few attacks even detected by government IT workers. http://www.idg.net/ic_662754_1794_9-10000.html |
| White House Ignores Solution to Improve Education One sure way to make for better students, notes Rebecca Winters, is to send kids to preschool. So why doesn't the government place greater emphasis on this? http://www.time.com/time/education/article/0,8599,169968,00.html |
| Where Is E-Learning Headed? Summary of a recent Gartner Group report outlining major trends in online learning. But you have to feel Gartner is capable of better insight than this, as they blithely tell us that e-learning is expanding, governments are investing and various forms of corporate e-learning are on the rise. The one prediction of note is that "Hosted e-learning will offer alternative infrastructure," a prediction which has some merit but attracts a certain amount of scepticism. E-Learning Advisor, July 26, 2001. http://www.advisor.com/Articles.nsf/aid/SMITT318 |
| Government Departments Embrace Learning Alternatives The United States government is adopting e-learning in a big way as it looks at alternative for employee training. By Michael Welber, E-learning magazine, August 1, 2001. http://www.elearningmag.com/August01/learningalternatives.asp |
| Appeals court rebuffs Microsoft, government The Industry StandardThe federal court rejects the software giant's request that it take another look at its ruling, even as it denies the government's request for speed. http://www.idg.net/ic_661875_1794_9-10000.html |
| The South Korean government is hoping to attract more English-speaking foreign students to the country's 32 national universities. Last week it announced new measures to make it easier to enter and work in the country. One key change: those seeking entry will no longer be required to have a financial sponsor. South Korea will spend £2 million per year to increase the number of college classes conducted in English, and there is a push to hire non-Koreans at public universities, which was previously not allowed. By 2003 the Ministry of Education and Human Resources hopes to double t http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,531212,00.html |
| U.S. government unaffected by 'Code Red' worm · http://www.idg.net/ic_661364_4394_1-2401.htmlalt=TheU.S.federalgovernmentsaiditwasunaffectedonTuesdaybytheCodeRedwormthatwasexpectedtolaunchanewstrikeontheworld'scomputersystemsasglobalclockstickedovertoWednesday. |
| Federal government looking for ways to lure IT workers ComputerworldLegislation was introduced today to allow federal IT managers to work at private-sector jobs for up to two years, while being paid as government employees, in an exchange program that will also allow private sector workers to sample government employment. http://www.idg.net/ic_660512_1794_9-10000.html |
| Chapter 3: The Continuing Evolution of ICT Capacity: The Implications for Education Observes the rapid growth in information and communications technology (ICT) capacity and traces the consequences in education and especially online learning. Good list of examples of ICT in education, such as online universities (e.g., Universitas 21), educational portals (such as Hungry Minds and UNext), and government and university projects. Surveys the technology being used, including the Web, satellite broadcasting (with an extended look at African Virtual University), video conferencing, and compact disks. Identifies the web as the key emerging technology, but also looks at such useful applications as voice recognition, wireless technology, local power generation and machine translation. Outlines some major policy issues for administrators and recommends a "minimal virtual education strategy." By Tony Bates, The Commonwealth of Learning, July, 2001. http://www.col.org/virtualed/virtual2pdfs/V2_chapter3.pdf |
| Copyright Reform Process The Canadian government is holding hearings into the reform of its copyright legislation. You have until September 15 to submit comments. This introductory page links to a highlights sheet and a discussion paper, both in PDF. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp01100e.html |
| Australian government favors SingTel bid http://www.idg.net/ic_658887_1773_1-3921.htmlTITLE=IDG.net--TheAustraliangovernmenthasgivenhigh-levelassurancestoSingaporeTelecommunicationsthatitsupportsthecompany'sA$17billiontakeoverbidforlocalcarrierCable&WirelessOptus. |
| UPDATE: Government asks court to deny Microsoft rehearing IDG.netLawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice and the 18 state attorneys general opposing Microsoft in its antitrust case filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Thursday asking it to deny the software maker's request for a rehearing. http://www.idg.net/ic_658110_1794_9-10000.html |
| UPDATE: Microsoft says Windows XP is on track IDG.netMicrosoft's top executive in charge of its operating system said the company is on track to release its controversial Windows XP operating system by the Oct. 25 deadline, and is not preparing a contingency plan to fend off government and industry attacks. http://www.idg.net/ic_659103_1794_9-10000.html |
| Five telcos urge U.S. to settle license dispute with NextWave http://www.idg.net/ic_656940_1773_1-3921.htmlTITLE=TheIndustryStandard--TelecomexecstelltheFCCthatthegovernmentshouldpayNextWave$4billionto$5billionforwirelesslicensesthatwererepossessedandresold. |
| Stanford University is apparently searching for a new public relations guru to put the proper spin on things. First, Stanford overcharged the federal government for research costs. Later, the university clashed with the city of Palo Alto over a school site, decided to use its athletes for Nike ads, angered the county with plans to expand the main campus, and restricted access to the Dish, a popular public recreation area. Then last week Stanford announced that it will be changing health-insurance providers for grad students, bumping up costs for their families 50 to 60 http://jobs.stanford.edu/jobs/display.cgi?J010678 |
| Government's aid office plans to send PIN numbers to students electronically http://www.chronicle.com/daily/2001/07/2001072401n.htm |
| CPI methods give light to economic threats The Industry StandardOPINION | The government's economic indicators provide conflicting views of the threat of inflation. But before you leap to conclusions, look at how the government arrives at its numbers. [Donald L. Luskin] http://www.idg.net/ic_655746_1794_9-10000.html |
| Internet2 is essentially a big research project : A consortium of universities, private companies, and government agencies develop, test, and deploy the latest and greatest networking technologies. Now, a researcher is studying the researchers. Stephanie Teasley, http://www.internet2.edu |
| Harvard U. professor pulls out of economic-consulting talks with Thai government http://www.chronicle.com/daily/2001/07/2001072306n.htm |
| Government's reply to Microsoft request for rehearing due by Aug. 3 InfoWorld.comThe U.S. Department of Justice and 18 state attorneys general who are plaintiffs in the Microsoft antitrust case have until Friday, Aug. 3, to respond to a petition Microsoft filed Wednesday asking an appeals court to reconsider whether the company illegally "commingled" software code. http://www.idg.net/ic_654107_1794_9-10000.html |
| Hacker conferences highlight security threats PCWorld.comThis year's Black Hat Briefings and Def Con hacker conferences may have appeared more professional than in previous years, with an increased number of security professionals and government officials in attendance. http://www.idg.net/ic_654132_1794_9-10000.html |
| Justice Department hires a new anti-Microsoft gun The Industry StandardThe government names Chicago trial lawyer Philip Beck as lead trial counsel in the antitrust case, and Redmond hints that it may go to the Supreme Court. http://www.idg.net/ic_654326_1794_9-10000.html |
| This week's fast-crawling computer worm "Code Red" missed its main target yesterday, thanks to some quick-thinking government folks and a glitch in the program. Code Red spread rapidly over the Internet, imparting instructions to servers to send out huge quantities of data to the Whitehouse.gov Web site at 5 p.m. This would have slowed down traffic on the Net and made the target site inaccessible. But because Whitehouse.gov seems to have moved to a new address, the data deluge was unable to hit its target. Despite this measure, an estimated 15,000 servers, all running Microsoft http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6617292.html?tag=tp_pr |
| Cisco Networking Academy Program An example of online learning content provided by product vendors, this is a partnership between Cisco Systems, education, business, government, and community organizations around the world to teach students to design, build, and maintain computer networks. The site is well worth digging around; be sure to try out the flash-enabled courses and to follow up some of the success stories. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/779/edu/academy/ |
| Internet tax bills multiply PCWorld.comOne plan streamlines tax system, but others say favoring the Net cheats local government. http://www.idg.net/ic_653233_1794_9-10000.html |
| Government reply to Microsoft request due by Aug. 3 IDG.netThe Department of Justice and 18 state attorneys general who are plaintiffs in the Microsoft antitrust case have until Aug. 3 to respond to a petition Microsoft filed Wednesday asking an appeals court to reconsider whether the company illegally 'commingled' software code. http://www.idg.net/ic_653448_1794_9-10000.html |
| Government report on student credit-card debt spurs calls for tighter rules http://www.chronicle.com/daily/2001/07/2001071904n.htm |
| FCC approves satellite mobile phone services http://www.idg.net/ic_652620_1773_1-3921.htmlTITLE=IDG.net--TheU.S.FederalCommunicationsCommissiongrantedspectrumlicensestoeightsatellitecompaniestoprovidemobilesatellitetelecommunicationservices,thegovernmentbodyannouncedTuesday. |
| Government initiatives spur growth for biometrics Publish.comBiometrics market will grow to more than ten times its current size by 2006, according to Frost & Sullivan. http://www.idg.net/ic_652604_1794_9-10000.html |
| FCC approves satellite mobile phone services http://www.idg.net/ic_652620_1793_1-3921.htmlTITLE=IDG.net--TheU.S.FederalCommunicationsCommissiongrantedspectrumlicensestoeightsatellitecompaniestoprovidemobilesatellitetelecommunicationservices,thegovernmentbodyannouncedTuesday. |
| Study: Internet fails to end political repression IDG.netAuthoritarian governments in several countries have disproved the widely held belief that the Internet is an inevitable force for promoting transparency and political pluralism, according to a study released Tuesday by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. http://www.idg.net/ic_652542_1794_9-10000.html |
| Microsoft asks court for rehearing on browser issue InfoWorld.comMicrosoft has asked a U.S. appeals court to reconsider "a single narrow issue" in a recent ruling in the government's antitrust case against the software maker. http://www.idg.net/ic_652740_1794_9-10000.html |
| Excellence in Government 2001 ASTD President and CEO to introduce U.S. Department of Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, at Excellence in Government 2001, August 1-2 in Washington, DC. http://www.govexec.com/excelgov/ |
| Justice Department asks appeals court to hurry Microsoft case InfoWorld.comThe U.S. Department of Justice on Friday asked an appeals court to speed up the process for sending the government's antitrust case against software maker Microsoft back to the trial court. http://www.idg.net/ic_651170_1794_9-10000.html |
| UNESCO's Networkfor Education and Academic Rights will notify humanrights organizations, journalists, governmental officials, andothers able to take action against such violations . In thebroader scheme of things, the organization hopes that its mereexistence will intimidate leaders of countries known forinfringing on the rights of students and faculty -- and perhapslead them to think twice before sanctioning police brutality. http://www.unescosources.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/300 |
| Roger Pedersen,one of the top U.S. stem cell researchers, has decided to leaveUC-San Francisco School of Medicine and continue his research inthe U.K. , where the government explicitly authorizes stem cellresearch. "If federal support for stem cell research is notforthcoming," says Dr. Haile Debas, dean of the UC-SF School ofMedicine, "the risk exists that talented scientists will leaveacademic centers to seek opportunities in the private sector, oreven overseas." NEWS:Motivated by the recent outbreak of http://latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-000058197jul16.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dnation |
| Youth in suits: a study of political class They tackled some of the toughest issues that have plagued successive governments, and debated as fiercely as seasoned politicians. http://www.theage.com.au/education/home/education_news/2001/07/13/FFX01PFU2PC.html |
| Overview of Provincial/Territorial Involvement in Online Learning Good list of all major projects sponsored by Canadian provincial governments in the field of online learning. The listings are general in nature, reflecting initiatives and funding areas, not indivicual projects. Some URLs are provided but you'll have to use Google for the rest. July, 2001. PDF, 80K or so but a slow download. July, 2001. http://www.cmec.ca/postsec/On-lineinventoryEN.pdf |
| School Innovation: Pathway to the Knowledge Society The Australian government's report, mentioned yesterday, on fostering innovation in schools. Of the four major findings, three are obvious (you should use data, you should foster innovation, you should follow best practices). The key finding is that "schools need to internalise powerful approaches to professional learning and staff development..." This, it turns out, is the "removal of restraints" to innovation mentioned yesterday. PDF file, in chunks, 88K for the contents and summary. By Peter Cuttance, Commonwealth of Australia, 2001. http://www.detya.gov.au/schools/publications/2001/innovation.pdf |
| The World Bank Development Gateway: A Declaration A group of knowledge workers launches a petition and declaration opposing the World Bank's Development Gateway project, on several grounds: that it privileges some voices over others, that it will be controlled by governments and industry with no criteria for representation, and that it centralizes initiatives and thereby undermines alternatives. July 12, 2001. http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/gateway/ |
| Congress members introduce E-Government Act to House http://www.idg.net/ic_648635_1773_1-3921.htmlTITLE=IDG.net--U.S.SenatorJosephLiebermanjoinedagroupofU.S.CongressmemberstointroducetheE-GovermentActof2001intheU.S.HouseofRepresentatives. |
| Bill would protect firms, aims to lift cybersecurity InfoWorld.comTwo congressmen have introduced a bill that aims to beef up the nation's cybersecurity efforts by carving out protections for businesses that share confidential information with government.Miss a day? http://www.idg.net/ic_647469_1794_9-10000.html |
| Microsoft alters Windows configuration rules ComputerworldMicrosoft will begin to immediately offer computer manufacturers more flexibility to configure desktop versions of the company's Windows operating system, admitting the change is in light of a recent U.S. appeals court ruling in the government's case against the company. http://www.idg.net/ic_648013_1794_9-10000.html |
| Jargon Paves Kemp's Pathway to Knowledge "School Innovation: Pathway to the Knowledge Society" is a 269-page report commissioned by the Australian Federal Government to examine how schools can innovate without fear of bureaucratic frustration. No link to the actual report - if anyone has it, send it to me and I'll pass it on. By Annabell Crabb and Misha Ketchell, The Age, July 11, 2001. http://www.theage.com.au/education/home/education_news/2001/07/11/FFX2DDJZZOC.html |
Chapter 2 ~ Democracy
Use META to add sound |
| The announcement that the non-profit Democracy Network is being acquired by venture-backed Grassroots.com raises questions about the nature and scope of online political discourse. |
| Posted to HotWired 19 Dec 96 You can use the META tag to add sound to your page. Like this: <meta http-equiv="refresh" content="10; URL=http://www.assiniboinec.mb.ca/user/downes/audi o/Goodday.wav"> where the URL points to a sound file. The sound loads after 10 seconds. *NOTE* that the syntax is different from previous examples posted on this list; the syntax you see is not a typo. By the way, marketing to the contrary, there's no such thing as American cheese. What hucksters are calling 'American Cheese' is in reality 'porcessed cheese food'. The term "American cheese" was coined to fool gullible consumers (read: Americans) into thinking that the product is, in fact, cheese, which it is not. |
A Case for the People |
| It is time to move toward a direct democracy because it is clear and evident to all of us that the political agendas pursued by our elected masters are increasingly at odds with our desire for a safe, sufficient and fulfilling life. |
| Posted to HotWired 11 Aug 97 Noted science fiction Spider Robinson, who now lives in Nova Scotia's Annapolis Valley, writes an occasional column for Canadian newspapers called "The Crazy Years". In a recent installment he describes the politics surrounding the placement of a new highway through the valley. Robinson expressed surprised at the degree of consultation prior to the project. Dozens of public meetings, he says, were held up and down the valley. And while opinions on the highway were varied, a consensus emerged from every meeting: that the highway should run along the mountains north or south of the valley, not through the middle. The politicians went away and a year or so later a new four-lane highway ran smack down the middle of the valley. This is typical of governance in a representative system. Time and time again, what the people want, and what they get, are two very different things. Are the people so short sighted, so ill-informed, so stupid, that they get it wrong, not just once in a while, but on a regular basis? I doubt it. And I think that what happens in a representative democracy is that the representatives serve interests which are directly opposed to the people's. What would happen in a direct democracy? Here is what David Shenk tells us:
Actual direct democracy is a recipe for disaster - and that's not an overstatement. We're living in a complex, niche-ified world where people have less leisure time and are necessarily and understandably more narrowly focused on their own specific interests than ever before. Turn the political apparatus over to "We the People," and we the people would spit back a constant stream of short-sighted, uninformed referenda that would further polarize the nation. You think society is polarized now? A direct democracy would make today's cultural splinters look like pure harmony.His argument, sans the rhetoric, boils down to this: it's a complex world out there. People are too busy and uninformed to make clear decisions on everything. So they would instead make bad decisions on narrow issues, further dividing the nation. First of all, let me ask, is there any evidence which suggests that politicians - our representatives - are more capable of understanding the issues than the people? Politicians are busy too: they spend a significant percentage of their time glad-handing, fund-raising, and otherwise trying to maintain their hold on power. And they are no more educated that the public at large: there is no requirement that a politician have a university degree, or even have completed high school. Second, people, when they make decisions on important issues, usually think of their own interests and, sometimes, the interests of society as a whole. But politicians, because of the demands of being elected, must also cater to a third set of priorities: the needs and wishes of their supporters, especially those who make large campaign contributions. It is often this latter set of priorities which rules the day, to the detriment of society as a whole. Third, because winning an election requires a groundswell of public support, politicians often raise issues calculated to elicit outrage or fervour among the populace. Complex issues are presented in polarized terms. Issues are manufactured where no crisis exists. The public's attention is diverted away from things which matter in their lives to things which make good headlines. More often than not, in a representative democracy, we are asked to choose between leaders, not on the basis of their platforms, but rather, on style, appearance, charisma, and various other intangibles. Contemporary politics is about packaging, and, since money can buy better packaging, it is about who has the most money. This is not a sound basis on which to consult the people in matters of public policy. But Shenk does not think that the current system is broken. He writes:
Representative democracy is not broken; it is simply corrupted by current finance laws and terrorized by constant polling. Americans do not need or deserve a "revolution," another declaration of independence. In fact, we don't even need representatives who are more responsive to public opinion. Rather than "return America to we the people," as Kelly prescribes, what we need are leaders who are not afraid to lead, to step out in front of public opinion, to make tough decisions that will aid the country in the long run. We as citizens need to find, nominate, and elect those kinds of leaders. Shenk's argument here has two parts. First, he argues that finance laws and polling distort our selection of leaders. And second, he urges that the people vote for strong leaders. Agreed, the current system is distorted by finances, as mentioned above. But I would argue that the current system is so distorted because it is an inherent flaw in the system. In order to win an election in a representative democracy, you need to raise money, and no matter how the laws are drafted, that makes the representatives more accountable to those who raised the money than those who cast the votes. It's hard to understand what "terrorized by polling" means, but the most favourable light which can be cast on this suggestion is that, from time to time, politicians respond to the will of the people, as expressed in polls, instead of to the will of their funders or some vaguely defined "national interest". But this is not a bad thing. If anything, politicians' subservience to the polls suggests that Big Money is not omnipotent, which is good, because it allows us to preserve at least the semblance of democracy we have today. But what of the leader Shenk would have us elect? Such a leader, he says, should make "tough" decisions. This is pseudospeak for "unpopular decisions". And they should "step out in front of the polls". Again, this is another way of saying they should disregard public opinion. Shenk's perfect leader, it appears, is not merely one who pursues an agenda contrary to the people's interest, he is one who disregards the will of the people altogether. If that is to be the case, then it would seem that elections, under such a regime, are unnecessary. Finally, he feels they should "aid the country in the long run". We can certainly agree that long-term thinking is important. But it doesn't follow that long-term thinking needs to be unpopular. The unstated supposition here is that the vast majority of people are short-sighted selfish gluttons who have trouble thinking about next week, let alone the next century. But the evidence soes not support this. Often we find that it is the politicians who have difficulty thinking beyond the next election, rather than the people. In fact, most people are very far-sighted. People invest years in an education, deferring gratification today for a secure tomorrow. People deposit their hard-earned wages in savings accounts and retirement plans, preparing for the long-distant day when they can no longer work. This is a much better record than most western democracies, who, in an orgie of spending on their corporate friends, have run up debts so large our grandchildren will still be paying them down. Historically, we employed representative democracy because it was not practical to run a direct democracy. At a time when the popular sentiment was to hold public meetings, in which everyone voted, we send representatives to the capitial because we couldn't all travel the distances required. But - as Shenk notes - the internet removes that practical objection. We may not be able to transport ourselves across the country, but we can easily and cheaply transport our opinions. Direct democracy is now possible. It's a prospect which firghtens Shenk. He writes:
In a society where so many can stand on their electronic soapbox, it is understandable that people resort to outlandish statements to get attention. The danger of Internet politics is that we will all get so used to overstatement, to blather, that we will lose the power to traffic in more useful, understated ideas. We will lose a sense of who we really are. Shenk's argument here is, that among the babble of voices, only the shrill and exaggerated will get attention, and thus, debate will be drowned in a sea of rhetoric and hyperbole. His own vitrolic attacks on former Washington Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly show that this is the sort of debate he feels is appropriate for this medium. But I would like to suggest, first, that it is not unique to the internet, and second, that it is not inevitable on the internet. That it is not unique to the internet is evident from even the most cursory glance at today's newspaper, radio or televion broadcasts. Today's news, for example, features more coverage of Princess Diana's new boyfriend than it does her efforts to highlight the dangers of land-mines in Bosnia. There is the usual attack on politicians' paycheques. And in Canada, the relentless series of personal attacks on separatist Quebec premier Lucien Bouchard continues unabated. Television commercials scream for our attention, terrorist bombs explode in the hopes of making the six o'clock news, and frenzied mobs parade before the cameras all expressing their fervent desire not to drown in a sea of voices. But such hyperbole is not needed on the internet. In traditional media, there are many voices and few outlets; hence the need for sensationalism. But on the internet, there is an outlet for each of the many voices. There is no reason to shout; a carefully worded and thought-out presentation will get as much air play as a violent demonstration. The evidence that the internet does not necessarily breed distortion is found in this very forum. While some posts in Threads are sensationalistic, the vast majority are reasoned and thoughtful critiques. Sometimes, even, a clear consensus arises. I would like to think that this post, unlike Shenk's, is not sensationalist, and is instead, a reasoned and well-thought out critique. And at the end of the day I believe that this post will have more weight in the larger than Shenk's shrill attacks and demagogury. Now that we have the capacity, the time has come to move toward a direct democracy. We who believe in democracy believe in it because we believe that, fundamentally, people are not stupid, that they are not short-sighted, and they are at least as likely to listen to reason as their elected elders. And it is time to move toward a direct democracy because it is clear and evident to all of us that the political agendas pursued by our elected masters are increasingly at odds with our desire for a safe, sufficient and fulfilling life. Direct democracy represents a will of the people to stand up and think for themselves. It represents their desire to grasp the reins with their own hands and to steer their own course. It respresents the need of the people, as much as possible, to govern themselves, rather than to be governed by others.
|
How Direct Democracy Would Work |
| Thoughts on implementing direct democracy. |
| Posted to HotWired 12 Aug 97 Some of the more pointed comments in this thread have dealt with the question of how a direct democracy would work. An account of how it would work would also allay some of the concerns about anarchy reigning supreme. That said, I don't have a full-fledged proposal. Nor could I, because the mechanisms would have to be resolved through a good deal of discussion. But I can make some relevant points:
Some other comments...
|
Democracy Online |
| Modern information technology has the capacity to change the way we govern ourselves. Just as television altered political campaigns forever, the internet may change how we vote, who we vote for, and whether we vote at all. |
| Posted to MuniMall Newsletter, 1 December 1999. We all know about the power of the internet - it has the capacity to transform everything, from the way we shop to the way we exchange birthday cards. But perhaps more significantly, modern information technology also has the capacity to change the way we govern ourselves. Just as television altered political campaigns forever, the internet may change how we vote, who we vote for, and whether we vote at all. The concept of online governance is not new. It has been talked about since the early days of the net and practised on a small scale in online communities such as MUDs (multi-user environments). What is new is the evolution of internet technology to the point where something like online democracy becomes feasible. Indeed, most of the software is complete or almost complete. What will happen next is a process of rethinking how we govern ourselves. At a workshop conducted last year at the Center for Technology in Government, participants identified a number of key needs and issues for the emergence of online democracy. Among them:
But that's just the technology side. Of much more importance will be the human side - what happens when the usual practises of democracy move online. Steven Clift is one of the architects of Minnesota's online democracy project which resulted in, as an unexpected byproduct, the election of former wrestler and Reform Party candidate Jesse (the Body) Ventura as Minnesota governor. He envisions a broad multi-directional forum mixing citizens with candidates, elected officials, media, interest groups and others (see the diagram below): He writes, These interactive spaces need to become a shared community resource that are managed and facilitated in an unbiased manner such that they can become important communications crossroads that improve public policy development and community participation. They must be strictly non-partisan and owned legally by either no one or a diffused partnership. Could we manage such resources? Who would manage them? And how would we prevent them from becoming the online version of utter chaos? Experience with existing internet forums such as chat rooms, discussion areas and even news groups shows that discussion in an online environment can become nasty and unproductive. We could even come to the point where elections are conducted online. Already trial votes have are being conducted in Arizona, Idaho and Iowa. More jurisdictions are considering the move that the U.S. Navy is looking at online voting for sailors serving overseas. There are objections to online voting; Slate's Jacob Weisberg raises a number, including:
Against these concerns however are weighted substantial arguments in favour of online voting. For one thing, writes Slate's Jodi Kantor, it might increase voter turnout. This past week, the City of Calgary saw a seven percent turnout in a by-election which saw its entire Board of Education replaced. Online voting may have increased that number substantially. Moreover, security and fraud are concerns even in today's system, and these concerns are reduced, not increased, by the use of electronic technologies. As Kantor comments, Most polling places use one of three computer-based technologies: punch cards, optical scans, or electronic recording. (Less than one-fifth of the electorate uses old-fashioned mechanical lever machines, which aren't even being made anymore.) Perhaps the greatest security concern is our own unease with the new technology. But this unease passes quickly. Just today I deposited a paycheque - no receipt, no printout, no nothing - into an automated teller. I was trusting this month's rent to a computer, and yet the prospect did not disturb me in the least. I could probably get used to online voting. Or as Wired's Lindsey Arent observes, "If you can buy a yacht on the Net, you can vote on the Net," said Westen, who is also president of the Center for Governmental Studies, a nonprofit organization devoted to increasing voter participation. Of more concern is the question: what would we vote for? At first blush the answer seems obvious (and is assumed by most discussions of the topic): we would vote for mayors and council members, MLAs and Members of Parliament. But if online voting is so quick and easy, why would we bother with such intermediaries? Got a budget line item? Put it to the people and let them choose. Considering a new tax? Add it to the list of items and let the voters decide. It seems so appealing... and yet... Do we want people voting directly on the issues? Or should we leave such matters in the hands of competent politicians? Opinions may vary, but there is certain to be discussion as to where the cut-off point should be. Something to think about...
Internet Technologies Testbed The World Wide Web as a Universal Interface to Government Services. The final project report addresses the use of the Web as a universal interface for conducting business with and within the public sector. See especially the section titled Lessons for State & Local Government. Designing the Digital Government of the 21st Century: A Multidisciplinary Workshop Very useful symposium exploring online government. Check out especially the workshop summary for a list of key factors. Maxi MAXI multimedia is a 'whole of government' enabling system designed to help the Victorian government's ambition that, by the year 2001, all government services will be able to be accessed online. At the launch a variety of services from different parts of government were available, with more to be added over time. The system offers customers a choice of access mechanisms, or channels, including via the Internet, touch tone telephone, and a network of kiosks. E-CityHall Software which provides a range of online information, transcaction and services for municipal governments. GovWorks Service which provides a variety of online information and transaction services for municipalities on the internet. Information is Power? Interesting article on the evolution of online democracy with a focus on work being done in Minnesota. By Steven Clift, November 8, 1999. EZGov A centralized portal for online government services. United States only. New Site Promises Govt Just One Click Away The designers of a new government portal today unveiled a Website through which consumers throughout the country can pay parking tickets, renew licenses, and research their elected officials. The big question is - which way to go, centralized, or distributed? CNN News Bytes, November 9, 1999. Internet voting to be tested in 2000 Election Online democracy forges ahead. Reuters, November 5, 1999. Citizens in cyberspace More news on the electronic democracy front: tests this week in Iowa and earlier this year in the state of Washington indicate that voter anonymity can be maintained and the system can be secured against fraud. Editorial, The Boston Globe, November 4, 1999 Obstacles to E-Voting Some things standing in the way of electronic democracy - and some links to organizations working on them. By Jodi Kantor, Slate, November 2, 1999. Voting Online The pros and cons of electronic democracy. By Jacob Weisberg, Slate, October 26, 1999 Vote in Your Underwear Interesting discussion of the prospect of online voting. By Lindsey Arent, Wired News, November 2, 1999. Freedom of Information? The Internet as Harbinger of the Dark Ages Excellent article. He writes, "There's a common presumption that the Internet has brought with it the promise of openness, democracy, the end of inequities in the distribution of information, and human self-fulfillment. Any such conclusion would be premature." By Roger Clark, First Monday, November 2, 1999. Government on the Net The theme for GovNet 99 is intended to reflect the Government of Canada's progressive agenda to use the Internet to improve Canadians access to information on federal programs and services, and foster a knowledge-based economy. Government of Canada Internet Addresses All the federal government departments, in one handy list. VoxCap.Com Online community which provides free turn-key community services to organbizations participating in civic activism and other forms of online democracy. Invitation for Proposals Related to Electronic Commerce Taxes The Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce - a U.S. government body - has published, in the form of questions, a set of criteria for proposals on e-commerce taxes. Latest Hit on Campus: Crescendo in E-Major Colleges and universities nationwide are rushing to turn the study of e-commerce into degrees, majors, minors, concentrations, specialties, certificates, fellowships and research centers. By Mary B.W. Tabor, The New York Times (registration required), September 22, 1999. Electronic Democracy Some really old articles (87 and 88) on electronic democracy from the Netweaver archives. Direct Democracy Commentary and links on direct democracy. By Miroslav Kolar. World Development Report 1999 Published by the World bank, the world development report is an overview of the impact of globalization and freer trade, and an account of how governments are progressing. Laws of Canada List of Canadian laws, provided by the Canadian government. USADemocracy This site promotes online democracy by allowing users to register in their congressional district, view and research proposed legislation, and record their vote on the registration.
|
Public Spaces, Private Places: Preserving Community Participation on the World Wide Web |
| The announcement that the non-profit Democracy Network is being acquired by venture-backed Grassroots.com raises questions about the nature and scope of online political discourse. |
| by Stephen Downes February 16, 2000 Douglas Rushkoff warns, "The Internet's original promise as a medium for communication is fast giving way to an electronic strip mall that will trade the technology's potential as a cultural catalyst for a controlled and monitored marketplace." Yesterday's announcement that the non-profit Democracy Network (http://www.dnet.org) is being acquired by venture-backed Grassroots.com (http://www.grassroots.com) raises similar questions about the nature and scope of online political discourse. The Democracy Network was founded by the League of Women Voters and the Center for Governmental Studies as a non-profit and non-partisan organization dedicated to providing voters with a broad range of information and opportunities for online discussion. Grassroots is a private venture-backed company founded in 1999. Their focus is to provide "a website containing rich media and everyday communication-collaboration tools - a community environment that will enable citizens and their representatives to affect positive, democratic change." On the same day it acquired the Democracy Network, Grassroots also announced $30 million in additional funding from a variety of private sources, most prominent among them being Knight-Ridder newspapers. Knight-Ridder is a major American publisher with 31 daily newspapers throughout the United States, including the San Jose Mercury News, Miami Herald, Philadelphia Inquirer, Detroit Free Press, and the Kansas City Star. Knight-Ridder is also behind a number of internet developments including Real Cities, a network of regional hubs on the World Wide Web providing local information services in 31 U.S. markets. In essence, then, the political information, resource and discussion site is now largely influenced, if not completely controlled, by a privately held newspaper chain. So - do we want our political information coming from newspapers? And the quick and easy answer is: well, yes, of course! That's what newspapers do and have been doing for decades and more. But the deeper question is: do we want our political discourse run by newspapers? Or - for that matter - by America Online, which itself is working in partnership with the Democracy Network? That's a tougher question. Political discourse - which the Democracy Network provides - is quite different from political news, which Knight-Ridder provides. And like any aspect of community involvement, the distinction between information and exchange is important. Newspapers are very good at providing information, though critics from the left and the right criticize the publications for placing their own slant on events. Online newspapers are also good at providing information, though the same criticisms apply, perhaps because the online information is the same as the print information. Newspapers are less good at providing interaction. In a typical day a newspaper will publish a page or two of carefully selected and sometimes edited letters to the editor. It's hard to gauge public opinion from the letters section, partially because the editors like to balance the letters and partially because organizations orchestrate coordinated letter campaigns. But in democratic societies we have generally been happy to allow newspaper to fulfill their traditional function of reporting the news, while the more important activities of political discourse and display have taken place in more public forums. Long an icon in American rural literature, the public square is the classic public meeting place. Parades, concerts, political rallies, demonstrations - all these have at one time or another graced the white gazebo and bandstand. Canadian towns and cities place less emphasis on the town square for obvious climactic reasons. It's a little hard to stage a political rally in three feet of snow. But public places are equally important to the Canadian body politic: in the winter we cram into the community centre and in the summer we spread out in community parks. But even in our quiet communities, the public landscape is changing. As Kowinski pointed out in The Malling of America, and as Naomi Klein argues more recently in No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies, our public spaces are shifting into private places. Our town squares are being replaced with indoor malls. Klein writes, "We live in a time when expectations for building real-world commons and monuments with pooled public resources - schools, say, or libraries or parks - are consistently having to be scaled back or excised completely. In this context, these private branded worlds are aesthetically and creatively thrilling in a way that is foreign to anyone who missed the post-war boom." Malls are excellent (and enticing) places to shop and hang out (at least, legions of teens would say so). Climate controlled, sparkling and clean, they offer shopping, food, entertainment, and so much more they are almost irresistible to patron and politician alike. It is a common scene on a Saturday afternoon to see table on table of displays by community groups, Girl Scouts, service clubs and more. Much more than shopping takes place in a typical mall. But what you won't see is what defines the essence of political discourse. You won't see pamphleteering or demonstrations of a controversial nature. Indeed, the booths and displays will be of a decidedly non-political nature. Nor will you see - or ever be allowed to see - any printing or poster critical of mall administration or its tenants. This, again, is to be expected. Malls are, after all, privately owned and managed. They are not, for all their popularity, public spaces. They are private property, and if a mall owner wishes to restrict discourse, he is as free to do so just as you are free to change the channel on your television at home. So long as there are public streets and telephone poles (of the non-decorative variety), so long as there are public parks and community centres, it is reasonable to give the mall owners their due. But care must be taken - and generally is taken - by community leaders to ensure that there remains some public space for citizens to meet, interact and even protest. But when we turn our gaze once again to the internet, the availability of public place is not so clear. And it is for this reason that events such as the Democracy Network takeover raise concerns. Just as mall proprietors restrict discourse in their malls and other places, so also private online space providers restrict discourse in their communities. America Online, for example, is well known for restricting dialogue in its discussion areas, much to the chagrin of the AOL Writers' Club. In addition to restricting bulletin board content - which at least is on public display - America Online also restricts members' email. While in the first instance this is to restrict unwanted advertising, America Online also restricts email which is critical of America Online. America Online is of course not alone in its practices. A host of online services, including free bulletin boards, online community generators, service providers and more have similar terms of service in their contracts. They do this not because they want to play moral guardian, but because it is more profitable to ensure a safe and inoffensive environment. And it is their right, their service, and completely legal for them to do so, and we should indeed worry were they to be told by a governing authority what they can and cannot disallow on their sites. But... What happens when private online services become the hosts and guardians of online political discourse? Well, for one thing, it is difficult to get them to provide any room for discourse at all. A survey of Alberta's online news publications, for example, reveals that almost none of them provide any discussion board or public area at all. This finding is represented on a wider scale. In a detailed study of interactivity in online newspapers, Kenney, Gorlik and Mwangi write, "Previous research studies and the professional literature have indicated that online newspapers have low levels of interactivity, and this study supports that finding. In fact, little has changed in 25 years. Videotex wanted to electronically push news into people's homes, and so do today's online papers." And if the trade papers are any indication, online content providers are becoming even more reluctant to provide interactivity. In this week's issue of A List Apart, a trade publication for site designers, author Joe Clark (no, not that Joe Clark) writes, "once the hallmark of a real Web site, user-contributed content may have outlived its usefulness in E-commerce. Is it time to cut the cheese?" Why are online content providers so reluctant to open their pages to the public? For one thing, it's expensive. A moderately popular site like Slashdot can generate hundreds of comments in a few hours. Archiving and displaying those comments requires massive disk space and powerful servers. For another thing, it's risky. As Compuserv discovered in Germany a few years back, service providers may be liable for the comments of their readers. Today's service providers are worried about a wide range of potential lawsuits stemming from racist and hate-filled comments, the unauthorized posting of copyrighted material, pirated software and viruses, and more. And finally, for these reasons and more, it might not be profitable. What characterizes user-contributed comments most of all that they are chaotic, ill-informed and sometimes downright nasty. They make it hard to find good information and they may drive users away from the site. If political discourse is to move online, therefore, we need to treat at least some online content as we treat public places, and not private spaces. This is the heart of a proposal advanced by Andrew L. Shapiro in The Control Revolution - to build a network of public commons or 'PublicNet' which would be non-partisan and publicly owned, a place where users can express their political views - popular or not - in a free and fair online exchange. This, though, solves only part of the problem, as for some people their messages and posts may be filtered by their service provider, while for others access to the site will be limited by proprietary browsers and internet access points, especially if they use custom wireless services. It is possible - and today, common - for 'public commons' type sites to languish unvisited and unremarked. Online discussions hosted by Industry Canada, for example, are sparsely populated despite a potential user base of 30 million. Perhaps they would be more popular if they were easier to find - but such forums are never going to show up on the front page of Yahoo. Shapiro proposes that individual opinions gathered from such sites ought to be able to "intrude" on web users, much the way a sidewalk protester intrudes, however briefly, on a pedestrian's attention. But citizens are not likely to want their computers to tell them what they should read or hear. Another part of the problem is that citizens can be - and often are - critical of their governments. This is a good thing, as it allows for the formulation of new ideas and policies, and for the correction of mistakes and misdeeds. But if a publicly run online bulletin board is placed on a city or government web site for all to read, the temptation will be almost irresistible on the part of government to rein in these unwelcome comments. It is largely for this reason that if you send a message to the Prime Minister or the Premier your comments are swallowed by an online form, never again to see the light of day. And indeed, a community's interests can be seriously threatened by a non-judicious online post. Many community websites are dedicated toward attracting tourists and business opportunities; a complaint about the quality of the town water supply can have a direct economic impact. We need to decide as a community and as a nation how we are to approach the question of online participatory democracy. We need on the one hand to resist the streaming and filtering of opinion which is common of news sites and many online discussion boards. We need to ensure that online discussions are not marginalized or hidden in obscurity. Yet we must also seek to implement such a system in such a way as to ensure that people and communities are not hurt in the process. We still need, I think, a public square - a place which is central in an online community, which is actually a part of the online community, and yet which does not answer directly to corporations, governments, or any other particular interest. We need to open such squares to the public at large, to display them in public places, and to encourage people to sing, dance, demonstrate or remonstrate. With such devices, we have the opportunity to transform the nature of public participation in government. Without them, we face the danger of cutting the people out of government altogether.
|
Toward a New Democracy |
| By devolving into what is essentially an anarchy of public goods and services, we obtain as much as we can of both worlds. |
| There has been a lot of talk about how the internet will revitalize democracy and more than a few sites have been established to promote that concept. But with some few exceptions these sites have dedicated themselves to politics as usual, focusing on candidates, leaders and parties. There seems to be an unstated consensus among digital democracy advocates that the internet will simplify, but not radically revise, the democratic system of government. Online voting, political campaign websites, special interest group websites, email your representative websites - these form the bulk of democracy online. But if the internet has taught us anything over the last few years, it has certainly taught us this: that to obtain the best of the new technology, we should think not of new ways to do old things, but rather, of ways to do new things entirely. Internet democracy should be the same. The potential of online technology affords us an opportunity to revise our democracy from the inside out. In what follows, let me take a look at one way new technologies may move us toward a new democracy. Why should we do this? Today's government suffers from many of the same complaints that plagued other pre-internet enterprises. It's too large, say some. It's too slow. It doesn't react to my concerns. It doesn't react at all. The signs of voter malaise are evident. Voter turnout - especially and regional and local elections - is low. Public meetings are sparsely attended. Politicians are viewed as opportunistic and self serving, bent more on their own interests than the public good. Some critics argue that this is the essential nature of government, and argue consequently that government should be reduced or eliminated where possible. Others argue that government has been taken over by special interests, and that lobbying or election funding should be restricted or limited. None of these concerns will be changed through online voting or even through a wider range of online government services. The fact that I can vote online will not change the person I vote for, The fact that I can pay my taxes online will not ensure that these taxes are lower or are spent more effectively. Today's politicians are already overwhelmed by telephone calls and mail, particularly when a hot issue rises to the surface. Do we really believe that these same politicians will be moved by even more contact through mass email campaigns? Proponents of an internet-age democracy often point to the virtues of direct democracy and suggest that online voting and political processes will enable each citizen to have a hand in the shaping of policy. But direct democracy so envisioned simply replaces one large dinosaur with another; it replaces mass election campaigns with mass referendum campaigns. No, the internet will revolutionize democracy only by making government smaller and more localized. Smaller Government By smaller I do not mean that government services will be shut down or privatized - there is a role for public policy in everything from roads to schools to health care, and the simple elimination of government departments will not lead to better services. Rather, by smaller, I mean the breaking up of the government monolith itself. Why should a single public entity control every aspect of government? A voter's interest in housing policy may be very different from that same voter's interest in the environment. The form of government envisioned here is perhaps best described as distributed government. That is to say, the functions of government are distributed across a number of independent public entities. We already practise distributed government to some extent. In Alberta, for example, civic affairs are managed by municipal governments, schools are run by school boards and health care is managed by regional health care boards. There is no reason why we could not envision a further distribution of government on a wider scale. Why not, for example, create independent parks and recreaction boards to oversee our public lands? Or transportation boards to manage highways, railways and airports? Natural divisions already exist, and are defined in contemporary government as 'ministries' or 'departments'. The idea here is that these entities would be disassociated from the central government, and that their membership would be directly elected by the public at large. The creation of autonomous entities allows the voter to be more selective when electing board members. An elected official's credentials count for more in such votes, for example; we would be more likely to elect doctors to run the health boards, teachers and principles to run the school board, park rangers to run the parks board, and civil engineers to run the transportation board. Moreover, because they are smaller, such entities would be more responsive and accountable more directly to the voter. They are less likely to be swayed by conflicting interests originating elsewhere in government. And finally, smaller entities are more conducive to localized government. Localized Government Think of localized government and you probably think of regions, cities and towns, even neighbourhoods. And while these are all important components of localized government, they are not the only component. Localized government, thought of generally, is government restricted to a limited constituency. A town government, for example, is elected only by the citizens of a particular town, and in turn, governs only those affairs particular to that town. Localized government is effective because it is able to focus on the specialized needs of a particular community. One town's desire for a revitalized Main Street may contrast with another town's desire to clean up the riverbank. Localized government needs to operate within a broad set of parameters - local governments should not be able to suspent someone's civil rights, for example, or to declare itself an autonomous republic. But within these constraints a wide range of autonomy is both possible and desirable. Now while we think of localized government as applying to cities and towns, there is no need to restrict our thinking to geographic entities. The rise of the internet has constributed to the rise of sectoral communities based on subject area rather than proximity. For example, the religious community has been able to establish itself as a distinct community on the internet (see The Soul of Cyberspace, for example). True, the community of Pastors and Priests has always had a distinct identity, but online communications have made increased cooperation and collaboration possible. Today's online sectoral communities encompass professional associations, industry groups, service agencies and more. Such groups already have at least some sort of distinct identity and online communications are melding them into entities in their own right. The distribution of government departments and the rise of sectoral communities complement each other. The creation of an autonomous public sector transportation agency would draw together those people involved or interested in transportation policy, creating the dynamics of a small self governing virtual city. The internet itself points to how a distributed system of democracy would work. Independent bodies, such as the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the International Standards organization (ISO) already exist to influence, and in some cases control, the development of policies and procedures. A system of distributed government is an extension of this model, an extension moving the authority of government from a centralized body to one reflecting the interests and concerns of those directly impacted by such policies. From Here to There No fundamental change is easy or sudden, and such also would be the case in the transition to distributed government. The transition of power from a centralized authority would be incremental, with the mechanisms for governance established before a transfer of power would take place. Because power is being transferred from a central government to a distributed entity, the central government must establish the framework for the creation of distributed entities. Such a framework would mirror the creation of town or city charters: certain things, such as an established population base, a constitution, and founding officers, must be in place before an entity is recognized. Once the mechanism is in place, the initiative for the creation of communities of interest would originate within that community itself. It would be up to parks and recreation societies, for example, to become sufficiently self organized to present themselves as capable of assuming governmental responsibilities. Upon the creation and recognition of a community of interest, a gradual transfer of powers and responsibilities would occur. In the first instance, authority for managing relevant legislation would be passed to the new body, then the power to propose new legislation, and finally, the right to approve legislation in certain selected areas. In order for these to occur, such units would be required to create mechanisms for self government. A wide variety of models is possible, and it is likely no two entities would adopt the same mechanism. In many cases, such communities of interest would themselves fragment into international, national and regional entities. Legislative authority would tend to devolve to the lowest possible stratum, while issues of wide ranging concern would remain under the mandate of the larger umbrella bodies. Funding Distributed Government Under our current system, no matter how much legislative authority is devolved, power remains with the large central government because it controls the allocation of resources. The final stage of a transfer of authority from a centralized government to a distributed government, therefore, would be the transfer of funding mechanisms. Today, funding flows from taxation through the central authority - which sets priorities - then down to the individual department. In a distributed government, the allocation of funding - and therefore of priorities - would be set by individual taxpayers. Many mechanisms are possible, but perhaps the easiest and most obvious is to define these priorities at the point of payment. As our taxation system moves online, individuals may determine not only how much they pay, but also, where it will be spent. The 'how much' question is the stickiest, because people will want to pay the least possible for the most services. Some people - inevitably - would elect to pay nothing. But others would opt to pay a certain percentage of their income, or a certain percentage of sales, in order to pay for government services. In a distributed government model, the mechanism for setting and collecting taxes would be managed by a taxation authority. Such an authority would probably draw a wide range of interest and participation, and would endeavour to balance between citizens' desire to pay low taxes and their desire to obtain government services. Funding would be divided into two components: internal, and external, to the distributed authority. Internal funding mechanisms would vary from authority to authority and would often resemble dues, association fees, or fees for services. Money collected by the authority would be used to fund programs intended only for members of that authority. External funding is, in essence, the tax money received by that authority. Such funding is, in the first instance, intended to cover the cost of services provided by that authority to the general public. The roads authority, for example, would collect external funding in order to build and maintain roads. Individual and corporate taxpayers would determine at source how much money to allocate to each authority. When paying taxes, an individual could decide to allocate 10 percent to military, 30 percent to schools, and so on. Another individual, with different priorities, would elect different percentages. Anarchy The resulting system of government is to a large degree a system of no government. Government - viewed as the entity which tells us what to do - is replaced by a set of entities which perform publicly funded services for the public good. As such a system matures, the different branches of government compete for our attention, our participation, and our tax dollars. While preserving the intent of government - that of pooling our resources for the common good - such a system to a large degree removes the involuntary nature of government. True, zero-government advocates will find even this minimal form of government unsatisfying, but no system of public enterprise would satisfy them. On the other hand, advocates of a centralized and paternalistic system would be unsatisfied, because such a system is much more difficult for self-appointed guardians of the public good to control. By devolving into what is essentially an anarchy of public goods and services, we obtain as much as we can of both worlds, though - offering choice and freedom to participate (or not), while offering the range and nature of government services needed in an advanced society.
|
Resources and References
| UNITED WE FALL American progress has always been sparked by outspoken dissenters. Coercive harmony is a danger to democracy, writes Laura Nader, a professor of anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley. http://www.chronicle.com/weekly/v47/i44/44b01301.htm |
| EXPORTING ACTIVISM Western governments and foundations shouldn't expect to see a mirror image of their own values when they underwrite citizen organizations worldwide, writes Marina Ottaway, co-director of the Democracy and Rule of Law Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. http://www.chronicle.com/weekly/v47/i42/42b01401.htm |
| Sudbury Valley School Website of an interesting experiment in learner directed learning. Regardless of age, everyone enrolled at the School is responsible for their own education without intervention, coercion, or restraint by others. The pursuit of each person's unique excellence takes place in the nurturing setting of a pure democracy in which every participant, student and teacher alike, has an equal say and no arbitrary authority rules. http://www.petersons.com/private/sites/inc/002321ps.html |
| Minutes of the 1st Worldwide Forum on e-democracy The 1st Worldwide Forum on Electronic Democracy, which took place on March 16, 2000 at Issy-les-Moulineaux was the occasion to discuss with numerous international personalities of the consequences of Information Technologies on the democratic life. http://www.issy.com/e-democracy/ |
| Ben's Guide to the U.S. Government for Kids A great resource covering all aspects of U.S. government and democracy. http://bensguide.gpo.gov/ |
| GoVote.Com A portal site for online campaigning and voting - democracy meets the dot.com world. http://www.govote.com/ |
| The Democracy Project An interesting approach to online democracy dedicated to fostering a 'competitive marketplace of political ideas'. http://www.democracyproject.org/ |
| Politics Online Media Reference Centre Great portal for all things related to online democracy and politics. http://www.politicsonline.com/mediareferencecenter/ |
| Information is Power? Interesting article on the evolution of online democracy with a focus on work being done in Minnesota. By Steven Clift, November 8, 1999. http://www.publicus.net/present/public/ |
| Internet voting to be tested in 2000 Election Online democracy forges ahead. Reuters, November 5, 1999. http://www.sjmercury.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/071763.htm |
| Citizens in cyberspace More news on the electronic democracy front: tests this week in Iowa and earlier this year in the state of Washington indicate that voter anonymity can be maintained and the system can be secured against fraud. Editorial, The Boston Globe, November 4, 1999 http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/308/editorials/Citizens_in_cyberspace+.shtml |
| Obstacles to E-Voting Some things standing in the way of electronic democracy - and some links to organizations working on them. By Jodi Kantor, Slate, November 2, 1999. http://www.slate.com/netelection/entries/99-11-02_44394.asp |
| Voting Online The pros and cons of electronic democracy. By Jacob Weisberg, Slate, October 26, 1999 http://www.slate.com/netelection/entries/99-10-26_37750.asp |
| Freedom of Information? The Internet as Harbinger of the Dark Ages Excellent article. He writes, "There's a common presumption that the Internet has brought with it the promise of openness, democracy, the end of inequities in the distribution of information, and human self-fulfillment. Any such conclusion would be premature." By Roger Clark, First Monday, November 2, 1999. http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_11/clarke/index.html |
| VoxCap.Com Online community which provides free turn-key community services to organbizations participating in civic activism and other forms of online democracy. http://www.voxcap.com |
| Electronic Democracy Some really old articles (87 and 88) on electronic democracy from the Netweaver archives. http://www.tmn.com/netweaver/edemocracy.html |
| Direct Democracy Commentary and links on direct democracy. By Miroslav Kolar. http://www.pangea.ca/kolar/DD/ |
| USADemocracy This site promotes online democracy by allowing users to register in their congressional district, view and research proposed legislation, and record their vote on the registration. http://www.usademocracy.com/ |
| The Internet by Andrew L. Shapiro Information Age gurus claim the Internet will alleviate global poverty, empower individuals, revolutionize commerce, and spread the light of democracy to far corners of the globe—so long as governments keep their hands off. Think again. Without careful regulation, digital technology may devastate low-income communities and eliminate personal privacy. And repressive regimes may harness the Internet to increase their power over the people. Foreign Policy: Think Again. Winter 1999. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/shapiro.html |
Chapter 3 ~ Freedom
The Role of the State |
| Freedom is the right to pursue one's own good in one's own way, so long as that pursuit does not infringe on another's right to do the same. But one person's good is another person's nightmare. The role of government is to balance these conflicting rights. |
| Posted to HotWired 28 May 98 The irony is, socialists and capitalists might actually agree on this one, at least in broad strokes. The devil is in the details. For example, freedom is good. Both socialists and capitalists agree on this. It is true that the capitalist will accuse the socialist of repressing freedom, but also, in their own way, the socialists argue that capitalists repress freedom. And what is freedom? For the most part, both socialists and capitalists follow the definition proposed by John Stuart Mill: freedom is the right to pursue one's own good in one's own way, so long as that pursuit does not infringe on another's right to do the same. But as is pointed out elsewhere, one person's good is another person's nightmare. As was stated above, a pedophile's definition of good involves molesting young children. Such molestation violates the rights of the child, and so we, quite rightly, agree that the pedophile's behaviours must be limited in this case. The role of government is to balance these conflicting rights. In the case of the pedophile, we assign government the responsibility of preventing, by force if necessary, the molesting of children. The clear cut cases are easy. There is a wide range of behaviours both capitalists and socialists consider repugnant, including but not limited to, murder, cannibalism, rape, theft, arson, and the like. The fuzzy cases are harder. A good example, also cited above, is pollution control. All humans produce waste, even if only in the form of exhaled air, which eventually impacts on another person, even if only in the form of bad breath. But at the other extreme, some humans produce waste which is injurious or deadly to other humans. So clearly some restraint is required, but also as clearly, such restraint should not apply to all cases. How to decide? It is the adjudication of such cases to which we assign government the responsibility. This function, it should be noted, is a distinct function from the identification and prevention of violations, as described in the case above. That function is most properly called the executive function. The adjudicative function we will call the legislative function. None of this is new to any of us. And as I said, in broad strokes, both capitalists and socialists agree on this formulation, to this point. Where differences between the two philosophies occur, they occur in the description of the implementation of each of these two major functions. For example, in the questions of crime and punishment, the domain of the executive function, some people may favour harsh and punative penalties, while others may favour mild and rehabilitative penalities. But this debate usually occurs quite outside the usual capitalism-socialism debate. It is in legislative function where the major disputes occur. On what principle shall we determine where the rights of one person end and another's begin? The principle usually adopted, also from John Stuart Mill, is the 'no harm principle'. Broadly stated, the 'no harm principle' stipulates that, so long as one person's behavious does not harm another, that behaviour ought to be allowed. Capitalists adhere to this strictly. Socialists, however, tend to identify three areas of fuzziness. First, socialists tend to include 'harm to oneself' as harm to another, and hence, tend to argue that persons ought to be prevented from harming themselves. For example, a socialist might be more prone to ban alcohol or gambling. Second, socialists tend to include 'non-physical harm' as harm to another, and hence, tend to argue that various forms of speech and other behaviours ought to be prevented. For example, a socialist might be more prone to prohibit hate literature or foul language. And third, socialists tend to include 'social harm', that is, harm to society as a whole, but not to any identifiable person, as harm to another, and hence, tend to argue that such social harms ought to be prevented. For example, a socialist might be more prone to promote animal rights or environmental protection. Obviously, there is considerable cross-over. Many capitalists include instances of at least some of these three categories of wrongs. And many socialists do not include all instances of these three categories of wrongs. It is the role of the legislative function of government to determine where in this range of possible offenses the line ought to be drawn, and to determine the means and amount of force required to enforce those decisions. Government, properly conceived, ought to express the will of the people themselves with regard to those determinations. For example, in determining whether self-harming behaviours in general, and, say, drinking in particular, ought to be legal, government must consist of the method by which we sample the opinion of the people, and on that basis, express their will. Both capitalists and socialists agree that the best method of doing so is democratically. This is what distinguishes capitalists from fascists, and socialists from communists. But given that this will ought to expressed democratically, the question arises: how? Most countries' populations express their wills in two major ways: first, by electing representatives to speak for them and to vote in legislative assemblies, and second, by purchasing goods and otherwise supporting agencies they agree with (some naer-do-wells combine these methods, by purchasing votes, but this is generally frowned upon by both capitalists and socialists). A socialists will tend to argue that only the former should prevail, that is, that the only instrument of public policy ought to be the vote. A capitalists will argue that both should prevail, that is, that a person's purchases are equally expressive and ought, in many instances, to be used instead of the vote (a pure capitalists will argue that the vote is not necessary, and that purchases themselves will determine the will of the people). Importantly: insofar as capital, and not the vote, is used as a means of expressing the public will, the role of the vote, and hence of the legislative and executive function of government, is lessened. Hence, in the context of a capitalist-socialist debate, when the question is asked, what is the role of government, the question is in fact, how much of the public will ought to be expressed by the vote, and how much ought to be expressed by the spending of capital? This is why each side accuses the other of being anti-democratic, and anti-freedom. The socialist argues that capitalists undermine freedom and democracy by undermining the power of the vote. This allows some people to harm others in ways others cannot. The line between harm and non-harm is not set at a fixed point for all people. This is clearest in the fuzzy cases. For example, consider the case of pollution. If the limit is set by legislation, then all people ahve the same right to pollute. However, if the limit is set by capital (as, for example, in the purchase of pollution credits), then some people are permitted to pollute while others do not have that right. This distinction expresses itself also, but in a different way, even in the case of criminal prosecutions. A person who can spend capital to hire a good lawyer can get away with more than a person who cannot. In some cases (the name O.J. springs to mind), a person with enough capital can get away with murder. In civil cases, especially where non-physical harm is involved, the influence of capital over a person's rights is evident. On the other side, capitalists argue that the socialists' approach restricts their rights. Insofar as the socialists is generally willing to include harm to oneself, non-physical, and social harms as harms (and insofar as people keep voting to include such in their jurisdictions' laws) capitalists see themselves as unreasonably limited by government. A strong capitalist, for example, would argue that such matters as suicide, alcohol consumption, gambling, vulgarity, inflammatory speech, and the like ought most properly to be beyond the domain of government. And matters of social good promoted by government, such as schools, hospitals, roads, and even military or police, ought to be governed not by legislation but by private investment and capital. The reasoning in all such cases is similar: if all such laws were removed from the books, in consequence no person would be harmed, and therefore, laws governing such matters are beyond the domain of government. Indeed, they continue, it is the obligation of the socialist to show how harm is prevented by any of these laws. The onus is not simply to show that more people voted for a piece of legislation - for that is irrelevant, since the vote is only a mechanism for expressing a will, like a poll - but rather, to show that some person's rights are or are not protected by a given piece of legislation. And in fact both capitalists and socialists agree on this. They agree that the vote is not the final arbiter. They agree that no matter what the will of the people, one's rights cannot be violated. And as a consequence most countries encode these bodies of rights in such documents as the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But the history of such documents is an odd one. For charters of rights arise in the people's historical desire to protect itself from government, especially the non-democratic kind. In more democratic climes, charters of rights have also evolved to protect people what what Mill termed the 'tyranny of the majority'. In the end, charters of rights are restrictive documents. They identify what harms a people will, under no circumstances, tolerate. And in some cases - such as the right to bear arms, or the right of assembly - they specify what they people may do in the protection of those rights. As the capitalist approach to government is a minimalist approach, capitalists tend to view charters of rights as definining the role of government. If an action does not violate a right as set out in the charter of rights, they often argue, then government ought not enact a law restricting that action. Socialists, by contrast, see charters of rights as starting points. Other restrictions not envisioned by the charter of rights are permissible, if identifiable harm (broadly conceived) may be found. The socialist, indeed, sould take this argument a step further. Charters of rights typically restrict only the actions of government. They do not restrict the actions of people. Thus, even given a charter of rights, people are not protected from the harm caused by other people. That is why additional legislation is required. For example, while the Bill of Rights may protect Americans in their freedom of speech, it does not prevent companies from restricting the speech of their employees. A corporation is not directly governed by the Bill of Rights. A separate piece of legislation, explictly aimed at such instances, would have to be drafted in order to give employees the freedom of speech, particularly in their workplace. Moreover, insofar as a charter of rights is only intended to prevent the government from doing harm, it does not express in a wider sense the sorts of harm from which a person ought to be protected. For example, the provision of an education falls outside this category. Hence, in typical charters of rights, the provision of an education is not a right. Hence additional laws must be enacted requiring that an education be provided. In fact, both capitalists and socialists agree that additional legislation, to some degree, is required beyond the charter of rights. For example, both sides agree that a corporation's purchasing power ought not extend to permission to kill people, or plant plutonium in the city square, and the like. Both capitalists and socialists agree that there ought to be some legislation enacted to protect people from each other (as opposed to merely protecting people from government). One (minimalist) proposal: that the charter of rights be extended to include all people, not just government, and that the role of government be restricted to enforcing the charter (as interpreted by the judiciary). But which charter? The U.S. Bill of Rights is a very minimal document. The Canadian charter is more inclusive, but includes an opt-out clause. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a sweeping document, however, one which people would consider too generous if applied to all people, and not merely all governments. The Mulit-Lateral Agreement on Investment is a similar document, however, one which does not extend itself to the protection of citizens. The truth - as always - lies somewhere between the extremes. What is needed is a more sweeping charter of rights and freedoms, trhan currently exists, one which explicitly limits the power of both legislations as expressed by the vote, and freedoms as expressed by the expense of capital. It ought to include the right to at least a minimal amount of self-expression, and the right to at least a minimal amount of capital. These minimums will in turn enable each person the right to participate in both forms of decision-making, and to be protected from both forms of repression. Once such a document is in place, then the full and proper role of government can be defined as enforcing the charter - in effect, to a significant degree, terminating the legislative function of the government, expect for such minimal maintenance as the charter would require over the years. And that - both capitalists and socialists can agree - would be a good thing. Right?
|
Higher Ed. Academic Freedom? |
| Insofar as academic freedom is extended to the use of college or university web servers, new limitations derived from the nature of the medium apply. |
| Posted to DEOS-L 13 August 1998 Academic freedom, as with any freedom, is not absolute. Academic freedom ends when the exercise of that freedom infringes on the rights and freedoms of others in the community. Just as freedom of speech does not include the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre and freedom of assembly does not include to assemble on I-95 during rush hour, so also there are fair and reasonable limitations to the exercise of academic freedom. Insofar as academic freedom is extended to the use of college or university web servers, these same limitations apply and new limitations derived from the nature of the medium also apply. Roger Goodson writes, At the current time on my campus the admins. appear to want to `control' what is uploaded for courses or parts of courses on the Web. Faculty are viewing this as a matter of Academic Freedom, (as long as they are not in violation of contractual agreements or institutional ethics.) Faculty feel they should have control over what they put up on the web and that admins. (even faculty admins) are not in a position to judge what they are putting up as relates to their course work. (Interestingly, it appears that those admins. who wish to control all of this haven't a clue as to what is going on re: higher ed. and the Inet and www.) My best guess is that the university administration is coming from the following point of view: Although legislation is not complete in this area and will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it seems generally reasonable to hold that an institution is responsible for the contents of its web server (exceptions may apply to Internet Service Providers, though the precendents seem to be going the other way). An institutional website thus has more in common with an institutional newsletter or publication than it does a podium or pulpit located on that institution's grounds. And just as the institution places restrictions on what professors may publish in its calendar or its press releases, so also it should place restrictions on what is published on its website. If the administration is taking this line of reasoning, it has a point. Limitations will be applied to what the instructor can publish on the university website. Some of these are purely common sense: a professor cannot redesign the University Home Page or write nasty things about the Math Department's programs. Others are based on image. The university may insist on a standard format for course, program or department pages. At Assiniboine, such restrictions apply across the board, and they exist not in order to stifle academic freedom, but rather, to provide a consistent look and feel and ease of navigation across the site. Obviously there is a distinction, though, to be made between institutional web pages which advertise courses, programs and departments, and individual user pages. Individual user pages may consist of personal pages, in which a professor's interests, hobbies and wives are discussed, or they may consist of course pages, containing additional content, support for, discussion about, or material related to an on-campus or distance course. There is a great tradition especially at the university level that a professor's course is his or her domain, and the tenet of academic freedom is intended especially to allow the professor great latitude in determining the content of that course (or related materials, such as research papers or other essays). And in practise, the exercise of academic freedom has extended well beyond the domain of the discipline; it is used to defend professors' rights to opine on any subject they please, whether or not they have any insight to offer. But the freedom of the exercise of one's opinions or beliefs is not tantemount to a right to the resources needed to propogate that opinion or belief (an truth which has in the past prompted the oft-quoted adage that freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses). The existence of a university web server, or even accounts on that web server, does not convey with it automatically an unlimited right for all professors to use as much of that server in whatever way they please. Despite the decreasing cost of bandwidth and storage space, the allocation of web server space remains the allocation of a *resource*, not a right. And it is on this shoal that the academic freedom argument falters. At our institution, for example, we are faced with the issue of whether to allow staff to post non-academic information on their web pages. A number of staff have their own companies; we quite reasonably feel they should not use the college web server to advertise their wares. Many other staff have hobbies, ranging from the noble and noteworthy, such as Habitat for Humanity, to the ignoble and not worthy, examples of which I will not list here. There is an argument to be made for allowing the placement of personal information on a web server, but it is not an argument which has its basis in academic freedom, for personal information is by its very definition not academic. It is quite reasonable for an institution to argue that its institutional website ought to be used for institutional purposes only. Especially in an environment where web resources are limited, it would be reasonable and rational for an administration to require that, if staff wish to publish personal or commercial websites, that they purchase their own account from an ISP or use a free service such as Geocities. Insofar as academic freedom is concerned, it would be reasonable to maintain that academic freedom is sufficiently respected provided that staff are *not* terminated or otherwise penalized on the basis of their personal or commercial web pages. Respecting someone's freedom to write does not entail providing pen and paper, it entails only allowing that person to put that pen and paper to whatever use is desired. The only area of an institutional web server where administrative policy and academic freedom can possibly collide is in the placement of course or research related materials on the institutional website. But even here, limitations and restrictions will necessarily prevail. A number of points of contention arise: 1. In cases where the same course is taught by several professors, information regarding that course in general will have to be approved, at minimum, by all instructors teaching that course, and more likely, by any body (such as an academic council) responsible for the approval of course offerings and course descriptions in general. 2. In cases where a single course is offered by a single professor, but where development is the result of a team of designers and engineers, the professor is *not* automatically the one in charge, and the content of that course would them have to be approved to some degree by all members of the team. Further to this point, it is reasonable to expect that some institutions may require that *all* courses offered or supported online be developed by a team or designers. Just as we do not expect 9or want) professors to build their own classroms, so also, and for similar reasons, we may not want professors to build their own online courses. And just as professors generally have little say about the colour of the paint on the wall, or the distance from the classroom to the cafeteria, so also they may have little say about aspects of online courses. 3. In cases where individual courses are designed by individual professors, limitations may be placed on the number of pages, size of files, directory structure employed, software employed, and the like. I can think of at least one example here at the college where an instructor wished to use Microsoft FrontPage, 1 megabyte animated images, and provide plug-ins for download on the course site. Such design was incompatible with our website and would drain our delivery capacities. Fair and reasonable limitations may be placed on the design of web based courses based on compatibility, resource usage, or even good taste (which is why we deleted the pink-on-yellow illustrations). 4. In cases where one course is designed by one professor, but where this professor is designing the course as part of his/her academic workload, the resulting course may in fact be the property of the academic institution. It certainly is at Assiniboine. In such cases, if the issue of academic freedom arises at all, it is the institution's academic freedom which is to be defended. Or to put the point another way (and rather more clearly), if the institution is paying for a course, it ought to have the right to determine the course content. These four points are a sampling of the restructions which may be placed on a professor's usage of an institutional website. No doubt others could be enumerated. They are placed alongside the more familiar prohibitions against posting hate propaganda or pirated warez on personal home pages. And none of them is affected to any degree by protestations of academic freedom. Because all are cases where one person's freedom begins to brush against others' freedoms, academic or otherwise. Now all of that said, lest one misinterpret my position as being in favour of controls and against free expression on institutional websites, let me suggest an approach which maximizes academic freedom and yet which maintains the controls required by administration. 1. All content on a website which would appear in an institutional publication, such as calendar information, press release or newsletter information, course or program descriptions, and the like, ought to be under the authority of and designed by publications or website staff. Individual professors ought not to be designing institutional pages. 2. (And perhaps more controversially), online courses or course support on the website ought to be depicted as publications (not that they *are* publications, that's not my point. They should only be *depicted* as publications) as hence subject to (peer) review and 'produced' by course or instructional designers. Individual professors ought not design individual courses. 3. Insofar as personal home page support is provided (and it is by no means a right), such space ought to be used for non-commercial purposes, be subject to ethical and legal constraints, and be subject to capacity restructions (eg., 5 megabytes, as at Assiniboine) and usage restructions (eg., 100 hits/day, as at Assiniboine). 4. In the institutional space generally, and in course pages particularly, provision ought to be made for the online equivalent of a 'soapbox'. This gives professors (and presumably, students) space to air their views, but in a context where the airing of their views does not create technological problems for other website users. At Assiniboine we use in-house mailing lists, in-house discussion boards, course discussion boards, chats, and notebooks. The idea of these provisions is to depict the institutional website, not as an indistinguished whole, but rather, as a multipart entity, each part of which serves its own function. In this way the organizational goals of the institution may be met, reasonable restrictions may be applied to course and personal space, and wide freedoms of expression may be enabled.
|
Let the Games Begin |
| My rights and freedoms are just as important as yours. I am equally in my right to defend them. If in the defense of these rights and freedoms I join with other people and you don't - that just makes me smarter (and more powerful) than you. |
| Posted to XCobra's List, 03 June 1999
Note: this email replies to commentary on my thread, The Role of the State. Larken Rose wrote: I assume you mean non-state theft when you say socialists oppose theft. Ok, we're not going to get very far if we start messing around with the meaning of words for persuasive purposes. By "theft" I (and most other people) means "the unlawful taking of personal property". Taxation is lawful, therefore, taxation is not theft. It may be argued that taxation is wrong; that's fine, and we could debate the point. But simply calling it "theft" assumes this argument without actually stating it, leaving the opponent with no grounds or premises on which to question the conclusion. So let's not play make-believe semantics, and let's stick with ordinary uses of words, OK? Basically (correct me if I'm wrong), you say that the proper job of "government" is to decide when force should be used to deal with a conflict of wills. Close. The proper role of government is to arbitrate disputes of wills, enforcing that arbitration with force if necessary. We do not want to assume that any decision of government is accepted by the parties in question only because the government backs it up with force. In many cases, the parties willingly accept the government's arbitration, because it is the only means of resolving an intractable dispute without force. Why would you (or could you) want someone OTHER than you to decide when force is justified? If I thought my own personal point of view were the only one in the world, then perhaps I might take this stance. But in fact I know that when I and someone else became embroiled in a dispute, that my point of view might not always prevail. Indeed, if everybody took the same attitude (that no OTHER person should resolve disputes) then no dispute would ever be resolved, because in all cases there are at least two parties to a dispute, each of whom wants their own way. I can see why you wouldn't try to enforce what YOU think, because of practically and/or self-preservation. Well I would try to enforce my point of view, but there are limits on the practicality of this. I don't have the time nor the energy to go around every day trying to force my views of the world on other people. I am content from the point of view of practicality and personal safety (because remember, the OTHER is also trying to enforce their point of view) to delegate such matters to a neutral authority. By analogy: in hockey, the rules and the referees are the 'government' of the game. Suppose we tried to play hockey without them. People wouldn't even bother trying to score goals - they would simply declare 'I win' and then enforce their point of view. Such hockey games would be dangerous for the participants, and futile besides. Even if the participants agree upon the rules, a referee is often necessary, because people break the rules (these are called penalties). Both sides accept the need to defer to the referee (and even to pay the referee for his time) because without enforcement of the rules, hockey degenerates to a state of there being no rules, which again is dangerous and futile. But is it even POSSIBLE for you to accept as valid any judgment that "government" makes about what should be done? I cannot, be sheer will, change what I believe is right and wrong. If I asked you (just for an experiment) to believe that mass murder is good, COULD you believe that? If not, how can "laws" of the state CHANGE what you think is righteous? You can accept a judgement even though you think it is wrong. Again - the fundamental recognition here is that the world is inhabited by other people, and that other people sometimes disagree with you. It really boils down to two choices:
I kept expecting you to get to the obvious one, but you didn't. Socialists believe that me HAVING something constitutes "harm" against someone who doesn't. No, this is a straw man argument. No socialist that I know of believes that the mere having of something causes harm. It is all right for one person to have something that another doesn't. Where the 'having' of things becomes a harm is when the one person's having of things leaves the other person without the means of survival. Fred can have more food than Bill, but Fred cannot have all the food, because then Bill dies of starvation, which is a harm. To them, someone NOT hiring them is a violation of their "freedom." Again, this is a straw man argument. No socialist would argue for such an absurd principle. I have been 'not hired' by many people without having considered it a violation of my freedom. Being 'not hired' is a violation of one's freedom only if (1) the only way to survive is to be hired, and (2) the person was not hired. They even use the looney "freedom to" rather than "freedom from" basis. For example, they often believe that "rights" includes things that require efforts of someone else. For me to have the "freedom to be well fed" <dry heave> requires that someone feed me (if I don't do it myself). So it requires effort on the part of someone else. So what? Would you argue that there is no requirement that you stop at a red light because it requires time and effort on your part? Obviously not. Even though a red light is an inconvenience, you obey the signal because you know that nobody wins when you (and everyone else) try to force yourselves through a crowded intersection. In a situation where there is a limited resource (in this case, space) and everybody has an equal need (in this case, to get to the other side) they only way forward is for people to alternate, giving up some of that limited resource even though it requires extra effort on their part. What you are really saying is: "I should not have to make an effort to feed someone when they won't make such an effort themselves." That's fair enough. It's like saying "why should I stop at red lights when nobody else has to." And I agree, provided that, were they to make the effort, they could feed themselves. Other people - if they can stop, should stop. Obviously, not everybody can stop - people with disabilities (eg., no brakes) cannot stop. People serving other social functions (eg., Fire Engines) can't stop (or at least, shouldn't). In a similar fashion: if a person, with reasonable effort, could feed, house, and clothe himself, and yet chooses not to do so, then there should be no requirement on your part to feed, house or clothe that person. But if a person who, despite his best efforts, could not feed, house or clothe himself, then you, if you have the means, have an obligation to feed, house or clothe that person. Your failure to do so would result in the social equivalent of an intersection where nobody stops, which is why it is reasonable that society as a whole take steps, by force if hnecessary, to ensure that you (a) stop at red lights, and (b) contribute your fair shre to the feeding, housing and clothing of other members of society. At this point every socialist I've debated goes into denial, because the freedom of the food-producing slave (the proper term for someone forced against their will to serve another) is shot. Again, we have a case where language is being misused. A "slave" is a human with no rights, no property, and no freedom. A partial limitation on rights, property or freedom does not by that fact make a person a slave. If you were to produce food, and receive none of it, then you would be a slave. But if you produce food, and give up some of it, but keep the rest, then you are not a slave. Again, is it even possible for you to intentionally, morally AGREE with whatever the state comes up with? The state can "determine" it, or I can "determine" it myself. ... or it can be determined by some other person. Why do individualists always assume they will win the fight which must ensue in a conflict of wills? (And for that matter - why do they think it is inherently wrong for other people to group together to win such a fight? If the individualist insists on a fight, and will not compromise, then it is reasonable for me and my friends to get together. It's like the bully in the schoolyard who always steals everyone's lunch money - and then cries foul when the little kids get together, form a 'government', and make him give it all back.) While there are reasons for me not to try to enforce my judgment, what reason could I possibly have (other than being schizophrenic and insane) for deciding to accept the state's "determination" as more legitimate than my own? Because there are two choices:
How do you arrive at what you believe? Unless you believe whatever the average belief of the people is, then how would what you just say have any bearing on what YOU think is just? "The people" has no will, and is not sentient. And the fact that lots of people may agree on something does not make it true or righteous. Well we could debate the Gaia hypothesis, but that would be missing your point ;) What you are asking is, how do we constitute a rule of law. And of course there is no simple and straightforward answer to that, though a number of different attempts have been made, with more or less success. In the first instance, "the will of the people" is whatever all the people agree to. Of course, all the people never agree on anything; there is always a majority and a minority. In the second instance, therefore, "the will of the people" is whatever the majority agrees to. A "majority" is fifty percent plus one. In practise, however, we find that a majority of fifty percent plus one could never prevail against a determined minority of fifty percent minus one. Indeed, even minorities as small as ten percent can - if they are sufficiently agrieved - seriously disrupt a society. Therefore - and all constitutional nations have done this - the degree of the majority required to enact a particular measure varies, depending on the importance of that type of measure to the affected minority. Again - to return to the stop light analogy - if we simply accepted majority rule, then the stop lights on Main Street would always be green, while the stop lights on Side Street would always be red. So we give the minority on Side Street more weight than their numbers would otherwise merit, and allow the light to be red on Main Street from time to time. John Rawls ("A Theory of Justice") argues that the means by which this calculation could be enabled would be to determine what people would choose for, in the event that they did not know whether they would be in the majority or the minority. Such a "blind contract" is not possible, but we can approach something like it by imagining ourselves in the place of people who are in the minority. That sounds idealistic - and it is - and in practical terms what we have is a political climate in which the minority, if it feels it has been disadvantaged by the majority, causes (or threatans to cause) a disruption, and if that disruption is sufficient, the law is amended. In previous eras (in in some nations today) the minority's means of causing a disruption typically meant riots, terrorism, and otherwise violent acts. More stable democracies enable minorities to non-violently cause a disruption through actions such as demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, and civil disobedience. They do? I happen to think that democracy by itself bites, as do most conservatives, libertarians, and the founders of this country. I would be interested in survey results pointing to that conclusion. One wonders, for example, what they would prefer instead. Theocracy? Perpetual warfare? As for the "founders of this country" - and here I assume you mean the United States - let us not forget that they drafted the constitution, laws, and other frameworks for democratic governance. It is extremely unlikely that they would draft and implement a democratic form of government if they thought "it bites". There's an ingredient missing. Pressing buttons in booths is not the end of the socialist approach. The step the socialists don't mention very often is the INITATION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST THE NONVIOLENT in order to get the desired result. The opposite of free trade is not pressing buttons; it is INTERFERING by FORCE with free trade. The pressing buttons is only the ritual that supposedly legitimizes that force. It is ironic that the very person who does not want disputes solved through democratic means complains that the other side uses force. What else would he have people do? 'Free trade' is a pretty good example of this. Is it restricting 'free trade' if we prevent the highwayman from jumping out and saying 'Your money or your life!" Is it restricting 'free trade' is we prevent a person from using inaccurate weights and measures? Is it restricting 'free trade' if we prevent advertisers from making false claims about their products? The problem with the concept of 'free trade' is that (almost) everybody agrees that there ought to be some limits on economic transactions. Highway robbery, fraud and misrepresentation are usually disallowed, even under the most liberal economy. I feel pretty confident arguing that there ought to be some limits on economic transactions. Murder, extortion, torture - these are all to be outlawed. And - would the person who thinks murder is OK really have a legitimate complaint if I used force to prevent that from happening? The bugbear is in defining what economic practises should be allowed, and what economic practises should be disallowed. We would do well to begin by throwing such loaded terms as 'free trade' to one side and ask what we would or would not accept. Incidentally, you left out another ingredient: HONEST force. If someone tries to rob me, I can do something OTHER than vote or spend money: I can shoot them. And, unlike many statists I've met (socialist and otherwise), I don't have to euphamize the force I advocate, by calling it "taxation," "law enforcement," etc. Force is force. If I am starving and try to rob you, in my eyes, that's "honest force", even if in your eyes, your defense of your goods is "honest force". I have no qualms about calling it force. If you aren't willing to play by the rules - if you won't stop at red lights, pay your fair share for roads, and help preserve social stability by feeding the poor and respecting the rights of minorities, then yes I will use force. Specifically, I and several million of my friends will gang up on you and make you play nice. Because from our point of view, it is honest force. If you don't stop at red lights, some of us get killed, and so it is reasonable for us to use force to make you stop when you're supposed to. If you don't pay your fair share for the roads and other infrastructure, then our society as a whole is poorer and some of us starve, and so it is reasonable for us to use force to make you pay your share. If you don't help feed to poor, or if you don't respect the rights of minorities, then they will cause social disruption - the violent kind - causing some of us to get killed, so it's reasonable for us to use force to make you help keep society stable. I don't see the unreasonableness of this position. It amounts to a very simple proposition: You can't have it your own way all the time. Indeed, the onus is on you to show us why you're so special that your point of view, personal morality, or whatever, should always prevail. If you can't - then you should be prepared to compromise like the rest of us. If you and I were alone on an island, and I build a hut, does the presence of that hut ENTITLE you to the use of it? Does the mere EXISTENCE of stuff you want, in some way mean you have a RIGHT to it? Depends on the island, the hut, and me. If the island could support only one hut (perhaps its really small, or perhaps there's only enough material for one hut) and if a hut was necessary for survival, then if both of us can use the hut, then I am entitled to a share of the hut. If the island could support more than one hut, and if I was not prevented by force or accident from building one, then I could build one of my own and thus would have no claim on yours. If I didn't need a hut to survive, then I have no claim on yours. Even if I need the hut to survive, but the hut only supports one person, then I have no claim on yours (ie., you are not required to give up your life so that I may live). But remember - even saying 'I have a right to' or 'I am entitled to' use the hut presupposes a rule of law . If you don't agree to be constrained by rule of law - then I'll simply take the hut if I can, by rule of might. Or put another way: your security in ownership of the hut depends on your agreeing to principles of ownership generally. I'll leave your hut alone if you promise not to steal my food. If you aren't willing to make even such a basic promise as that - well, then, your hut is fair game. No. This is patently untrue. If that were the case, that everyone who VOTES for the state to rob me to pay for their bad ideas, would also feel personally JUSTIFIED in doing the same thing (though they may not want to for practical reasons). The word "rob" is like the word "theft" and is similarly misused in this context. There is no principle which states that everything a person does, or even what a person wants to do, is what a person feels justified in doing. Moreover, there is no principle which states that support for a government, is therefore support for every act of that government. I challenge you to find ANY Republican who thinks he has a personal right to force me to go kill someone for him (as opposed to believing in the federal "draft"), or any Democrat who thinks he has the personal right to take my money by force to pay for bad "art." But why would I suppose that the rights and responsibilities of individuals is the same as the rights and responsibilities of a government, even if the government is made up of individuals. I do not believe that the height and width of a brick is the same as the height and width of a brick wall, even though the wall is made entirely out of bricks. An entity which is a collective - any collective, be it a government, a society, a hockey team, a jury, or a mod - has rights and responsibilities - and a host of other properties - which are distinct from the individuals which comprise that collective. A person cannot lift ten tons; a hundred people pulling together can; it would be folly to say that, since a single person cannot lift ten tons, that a hundred people wought not be able to either. And so some collectives - such as nations - may require that some of its members sacrifice their lives or their property, even though individual in such a collective could do so. I am not obligated to make an agreement with you. If I propose the agreement "I will pay you $60 a day to mow lawns, under the condition that you not say anything political," then you have the option to ACCEPT or DECLINE. You do NOT have the right to accept, and then decide to change MY side of the agreement. If any employer tells an employee to do ANYTHING, and the employee refuses, the employer has the absolute right to fire him. Similarly (but less often considered), if the employee makes a demand of the employer, and the employer refuses, the employee has the absolute right to QUIT. If the only way for me to survive is though entering into employment agreements, then quitting is not a viable option. If quitting is not a viable option, then employment conditions which require that I sacrifice some of my freedoms as a condition of employment are in fact requirements that I sacrifice some of my freedoms in order to survive, in which case they are not freedoms at all. Because in a modern industrial society it is not possible to make a living for ypourself off the land (all the land is owned by someone else) it is always necessary to enter into employment agreements in order to survive, either as an employee, contract hire, or fee-for-service arrangement. A society in which you say to people, essentially, "You may live, if you don't say anything political" is one where freedom of speech does not exist. Freedom of speech is one of those rights for which a determined minority is likely to agitate very strenuously, and in support of which they will cause considerable disruption to a society. For that reason, because jobs are essential to survival, governments limit the ability of employers to curtail freedoms such as freedon of speech. Good example of the euphamism referred to above. "Be provided"? By what? By other people having their labor or fruits of their labor taken from them BY FORCE, without their permission. If you want to put it that way - sure. I and my friends are a lot safer in societies where most people have an education. My use of force to protect me from the violence of uneducated thugs is honest force, as you would put it. No. The truth does not change, and the opinions of people do not alter it. When most people support evil (as they do now under the guise of "law"), most people are WRONG. The true may be immutable and still lie in the middle >From where? The magic Capital-Tree? Or are you advocating that people's property BE TAKEN FROM THEM BY BRUTE FORCE? That ought to be enough to get things started. :) Again - if you are going to drive like a maniac, disregarding red lights, I will stop you by force. If you refuse to participate in the necessary social and economic infrastructure needed for a stable (and safe) society, then I will use force again here too. I have no qualms about that. My rights and freedoms are just as important as yours. I am equally in my right to defend them. If in the defense of these rights and freedoms join with other people and you don't - that just makes me smarter (and more powerful) than you. So the choice is yours: are you willing to sit down and negotiate a reasonable abridgement of all of our rights so we can live in peace? Or do you prefer to let the rule of the jungle prevail? Hm?
|
The Cyberspace Charter of Rights | |
| Before people will invest their time, energy and resources in Cyberspace, law must extend into Cyberspace. People must be secure in the knowledge that their rights and freedoms will be respected, that their personal liberties will not of a sudden be infringed, that their personal and private information shall not be compromised. | |
| Posted on NewsTrolls 22 July 1999 It is easy and even fun to sit back and carp about Ziff-Davis's new standard for internet commerce, or about Third Voice's data collection efforts. Moreover, it is, it seems, an endless task as new initiatives, products and services populate the world wide web. The last twelve months have been turbulent, not so much because of efforts to censor the web or violate personal property (though these continue, as we see with the proposed internet blockade of Serbia, or the new regulations governing content in Australia), but because of the commercialization of the internet and the commodification of information. Now don't get me wrong: it is reasonable and natural that business and commerce will be conducted on the internet, just as in the case of any meeting place or commons, and their interest and endeavours are welcomed with open arms. Much that is good about the internet has also been commercial: the Yahoo indices and chat rooms, Geocities home pages, ICQ, and even the Microsoft Gaming Center. But increased population, trade and commerce have made the internet a more complex place to govern. And make no mistake about it, the internet is being governed, though that said, this government is constituted of an anarchy of national governments, international organizations, standards bodies, corporate policies and procedures, and terms of service regulations. Such anarchy has spread uncertainty. The citizens of the WELL or homesteaders of Geocities know what I mean, as their rights and freedoms shift and stutter through corporate takeovers and new terms of service. What was once theirs, Geocities homesteaders are told, now belongs to Yahoo. And though that corporate entity recanted, there seems no natural limit on the ebb and flow of internet policies and politics. A free and democratic society is preferred because it is stable. Our democratic rights and personal freedoms were created in the first instance to protect citizens from the whims of policy The maintenance of a free and democratic society is the first duty and responsibility of its citizens. Or in the words of Junius, "The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures." Before people will invest their time, energy and resources in Cyberspace, law must extend into Cyberspace. People must be secure in the knowledge that their rights and freedoms will be respected, that their personal liberties will not of a sudden be infringed, that their personal and private information shall not be compromised. No mass movement of people, money or enterprise will flow into this new territory without such security, and if Cyberspace has been populated by those who may make their own laws, so much the good for them, but now the time has come for laws which apply to all, equally, without prejudice. Hence, below, I have drafted a document titled The Cyberspace Charter of Rights (the link will take you to an uncommented version):
Having set out the document, let me take some time to discuss and elaborate upon some of the stipulations:
Access has to be the first and primary right of CyberCitizens. I have tried to define this generally, as the nature and shape of online communications is likely to change in the future. Thus access refers to the electronic sphere generally, and is not restricted to an existing entity such as the internet. I have also defined access as a right of citizens, with two thoughts in mind. First, I wanted to convey the idea that the rights and liberties which should be defined in Cyberspace are an extension of those which exist for the citizens of democratic nations; just as a person should have freedom of speech or freedom of the press in a democratic society, so also should those freedoms extend to Cyberspace. Second, I wanted to convey the idea that these rights and freedoms are not universal. We do not convey them to dogs or other animals, we do not convey them (automatically) to children, and that there are cases where citizenship, or at least the rights of citizenship, may be legitimately revoked, just as we would revoke the freedoms of persons convicted under the Criminal Code. The principle which stipulates that all citizens shall have the right to access is the first and most fundamental freedom of Cyberspace; it defines Cyberspace as an open society. There are no immigration restrictions or quotas, nor are there any barriers to membership on the basis of race, nationality, gender, or any other personal characteristic. The right to access may be construed - and is even to this day construed in some territories - as a positive right, that is, as right to have a certain service provided. Nations like Canada have stated and begun to implement as a national policy the idea that all citizens, regardless of means or income, shall have the capacity to access the internet; this policy is being implemented through such programs as the Community Access Project (CAP), Canada's Schoolnet, and so on. I applaud and support such projects, but not all nations would interpret this provision as a positive right - in the United States, for example, access to the internet is likely to depend on financial means. In environments such as this, the right to access becomes somewhat equivalent to the right to ride the bus, or the right to buy a home - those who have the means may do so, and provided they have the means, no restriction shall be placed on their doing so. Either policy is consistent with the Charter of Internet Rights; what is essential, is that the means of access, are open equally to everyone. The second provision of the access clause is the online equivalent to freedom of mobility. Once a person has access the internet, then no policy should prohibit that person from accessing any point on the internet. Thus a person from the United States could access a Cuban website, or a person from China could access a Taiwanese website. This provision is intended to address both political measures and technological measures. Politically, it amounts to the urging that no law out to hinder access. Technologically, it amounts to the urging that no barriers be placed in the way of access. The shut-down of internet to Serbia by shutting down satellite services, for example, would violate the latter provision.
Freedom of speech has been a much-discussed issue on the internet. CyberCitizens first rose to the defense of this freedom in the 1996 web black-out: the background colour of a significant number of web pages (my own included) was changed to the colour black on February 8 of that year. The protests continued with the 24 Hours of Freedom Web Ring and the Blue Ribbon campaign. The primary object of these protests - the Communications Decency Act - was defeated, but the move to restrict freedom of speech did not abate with that setback. But freedom of speech has been recognized for centuries as a fundamental principle of a free and democratic society; indeed, it is arguable that without freedom of speech, a society is essentially undemocratic, no matter how many other freedoms are granted. In a similar fashion, were the content of online communications subject to censure and prohibition, the online environment would cease to be a free society. Freedom of speech is even more important in a global environment because there are no international standards or agreement governing what constitutes acceptable speech. As I said in my 24 Hours of Democracy essay, some people (such as myself) would want to ban subversive advertising and programming, as offered by (say) Walt Disney or McDonalds, while others would choose to ban violent imagery, while others would ban sex (or even discussions of safe sex), while others would want to see the Pork Marketing Council website shut down. The essence of censorship is that it is one person telling another person what he or she may read or write; and in all cases of censorship it is the values of the first person - however reasonable or rational they may seem - which prevail. The censor, therefore, becomes the arbiter of values. But in a global society, there can be no arbiter of values, because there is no common value system, and hence, any arbitration of values becomes an instrument of repression. This means we all must live with the existence of content which is objectionable, for it is the only way in which we all may be equal members of the online society. The right to express these ideas extends to the right to transmit them; this is why there is a second provision under 'Freedom of Expression'. The second provision is the online equivalent of freedom of the press; it allows for ideas to be communicated to a mass audience. The stipulation here is that members of that mass audience must want to hear the message being transmitted; freedom of expression is not a right which allows a person to force his or her views on an unwilling audience, or to drown out with static or noise the attempts of other people to communicate with each other. In the end, these two provisions boil down to the assertion that no third person shall abridge the communications of two people, where those two people have freely entered into this exchange.
In the pre-electronic age, personal privacy meant being able to keep your personal proclivities in the closet, and being sure that nobody was peering through your bedroom drapes. It did not necessarily protect the gathering and use of people's names, addresses, phone numbers, or other personal data, mainly because not much could be done with such collections of information. In the electronic age, however, the potential for the misuse of personal information is large, from the theft of credit card data, to the malicious assumption of anothers' identity. Additionally, because personal information may be amassed in databases, it has become a commodity, an item of value, for which individuals and corporations are willing to pay considerable sums of money. The production and origin of personal information in every case lies with the person themselves. A person does not assume an address unless he moves there, does not have a name unless she consents to be recognized by it, does not have a shoe size unless he has feet. Without the person, there is no personal information; therefore, the ownership of personal information must lie in the domain of the person who created it. Where the ownership of one's personal information impacts on the practises of Cyberspace is, first, in the collection of personal information, and second, in the use of personal information. The principles in the Cyberspace Charter of Rights stipulate that one cannot, first, collect personal information without that person's consent, and second, use personal information without that person's consent.
Security of communication is the flip side of freedom of speech. While the latter the the right of a person to be heard by all he or she want to hear, the former is the right of a person to be hear by only those he or she wants to hear. Security of communication is the online equivalent to freedom of assembly. It is the right of a person to meet in public or private with other persons, without hinderance or disturbance. In pre-electronic times, the right to assembly ensured privacy, because one could meet in a back room; online, however, there is no such thing as a back room, and to a certain degree, all communications pass through the public sphere. Thus there needs to be in an online environment a particular set of protections securing a person's right to assemble with a particular set of others. These provisions break down into three major categories: First, the right to secure communication, that is, communication which will not be intercepted, redirected, or otherwise diverted or duplicated. This is the embodiment of the idea that private conversations should remain private; it is the online equivalent of an anti-bugging or anti-eavesdropping provision. The second point - communicating in a language of one's choice - is intended to adress the issue of cryptography. It is essentially an assertion fo the right of a person to use whatever encryption technology he or she deems necessary. I have couched it in terms of language, first, because encryptions are variant languages, and second, to convey the idea that a person has a right to determine the style, as well as the content, of their speech. But this second point also addresses a wider set of rights: the right to the use of one's national tongue, for example, or the right to define alternative communications protocols. It embodies the essence of communication as a freely chosen set of protocols between sender and receiver; it enshrines the idea that there shall be no determination of how communications are condcted over the internet except by the free agreement of those people doing the communicating, and therefore ensures that there are no barriers, by language or technology, between those people. The third right guarantees a person the right to choose his or her identity, and indeed, whether to have an identity at all. This is a new right; in the physical world it is not possible to abandon one's body, and therefore, one's physical identity, but in cyberspace, identities may be worn as easily as a new suit or a pair of shoes. This right follows naturally from the right to freedom of speech, and also, from the idea that one owns ones personal information. It is tantemount to the freedom to create one's personal information, to the idea that you - and nobody else - has the right to determine who you are. The right to anonymous communication is roughly equivently to the right to freedom of the press: it is the right that protects the posterer or pamphleteer.
The protections for intellectual property have a two-fold purpose: first, it ensures that something created by a person is owned by a person, and therefore, cannot be appropriated by some third party. This protects the people who send email messages, post to discussion boards, or publish web pages: they have the assurance that what they create, remains their own. This does not mean that these rights cannot be transferred; when Jon Katz writes a column for SlashDot, he may freely assign all copyright to that company. But what it does mean is that SlashDot cannot, without prior notice, assume sole ownership or copyright of messages posted to their online discussion boards; or that if a new idea or concept is presented in such a public forum, that a third person cannot run to the trademark office and relieve the author of ownership over that idea. Placing the ownership of ideas and beliefs in the hands of their creator also serves to protect the freedom of cyberspace by removing from service providers responsibility over that content. Just as the city that builds a road is not responsible for what drivers do on that road, and just as the telephone company is not responsible for the conversations people have, so also a service provider is not responsible for the content of a user's email or web site. Keeping ownership and responsibility in the hands of the crator is essential to the maintenance of a free Cyberspace. If a third party becomes accountable for the ideas and opinions of a first party, that that third party is obligated to violate the first person's privacy, to monitor his email communications and web sites, and sometimes, to act as censor over the contents of those communications.
Inherent in the idea of the freedom of speech is the idea of fair comment or criticism of another person's ideas. This right manifests itself differently in Cyberspace because pointing works differently in an online environment and is therefore not covered explicitly under freedom of speech. The first and essential principle of reference is the right to refer. By the creation of a piece of intellectual property, one does not acquire the right to govern all discussion about that property. Thus people may send emails or establish websites about Star Trek, or they may express opinions for or against a politician's platform, and indeed, may parody or satire another work. The restriction on this right is that imposed by the intellectual property provision: a person may not take another person's intellictual property and use it without permission. Thus, a web site may talk about Star Trek, but it cannot purport to be Star Trek; a web site may criticize Coca Cola, but it cannot use images or artwork produced by Coca Cola. There is to be sure a fuzzy line here: Coca Cola may own its own logo, but the use of the logo could in some cases be a refernce to that company, and not a use of their ideas. Moreover, it is not clear to what degree a company may control variants on their words or artwork; and in some cases a corporation may use some word or artwork over which it should claim no ownership at all (as for example when Bell Canada tried to trademark the term, "The Net"). But in practise the line is relatively clear: it is crossed when a reasonable person might come to believe that the work in question is the work of the person or company to which it refers - thus G.W. Bush has a legitimate complaint if readers of www.gwbush.com would believe that this parody site was Bush's real home page. Another aspect of reference falls under the area of linking - companies and individuals have from time to time attempted to prevent persons from creatiung links to their sites. But a link is nothing more than a way of pointing: and just as my pointing at Bill Clinton in no way implies that I endorse him (or that he endorses me), so also the posting of a link carries no such connotations.
The final provision, that of quiet enjoyment, points to a person's right to use the internet without interference from others. The first and most obvious target of the quiet enjoyment provision is unwanted email (or 'spam'). This provision stipulates essentially that users of the internet have the right to be spam-free. The offline equivalent of the anti-spam provision is the security of one's property: just as no person has the right to make harassing phone calls, enter one's place of residence, or incur unauthorized expenses, so also senders of email cannot target unwilling recipients, place unwanted data into their computers, nor make them pay for the download. The 'quiet enjoyment' provision expresses the sanctity of one's computer; this is seen by the second provision, which prohibits arbitrary search and seizure. On the internet, a person's computer is his or her home; there should be a reaosnable expectation of security and privacy. This provision is intended to conver both physical search and seizure, as when the Feds come to your door and demand that you dump your hard drive, and also 'soft' search and seizure, as would be performed by software agents, viruses, or other online intrusions. References and Resources American Civil Liberties Union Americans for Computer Privacy Center for Democracy and Technology CDT's Communications Decency Act Issues Page Citizens' Internet Empowerment Coalition Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Cybotage (In German) EFF 'Know Your CyberRights' Sweepstakes Encryption Policy Resource Page Families Against Internet Censorship Global Internet Liberty Campaign Internet Advertising/Marketing Law Report Internet Declaration of Independence Internet Free Expression Alliance MCS-Special-Support Human Rights PeaceFire, Youth Alliance Against Internet Censorship Promote Responsible New Commerce: Fight Spam Regulatory and Legal Resources on the Internet Voters' Telecommunications Watch VTW Centre for Internet Education VTW Issues Page Web Blackout Commemorative
|
China |
| I think that as we agitate for political and other freedoms for the Chinese that we need to take an equally critical look at our own social and political environment. |
| Posted to NewsTrolls, 25 January, 2000. When thinking about China, never lose sight of this statistic: more than a billion people. That seems trite, almost overstated, but it means that any problem, any conflict, is magnified. Americans should take their problems and multiply them by a factor of three. Canadians should multiply them by a factor of thirty. What would be big here - the arrest of a hundred dissidents, say - is small there. It corresponds to three Canadians landing in the slammer for their political and religious views, or thirty Americans. We witnessed a lot more than that just recently during the WTO protests. This is not to apologize for the Chinese government, which as we all know is not especially democratic. But I think that it is a mistake to paint that wide a gulf between China and America. The actors may be different, the scale may be different, but the players are the same. Consider the most basic human right, the right to life. The United States executes as many people per year as the Chinese, certainly on a per capita basis. Prison population? The United States is a leader there as well (and not to bash the United States - Canada has its fair share of prisoners). Of course, we say, China's prisoners are political prisoners. Yes, but - it depends on how you define political. For myself, I believe that a person jailed for owning or selling pot is a political prisoner. The 'war on drugs' is a political war (it's certainly not a war on crime, save for the technical detail that owning pot is illegal). Much has been made of the Chinese government's attacks on Fulan Gong. And, of course, the Chinese government should not clamp down on religious sects. But on the other hand, the Chinese did not burn a cluster of Fuulan Gong members to death, as the United States government did the Branch Davidians. It's a matter of perspective. One person's religious movement is another person's whacky cult. Each nation has to evaluate the presence and activities of religious organizations and assess the threat potential. Is Fulan Gong a threat to the Chinese way of life? On the face of it I would say no - but on the face of it I wouldn't consider the Branch Davidians a threat either. Much is made of the Chinese government's controls on the press, assembly and other communications. And let me be clear that I believe that the best thing the Chinese could do is to liberalize the media, and especially online media. But again, this must be taken into context. When we look at western media with a critical eye we see little more freedom than in the Chinese press. The vast majority of newspapers, magazines, television and radio channels are owned by a small number of politically aligned media corporations. These corporations have a very close, almost incestuous, relationship with the ruling elite. Insofar as western nations are governed by corporate or capitalist governments, the western press is aty least as state controlled as the Chinese. The proof of this is legion. American television shows carry anti-drug messages because the government pressures them into doing so. Anti- corporate advertisements, such as proposed by ad-busters for billboards, televsion, and other media, are refused by all networks. Televsion networks do not cover criticism of their corporate owners. Media giants such as AOL filter email criticizing their corporate practises. It's hard from a detached perspective to say that one form of censorship is legitimate and that the other form of censorship is pure evil. From the point of view of the bottom, it does not matter whether your message is blocked by the state or by the corporation. I think that the work that must be done to 'open' China must also be done in our own nation and our own back yards. I think that as we agitate for political and other freedoms for the Chinese that we need to take an equally critical look at our own social and political environment. And just as we may from time to time find an ally in the American or Canadian governments as we push for reforms in China and elsewhere, if we resist the demonization of Asia and Asian culture which is spreading through western media, we may find an ally in the Chinese government and especially the Chinese people as we pursue necessary rights and freedoms in our homes and our communities.
|
Resources and References
| Taming the Wild, Wild Web Redesign the internet? This is what more and more business people are advocating as they find the current version too wild, to unpredictable, too hard to control. But redesigning the web to accomodate accepted business principles would curb many of the freedoms net users currently enjoy. What we have as a fundamental cultural clash, one that will intensify over the months and years to come. This article is on the L.A. Times website, so read it quickly before it disappears behind a subscription-only barrier. By Michael Hiltzik, L.A. Times, July 26, 2001. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-072601netarch.story |
| Freedom Forum announces journalism-teaching awards http://www.chronicle.com/daily/2001/07/2001072706n.htm |
| Freedom of Information? The Internet as Harbinger of the Dark Ages Excellent article. He writes, "There's a common presumption that the Internet has brought with it the promise of openness, democracy, the end of inequities in the distribution of information, and human self-fulfillment. Any such conclusion would be premature." By Roger Clark, First Monday, November 2, 1999. http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_11/clarke/index.html |
| Accrediting On-Line Institutions Diminishes Higher Education James Perley and Denise Marie Tanguay argue that accrediting online learning damages higher education because online learning compartmentalizes learning and endangers academic freedom. In a second essay, Virtual Universities Can Meet High Standards, Steven Crow argues that there is nothing inherent in online learning which demands a change in these traditional practises. Good read. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1999. http://chronicle.com/colloquy/99/online/background.htm#perley |
| Policy and Participation on the Canadian Information Highway This paper proposes that the issue of universal access be addressed in the broader conceptual framework of the right to communicate. As well, the policy debate should be moved to the political arena through an initiative to incorporate the right to communicate in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By Willian F. Birdsall, in First Monday, Issue 4.3, 1999 http://131.193.153.231/issues/issue4_3/birdsall/index.html |
Chapter 4 ~ Rights
The Role of the State |
| Freedom is the right to pursue one's own good in one's own way, so long as that pursuit does not infringe on another's right to do the same. But one person's good is another person's nightmare. The role of government is to balance these conflicting rights. |
| Posted to HotWired 28 May 98 The irony is, socialists and capitalists might actually agree on this one, at least in broad strokes. The devil is in the details. For example, freedom is good. Both socialists and capitalists agree on this. It is true that the capitalist will accuse the socialist of repressing freedom, but also, in their own way, the socialists argue that capitalists repress freedom. And what is freedom? For the most part, both socialists and capitalists follow the definition proposed by John Stuart Mill: freedom is the right to pursue one's own good in one's own way, so long as that pursuit does not infringe on another's right to do the same. But as is pointed out elsewhere, one person's good is another person's nightmare. As was stated above, a pedophile's definition of good involves molesting young children. Such molestation violates the rights of the child, and so we, quite rightly, agree that the pedophile's behaviours must be limited in this case. The role of government is to balance these conflicting rights. In the case of the pedophile, we assign government the responsibility of preventing, by force if necessary, the molesting of children. The clear cut cases are easy. There is a wide range of behaviours both capitalists and socialists consider repugnant, including but not limited to, murder, cannibalism, rape, theft, arson, and the like. The fuzzy cases are harder. A good example, also cited above, is pollution control. All humans produce waste, even if only in the form of exhaled air, which eventually impacts on another person, even if only in the form of bad breath. But at the other extreme, some humans produce waste which is injurious or deadly to other humans. So clearly some restraint is required, but also as clearly, such restraint should not apply to all cases. How to decide? It is the adjudication of such cases to which we assign government the responsibility. This function, it should be noted, is a distinct function from the identification and prevention of violations, as described in the case above. That function is most properly called the executive function. The adjudicative function we will call the legislative function. None of this is new to any of us. And as I said, in broad strokes, both capitalists and socialists agree on this formulation, to this point. Where differences between the two philosophies occur, they occur in the description of the implementation of each of these two major functions. For example, in the questions of crime and punishment, the domain of the executive function, some people may favour harsh and punative penalties, while others may favour mild and rehabilitative penalities. But this debate usually occurs quite outside the usual capitalism-socialism debate. It is in legislative function where the major disputes occur. On what principle shall we determine where the rights of one person end and another's begin? The principle usually adopted, also from John Stuart Mill, is the 'no harm principle'. Broadly stated, the 'no harm principle' stipulates that, so long as one person's behavious does not harm another, that behaviour ought to be allowed. Capitalists adhere to this strictly. Socialists, however, tend to identify three areas of fuzziness. First, socialists tend to include 'harm to oneself' as harm to another, and hence, tend to argue that persons ought to be prevented from harming themselves. For example, a socialist might be more prone to ban alcohol or gambling. Second, socialists tend to include 'non-physical harm' as harm to another, and hence, tend to argue that various forms of speech and other behaviours ought to be prevented. For example, a socialist might be more prone to prohibit hate literature or foul language. And third, socialists tend to include 'social harm', that is, harm to society as a whole, but not to any identifiable person, as harm to another, and hence, tend to argue that such social harms ought to be prevented. For example, a socialist might be more prone to promote animal rights or environmental protection. Obviously, there is considerable cross-over. Many capitalists include instances of at least some of these three categories of wrongs. And many socialists do not include all instances of these three categories of wrongs. It is the role of the legislative function of government to determine where in this range of possible offenses the line ought to be drawn, and to determine the means and amount of force required to enforce those decisions. Government, properly conceived, ought to express the will of the people themselves with regard to those determinations. For example, in determining whether self-harming behaviours in general, and, say, drinking in particular, ought to be legal, government must consist of the method by which we sample the opinion of the people, and on that basis, express their will. Both capitalists and socialists agree that the best method of doing so is democratically. This is what distinguishes capitalists from fascists, and socialists from communists. But given that this will ought to expressed democratically, the question arises: how? Most countries' populations express their wills in two major ways: first, by electing representatives to speak for them and to vote in legislative assemblies, and second, by purchasing goods and otherwise supporting agencies they agree with (some naer-do-wells combine these methods, by purchasing votes, but this is generally frowned upon by both capitalists and socialists). A socialists will tend to argue that only the former should prevail, that is, that the only instrument of public policy ought to be the vote. A capitalists will argue that both should prevail, that is, that a person's purchases are equally expressive and ought, in many instances, to be used instead of the vote (a pure capitalists will argue that the vote is not necessary, and that purchases themselves will determine the will of the people). Importantly: insofar as capital, and not the vote, is used as a means of expressing the public will, the role of the vote, and hence of the legislative and executive function of government, is lessened. Hence, in the context of a capitalist-socialist debate, when the question is asked, what is the role of government, the question is in fact, how much of the public will ought to be expressed by the vote, and how much ought to be expressed by the spending of capital? This is why each side accuses the other of being anti-democratic, and anti-freedom. The socialist argues that capitalists undermine freedom and democracy by undermining the power of the vote. This allows some people to harm others in ways others cannot. The line between harm and non-harm is not set at a fixed point for all people. This is clearest in the fuzzy cases. For example, consider the case of pollution. If the limit is set by legislation, then all people ahve the same right to pollute. However, if the limit is set by capital (as, for example, in the purchase of pollution credits), then some people are permitted to pollute while others do not have that right. This distinction expresses itself also, but in a different way, even in the case of criminal prosecutions. A person who can spend capital to hire a good lawyer can get away with more than a person who cannot. In some cases (the name O.J. springs to mind), a person with enough capital can get away with murder. In civil cases, especially where non-physical harm is involved, the influence of capital over a person's rights is evident. On the other side, capitalists argue that the socialists' approach restricts their rights. Insofar as the socialists is generally willing to include harm to oneself, non-physical, and social harms as harms (and insofar as people keep voting to include such in their jurisdictions' laws) capitalists see themselves as unreasonably limited by government. A strong capitalist, for example, would argue that such matters as suicide, alcohol consumption, gambling, vulgarity, inflammatory speech, and the like ought most properly to be beyond the domain of government. And matters of social good promoted by government, such as schools, hospitals, roads, and even military or police, ought to be governed not by legislation but by private investment and capital. The reasoning in all such cases is similar: if all such laws were removed from the books, in consequence no person would be harmed, and therefore, laws governing such matters are beyond the domain of government. Indeed, they continue, it is the obligation of the socialist to show how harm is prevented by any of these laws. The onus is not simply to show that more people voted for a piece of legislation - for that is irrelevant, since the vote is only a mechanism for expressing a will, like a poll - but rather, to show that some person's rights are or are not protected by a given piece of legislation. And in fact both capitalists and socialists agree on this. They agree that the vote is not the final arbiter. They agree that no matter what the will of the people, one's rights cannot be violated. And as a consequence most countries encode these bodies of rights in such documents as the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But the history of such documents is an odd one. For charters of rights arise in the people's historical desire to protect itself from government, especially the non-democratic kind. In more democratic climes, charters of rights have also evolved to protect people what what Mill termed the 'tyranny of the majority'. In the end, charters of rights are restrictive documents. They identify what harms a people will, under no circumstances, tolerate. And in some cases - such as the right to bear arms, or the right of assembly - they specify what they people may do in the protection of those rights. As the capitalist approach to government is a minimalist approach, capitalists tend to view charters of rights as definining the role of government. If an action does not violate a right as set out in the charter of rights, they often argue, then government ought not enact a law restricting that action. Socialists, by contrast, see charters of rights as starting points. Other restrictions not envisioned by the charter of rights are permissible, if identifiable harm (broadly conceived) may be found. The socialist, indeed, sould take this argument a step further. Charters of rights typically restrict only the actions of government. They do not restrict the actions of people. Thus, even given a charter of rights, people are not protected from the harm caused by other people. That is why additional legislation is required. For example, while the Bill of Rights may protect Americans in their freedom of speech, it does not prevent companies from restricting the speech of their employees. A corporation is not directly governed by the Bill of Rights. A separate piece of legislation, explictly aimed at such instances, would have to be drafted in order to give employees the freedom of speech, particularly in their workplace. Moreover, insofar as a charter of rights is only intended to prevent the government from doing harm, it does not express in a wider sense the sorts of harm from which a person ought to be protected. For example, the provision of an education falls outside this category. Hence, in typical charters of rights, the provision of an education is not a right. Hence additional laws must be enacted requiring that an education be provided. In fact, both capitalists and socialists agree that additional legislation, to some degree, is required beyond the charter of rights. For example, both sides agree that a corporation's purchasing power ought not extend to permission to kill people, or plant plutonium in the city square, and the like. Both capitalists and socialists agree that there ought to be some legislation enacted to protect people from each other (as opposed to merely protecting people from government). One (minimalist) proposal: that the charter of rights be extended to include all people, not just government, and that the role of government be restricted to enforcing the charter (as interpreted by the judiciary). But which charter? The U.S. Bill of Rights is a very minimal document. The Canadian charter is more inclusive, but includes an opt-out clause. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a sweeping document, however, one which people would consider too generous if applied to all people, and not merely all governments. The Mulit-Lateral Agreement on Investment is a similar document, however, one which does not extend itself to the protection of citizens. The truth - as always - lies somewhere between the extremes. What is needed is a more sweeping charter of rights and freedoms, trhan currently exists, one which explicitly limits the power of both legislations as expressed by the vote, and freedoms as expressed by the expense of capital. It ought to include the right to at least a minimal amount of self-expression, and the right to at least a minimal amount of capital. These minimums will in turn enable each person the right to participate in both forms of decision-making, and to be protected from both forms of repression. Once such a document is in place, then the full and proper role of government can be defined as enforcing the charter - in effect, to a significant degree, terminating the legislative function of the government, expect for such minimal maintenance as the charter would require over the years. And that - both capitalists and socialists can agree - would be a good thing. Right?
|
Let the Games Begin |
| My rights and freedoms are just as important as yours. I am equally in my right to defend them. If in the defense of these rights and freedoms I join with other people and you don't - that just makes me smarter (and more powerful) than you. |
| Posted to XCobra's List, 03 June 1999
Note: this email replies to commentary on my thread, The Role of the State. Larken Rose wrote: I assume you mean non-state theft when you say socialists oppose theft. Ok, we're not going to get very far if we start messing around with the meaning of words for persuasive purposes. By "theft" I (and most other people) means "the unlawful taking of personal property". Taxation is lawful, therefore, taxation is not theft. It may be argued that taxation is wrong; that's fine, and we could debate the point. But simply calling it "theft" assumes this argument without actually stating it, leaving the opponent with no grounds or premises on which to question the conclusion. So let's not play make-believe semantics, and let's stick with ordinary uses of words, OK? Basically (correct me if I'm wrong), you say that the proper job of "government" is to decide when force should be used to deal with a conflict of wills. Close. The proper role of government is to arbitrate disputes of wills, enforcing that arbitration with force if necessary. We do not want to assume that any decision of government is accepted by the parties in question only because the government backs it up with force. In many cases, the parties willingly accept the government's arbitration, because it is the only means of resolving an intractable dispute without force. Why would you (or could you) want someone OTHER than you to decide when force is justified? If I thought my own personal point of view were the only one in the world, then perhaps I might take this stance. But in fact I know that when I and someone else became embroiled in a dispute, that my point of view might not always prevail. Indeed, if everybody took the same attitude (that no OTHER person should resolve disputes) then no dispute would ever be resolved, because in all cases there are at least two parties to a dispute, each of whom wants their own way. I can see why you wouldn't try to enforce what YOU think, because of practically and/or self-preservation. Well I would try to enforce my point of view, but there are limits on the practicality of this. I don't have the time nor the energy to go around every day trying to force my views of the world on other people. I am content from the point of view of practicality and personal safety (because remember, the OTHER is also trying to enforce their point of view) to delegate such matters to a neutral authority. By analogy: in hockey, the rules and the referees are the 'government' of the game. Suppose we tried to play hockey without them. People wouldn't even bother trying to score goals - they would simply declare 'I win' and then enforce their point of view. Such hockey games would be dangerous for the participants, and futile besides. Even if the participants agree upon the rules, a referee is often necessary, because people break the rules (these are called penalties). Both sides accept the need to defer to the referee (and even to pay the referee for his time) because without enforcement of the rules, hockey degenerates to a state of there being no rules, which again is dangerous and futile. But is it even POSSIBLE for you to accept as valid any judgment that "government" makes about what should be done? I cannot, be sheer will, change what I believe is right and wrong. If I asked you (just for an experiment) to believe that mass murder is good, COULD you believe that? If not, how can "laws" of the state CHANGE what you think is righteous? You can accept a judgement even though you think it is wrong. Again - the fundamental recognition here is that the world is inhabited by other people, and that other people sometimes disagree with you. It really boils down to two choices:
I kept expecting you to get to the obvious one, but you didn't. Socialists believe that me HAVING something constitutes "harm" against someone who doesn't. No, this is a straw man argument. No socialist that I know of believes that the mere having of something causes harm. It is all right for one person to have something that another doesn't. Where the 'having' of things becomes a harm is when the one person's having of things leaves the other person without the means of survival. Fred can have more food than Bill, but Fred cannot have all the food, because then Bill dies of starvation, which is a harm. To them, someone NOT hiring them is a violation of their "freedom." Again, this is a straw man argument. No socialist would argue for such an absurd principle. I have been 'not hired' by many people without having considered it a violation of my freedom. Being 'not hired' is a violation of one's freedom only if (1) the only way to survive is to be hired, and (2) the person was not hired. They even use the looney "freedom to" rather than "freedom from" basis. For example, they often believe that "rights" includes things that require efforts of someone else. For me to have the "freedom to be well fed" <dry heave> requires that someone feed me (if I don't do it myself). So it requires effort on the part of someone else. So what? Would you argue that there is no requirement that you stop at a red light because it requires time and effort on your part? Obviously not. Even though a red light is an inconvenience, you obey the signal because you know that nobody wins when you (and everyone else) try to force yourselves through a crowded intersection. In a situation where there is a limited resource (in this case, space) and everybody has an equal need (in this case, to get to the other side) they only way forward is for people to alternate, giving up some of that limited resource even though it requires extra effort on their part. What you are really saying is: "I should not have to make an effort to feed someone when they won't make such an effort themselves." That's fair enough. It's like saying "why should I stop at red lights when nobody else has to." And I agree, provided that, were they to make the effort, they could feed themselves. Other people - if they can stop, should stop. Obviously, not everybody can stop - people with disabilities (eg., no brakes) cannot stop. People serving other social functions (eg., Fire Engines) can't stop (or at least, shouldn't). In a similar fashion: if a person, with reasonable effort, could feed, house, and clothe himself, and yet chooses not to do so, then there should be no requirement on your part to feed, house or clothe that person. But if a person who, despite his best efforts, could not feed, house or clothe himself, then you, if you have the means, have an obligation to feed, house or clothe that person. Your failure to do so would result in the social equivalent of an intersection where nobody stops, which is why it is reasonable that society as a whole take steps, by force if hnecessary, to ensure that you (a) stop at red lights, and (b) contribute your fair shre to the feeding, housing and clothing of other members of society. At this point every socialist I've debated goes into denial, because the freedom of the food-producing slave (the proper term for someone forced against their will to serve another) is shot. Again, we have a case where language is being misused. A "slave" is a human with no rights, no property, and no freedom. A partial limitation on rights, property or freedom does not by that fact make a person a slave. If you were to produce food, and receive none of it, then you would be a slave. But if you produce food, and give up some of it, but keep the rest, then you are not a slave. Again, is it even possible for you to intentionally, morally AGREE with whatever the state comes up with? The state can "determine" it, or I can "determine" it myself. ... or it can be determined by some other person. Why do individualists always assume they will win the fight which must ensue in a conflict of wills? (And for that matter - why do they think it is inherently wrong for other people to group together to win such a fight? If the individualist insists on a fight, and will not compromise, then it is reasonable for me and my friends to get together. It's like the bully in the schoolyard who always steals everyone's lunch money - and then cries foul when the little kids get together, form a 'government', and make him give it all back.) While there are reasons for me not to try to enforce my judgment, what reason could I possibly have (other than being schizophrenic and insane) for deciding to accept the state's "determination" as more legitimate than my own? Because there are two choices:
How do you arrive at what you believe? Unless you believe whatever the average belief of the people is, then how would what you just say have any bearing on what YOU think is just? "The people" has no will, and is not sentient. And the fact that lots of people may agree on something does not make it true or righteous. Well we could debate the Gaia hypothesis, but that would be missing your point ;) What you are asking is, how do we constitute a rule of law. And of course there is no simple and straightforward answer to that, though a number of different attempts have been made, with more or less success. In the first instance, "the will of the people" is whatever all the people agree to. Of course, all the people never agree on anything; there is always a majority and a minority. In the second instance, therefore, "the will of the people" is whatever the majority agrees to. A "majority" is fifty percent plus one. In practise, however, we find that a majority of fifty percent plus one could never prevail against a determined minority of fifty percent minus one. Indeed, even minorities as small as ten percent can - if they are sufficiently agrieved - seriously disrupt a society. Therefore - and all constitutional nations have done this - the degree of the majority required to enact a particular measure varies, depending on the importance of that type of measure to the affected minority. Again - to return to the stop light analogy - if we simply accepted majority rule, then the stop lights on Main Street would always be green, while the stop lights on Side Street would always be red. So we give the minority on Side Street more weight than their numbers would otherwise merit, and allow the light to be red on Main Street from time to time. John Rawls ("A Theory of Justice") argues that the means by which this calculation could be enabled would be to determine what people would choose for, in the event that they did not know whether they would be in the majority or the minority. Such a "blind contract" is not possible, but we can approach something like it by imagining ourselves in the place of people who are in the minority. That sounds idealistic - and it is - and in practical terms what we have is a political climate in which the minority, if it feels it has been disadvantaged by the majority, causes (or threatans to cause) a disruption, and if that disruption is sufficient, the law is amended. In previous eras (in in some nations today) the minority's means of causing a disruption typically meant riots, terrorism, and otherwise violent acts. More stable democracies enable minorities to non-violently cause a disruption through actions such as demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, and civil disobedience. They do? I happen to think that democracy by itself bites, as do most conservatives, libertarians, and the founders of this country. I would be interested in survey results pointing to that conclusion. One wonders, for example, what they would prefer instead. Theocracy? Perpetual warfare? As for the "founders of this country" - and here I assume you mean the United States - let us not forget that they drafted the constitution, laws, and other frameworks for democratic governance. It is extremely unlikely that they would draft and implement a democratic form of government if they thought "it bites". There's an ingredient missing. Pressing buttons in booths is not the end of the socialist approach. The step the socialists don't mention very often is the INITATION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST THE NONVIOLENT in order to get the desired result. The opposite of free trade is not pressing buttons; it is INTERFERING by FORCE with free trade. The pressing buttons is only the ritual that supposedly legitimizes that force. It is ironic that the very person who does not want disputes solved through democratic means complains that the other side uses force. What else would he have people do? 'Free trade' is a pretty good example of this. Is it restricting 'free trade' if we prevent the highwayman from jumping out and saying 'Your money or your life!" Is it restricting 'free trade' is we prevent a person from using inaccurate weights and measures? Is it restricting 'free trade' if we prevent advertisers from making false claims about their products? The problem with the concept of 'free trade' is that (almost) everybody agrees that there ought to be some limits on economic transactions. Highway robbery, fraud and misrepresentation are usually disallowed, even under the most liberal economy. I feel pretty confident arguing that there ought to be some limits on economic transactions. Murder, extortion, torture - these are all to be outlawed. And - would the person who thinks murder is OK really have a legitimate complaint if I used force to prevent that from happening? The bugbear is in defining what economic practises should be allowed, and what economic practises should be disallowed. We would do well to begin by throwing such loaded terms as 'free trade' to one side and ask what we would or would not accept. Incidentally, you left out another ingredient: HONEST force. If someone tries to rob me, I can do something OTHER than vote or spend money: I can shoot them. And, unlike many statists I've met (socialist and otherwise), I don't have to euphamize the force I advocate, by calling it "taxation," "law enforcement," etc. Force is force. If I am starving and try to rob you, in my eyes, that's "honest force", even if in your eyes, your defense of your goods is "honest force". I have no qualms about calling it force. If you aren't willing to play by the rules - if you won't stop at red lights, pay your fair share for roads, and help preserve social stability by feeding the poor and respecting the rights of minorities, then yes I will use force. Specifically, I and several million of my friends will gang up on you and make you play nice. Because from our point of view, it is honest force. If you don't stop at red lights, some of us get killed, and so it is reasonable for us to use force to make you stop when you're supposed to. If you don't pay your fair share for the roads and other infrastructure, then our society as a whole is poorer and some of us starve, and so it is reasonable for us to use force to make you pay your share. If you don't help feed to poor, or if you don't respect the rights of minorities, then they will cause social disruption - the violent kind - causing some of us to get killed, so it's reasonable for us to use force to make you help keep society stable. I don't see the unreasonableness of this position. It amounts to a very simple proposition: You can't have it your own way all the time. Indeed, the onus is on you to show us why you're so special that your point of view, personal morality, or whatever, should always prevail. If you can't - then you should be prepared to compromise like the rest of us. If you and I were alone on an island, and I build a hut, does the presence of that hut ENTITLE you to the use of it? Does the mere EXISTENCE of stuff you want, in some way mean you have a RIGHT to it? Depends on the island, the hut, and me. If the island could support only one hut (perhaps its really small, or perhaps there's only enough material for one hut) and if a hut was necessary for survival, then if both of us can use the hut, then I am entitled to a share of the hut. If the island could support more than one hut, and if I was not prevented by force or accident from building one, then I could build one of my own and thus would have no claim on yours. If I didn't need a hut to survive, then I have no claim on yours. Even if I need the hut to survive, but the hut only supports one person, then I have no claim on yours (ie., you are not required to give up your life so that I may live). But remember - even saying 'I have a right to' or 'I am entitled to' use the hut presupposes a rule of law . If you don't agree to be constrained by rule of law - then I'll simply take the hut if I can, by rule of might. Or put another way: your security in ownership of the hut depends on your agreeing to principles of ownership generally. I'll leave your hut alone if you promise not to steal my food. If you aren't willing to make even such a basic promise as that - well, then, your hut is fair game. No. This is patently untrue. If that were the case, that everyone who VOTES for the state to rob me to pay for their bad ideas, would also feel personally JUSTIFIED in doing the same thing (though they may not want to for practical reasons). The word "rob" is like the word "theft" and is similarly misused in this context. There is no principle which states that everything a person does, or even what a person wants to do, is what a person feels justified in doing. Moreover, there is no principle which states that support for a government, is therefore support for every act of that government. I challenge you to find ANY Republican who thinks he has a personal right to force me to go kill someone for him (as opposed to believing in the federal "draft"), or any Democrat who thinks he has the personal right to take my money by force to pay for bad "art." But why would I suppose that the rights and responsibilities of individuals is the same as the rights and responsibilities of a government, even if the government is made up of individuals. I do not believe that the height and width of a brick is the same as the height and width of a brick wall, even though the wall is made entirely out of bricks. An entity which is a collective - any collective, be it a government, a society, a hockey team, a jury, or a mod - has rights and responsibilities - and a host of other properties - which are distinct from the individuals which comprise that collective. A person cannot lift ten tons; a hundred people pulling together can; it would be folly to say that, since a single person cannot lift ten tons, that a hundred people wought not be able to either. And so some collectives - such as nations - may require that some of its members sacrifice their lives or their property, even though individual in such a collective could do so. I am not obligated to make an agreement with you. If I propose the agreement "I will pay you $60 a day to mow lawns, under the condition that you not say anything political," then you have the option to ACCEPT or DECLINE. You do NOT have the right to accept, and then decide to change MY side of the agreement. If any employer tells an employee to do ANYTHING, and the employee refuses, the employer has the absolute right to fire him. Similarly (but less often considered), if the employee makes a demand of the employer, and the employer refuses, the employee has the absolute right to QUIT. If the only way for me to survive is though entering into employment agreements, then quitting is not a viable option. If quitting is not a viable option, then employment conditions which require that I sacrifice some of my freedoms as a condition of employment are in fact requirements that I sacrifice some of my freedoms in order to survive, in which case they are not freedoms at all. Because in a modern industrial society it is not possible to make a living for ypourself off the land (all the land is owned by someone else) it is always necessary to enter into employment agreements in order to survive, either as an employee, contract hire, or fee-for-service arrangement. A society in which you say to people, essentially, "You may live, if you don't say anything political" is one where freedom of speech does not exist. Freedom of speech is one of those rights for which a determined minority is likely to agitate very strenuously, and in support of which they will cause considerable disruption to a society. For that reason, because jobs are essential to survival, governments limit the ability of employers to curtail freedoms such as freedon of speech. Good example of the euphamism referred to above. "Be provided"? By what? By other people having their labor or fruits of their labor taken from them BY FORCE, without their permission. If you want to put it that way - sure. I and my friends are a lot safer in societies where most people have an education. My use of force to protect me from the violence of uneducated thugs is honest force, as you would put it. No. The truth does not change, and the opinions of people do not alter it. When most people support evil (as they do now under the guise of "law"), most people are WRONG. The true may be immutable and still lie in the middle >From where? The magic Capital-Tree? Or are you advocating that people's property BE TAKEN FROM THEM BY BRUTE FORCE? That ought to be enough to get things started. :) Again - if you are going to drive like a maniac, disregarding red lights, I will stop you by force. If you refuse to participate in the necessary social and economic infrastructure needed for a stable (and safe) society, then I will use force again here too. I have no qualms about that. My rights and freedoms are just as important as yours. I am equally in my right to defend them. If in the defense of these rights and freedoms join with other people and you don't - that just makes me smarter (and more powerful) than you. So the choice is yours: are you willing to sit down and negotiate a reasonable abridgement of all of our rights so we can live in peace? Or do you prefer to let the rule of the jungle prevail? Hm?
|
The Cyberspace Charter of Rights | |
| Before people will invest their time, energy and resources in Cyberspace, law must extend into Cyberspace. People must be secure in the knowledge that their rights and freedoms will be respected, that their personal liberties will not of a sudden be infringed, that their personal and private information shall not be compromised. | |
| Posted on NewsTrolls 22 July 1999 It is easy and even fun to sit back and carp about Ziff-Davis's new standard for internet commerce, or about Third Voice's data collection efforts. Moreover, it is, it seems, an endless task as new initiatives, products and services populate the world wide web. The last twelve months have been turbulent, not so much because of efforts to censor the web or violate personal property (though these continue, as we see with the proposed internet blockade of Serbia, or the new regulations governing content in Australia), but because of the commercialization of the internet and the commodification of information. Now don't get me wrong: it is reasonable and natural that business and commerce will be conducted on the internet, just as in the case of any meeting place or commons, and their interest and endeavours are welcomed with open arms. Much that is good about the internet has also been commercial: the Yahoo indices and chat rooms, Geocities home pages, ICQ, and even the Microsoft Gaming Center. But increased population, trade and commerce have made the internet a more complex place to govern. And make no mistake about it, the internet is being governed, though that said, this government is constituted of an anarchy of national governments, international organizations, standards bodies, corporate policies and procedures, and terms of service regulations. Such anarchy has spread uncertainty. The citizens of the WELL or homesteaders of Geocities know what I mean, as their rights and freedoms shift and stutter through corporate takeovers and new terms of service. What was once theirs, Geocities homesteaders are told, now belongs to Yahoo. And though that corporate entity recanted, there seems no natural limit on the ebb and flow of internet policies and politics. A free and democratic society is preferred because it is stable. Our democratic rights and personal freedoms were created in the first instance to protect citizens from the whims of policy The maintenance of a free and democratic society is the first duty and responsibility of its citizens. Or in the words of Junius, "The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures." Before people will invest their time, energy and resources in Cyberspace, law must extend into Cyberspace. People must be secure in the knowledge that their rights and freedoms will be respected, that their personal liberties will not of a sudden be infringed, that their personal and private information shall not be compromised. No mass movement of people, money or enterprise will flow into this new territory without such security, and if Cyberspace has been populated by those who may make their own laws, so much the good for them, but now the time has come for laws which apply to all, equally, without prejudice. Hence, below, I have drafted a document titled The Cyberspace Charter of Rights (the link will take you to an uncommented version):
Having set out the document, let me take some time to discuss and elaborate upon some of the stipulations:
Access has to be the first and primary right of CyberCitizens. I have tried to define this generally, as the nature and shape of online communications is likely to change in the future. Thus access refers to the electronic sphere generally, and is not restricted to an existing entity such as the internet. I have also defined access as a right of citizens, with two thoughts in mind. First, I wanted to convey the idea that the rights and liberties which should be defined in Cyberspace are an extension of those which exist for the citizens of democratic nations; just as a person should have freedom of speech or freedom of the press in a democratic society, so also should those freedoms extend to Cyberspace. Second, I wanted to convey the idea that these rights and freedoms are not universal. We do not convey them to dogs or other animals, we do not convey them (automatically) to children, and that there are cases where citizenship, or at least the rights of citizenship, may be legitimately revoked, just as we would revoke the freedoms of persons convicted under the Criminal Code. The principle which stipulates that all citizens shall have the right to access is the first and most fundamental freedom of Cyberspace; it defines Cyberspace as an open society. There are no immigration restrictions or quotas, nor are there any barriers to membership on the basis of race, nationality, gender, or any other personal characteristic. The right to access may be construed - and is even to this day construed in some territories - as a positive right, that is, as right to have a certain service provided. Nations like Canada have stated and begun to implement as a national policy the idea that all citizens, regardless of means or income, shall have the capacity to access the internet; this policy is being implemented through such programs as the Community Access Project (CAP), Canada's Schoolnet, and so on. I applaud and support such projects, but not all nations would interpret this provision as a positive right - in the United States, for example, access to the internet is likely to depend on financial means. In environments such as this, the right to access becomes somewhat equivalent to the right to ride the bus, or the right to buy a home - those who have the means may do so, and provided they have the means, no restriction shall be placed on their doing so. Either policy is consistent with the Charter of Internet Rights; what is essential, is that the means of access, are open equally to everyone. The second provision of the access clause is the online equivalent to freedom of mobility. Once a person has access the internet, then no policy should prohibit that person from accessing any point on the internet. Thus a person from the United States could access a Cuban website, or a person from China could access a Taiwanese website. This provision is intended to address both political measures and technological measures. Politically, it amounts to the urging that no law out to hinder access. Technologically, it amounts to the urging that no barriers be placed in the way of access. The shut-down of internet to Serbia by shutting down satellite services, for example, would violate the latter provision.
Freedom of speech has been a much-discussed issue on the internet. CyberCitizens first rose to the defense of this freedom in the 1996 web black-out: the background colour of a significant number of web pages (my own included) was changed to the colour black on February 8 of that year. The protests continued with the 24 Hours of Freedom Web Ring and the Blue Ribbon campaign. The primary object of these protests - the Communications Decency Act - was defeated, but the move to restrict freedom of speech did not abate with that setback. But freedom of speech has been recognized for centuries as a fundamental principle of a free and democratic society; indeed, it is arguable that without freedom of speech, a society is essentially undemocratic, no matter how many other freedoms are granted. In a similar fashion, were the content of online communications subject to censure and prohibition, the online environment would cease to be a free society. Freedom of speech is even more important in a global environment because there are no international standards or agreement governing what constitutes acceptable speech. As I said in my 24 Hours of Democracy essay, some people (such as myself) would want to ban subversive advertising and programming, as offered by (say) Walt Disney or McDonalds, while others would choose to ban violent imagery, while others would ban sex (or even discussions of safe sex), while others would want to see the Pork Marketing Council website shut down. The essence of censorship is that it is one person telling another person what he or she may read or write; and in all cases of censorship it is the values of the first person - however reasonable or rational they may seem - which prevail. The censor, therefore, becomes the arbiter of values. But in a global society, there can be no arbiter of values, because there is no common value system, and hence, any arbitration of values becomes an instrument of repression. This means we all must live with the existence of content which is objectionable, for it is the only way in which we all may be equal members of the online society. The right to express these ideas extends to the right to transmit them; this is why there is a second provision under 'Freedom of Expression'. The second provision is the online equivalent of freedom of the press; it allows for ideas to be communicated to a mass audience. The stipulation here is that members of that mass audience must want to hear the message being transmitted; freedom of expression is not a right which allows a person to force his or her views on an unwilling audience, or to drown out with static or noise the attempts of other people to communicate with each other. In the end, these two provisions boil down to the assertion that no third person shall abridge the communications of two people, where those two people have freely entered into this exchange.
In the pre-electronic age, personal privacy meant being able to keep your personal proclivities in the closet, and being sure that nobody was peering through your bedroom drapes. It did not necessarily protect the gathering and use of people's names, addresses, phone numbers, or other personal data, mainly because not much could be done with such collections of information. In the electronic age, however, the potential for the misuse of personal information is large, from the theft of credit card data, to the malicious assumption of anothers' identity. Additionally, because personal information may be amassed in databases, it has become a commodity, an item of value, for which individuals and corporations are willing to pay considerable sums of money. The production and origin of personal information in every case lies with the person themselves. A person does not assume an address unless he moves there, does not have a name unless she consents to be recognized by it, does not have a shoe size unless he has feet. Without the person, there is no personal information; therefore, the ownership of personal information must lie in the domain of the person who created it. Where the ownership of one's personal information impacts on the practises of Cyberspace is, first, in the collection of personal information, and second, in the use of personal information. The principles in the Cyberspace Charter of Rights stipulate that one cannot, first, collect personal information without that person's consent, and second, use personal information without that person's consent.
Security of communication is the flip side of freedom of speech. While the latter the the right of a person to be heard by all he or she want to hear, the former is the right of a person to be hear by only those he or she wants to hear. Security of communication is the online equivalent to freedom of assembly. It is the right of a person to meet in public or private with other persons, without hinderance or disturbance. In pre-electronic times, the right to assembly ensured privacy, because one could meet in a back room; online, however, there is no such thing as a back room, and to a certain degree, all communications pass through the public sphere. Thus there needs to be in an online environment a particular set of protections securing a person's right to assemble with a particular set of others. These provisions break down into three major categories: First, the right to secure communication, that is, communication which will not be intercepted, redirected, or otherwise diverted or duplicated. This is the embodiment of the idea that private conversations should remain private; it is the online equivalent of an anti-bugging or anti-eavesdropping provision. The second point - communicating in a language of one's choice - is intended to adress the issue of cryptography. It is essentially an assertion fo the right of a person to use whatever encryption technology he or she deems necessary. I have couched it in terms of language, first, because encryptions are variant languages, and second, to convey the idea that a person has a right to determine the style, as well as the content, of their speech. But this second point also addresses a wider set of rights: the right to the use of one's national tongue, for example, or the right to define alternative communications protocols. It embodies the essence of communication as a freely chosen set of protocols between sender and receiver; it enshrines the idea that there shall be no determination of how communications are condcted over the internet except by the free agreement of those people doing the communicating, and therefore ensures that there are no barriers, by language or technology, between those people. The third right guarantees a person the right to choose his or her identity, and indeed, whether to have an identity at all. This is a new right; in the physical world it is not possible to abandon one's body, and therefore, one's physical identity, but in cyberspace, identities may be worn as easily as a new suit or a pair of shoes. This right follows naturally from the right to freedom of speech, and also, from the idea that one owns ones personal information. It is tantemount to the freedom to create one's personal information, to the idea that you - and nobody else - has the right to determine who you are. The right to anonymous communication is roughly equivently to the right to freedom of the press: it is the right that protects the posterer or pamphleteer.
The protections for intellectual property have a two-fold purpose: first, it ensures that something created by a person is owned by a person, and therefore, cannot be appropriated by some third party. This protects the people who send email messages, post to discussion boards, or publish web pages: they have the assurance that what they create, remains their own. This does not mean that these rights cannot be transferred; when Jon Katz writes a column for SlashDot, he may freely assign all copyright to that company. But what it does mean is that SlashDot cannot, without prior notice, assume sole ownership or copyright of messages posted to their online discussion boards; or that if a new idea or concept is presented in such a public forum, that a third person cannot run to the trademark office and relieve the author of ownership over that idea. Placing the ownership of ideas and beliefs in the hands of their creator also serves to protect the freedom of cyberspace by removing from service providers responsibility over that content. Just as the city that builds a road is not responsible for what drivers do on that road, and just as the telephone company is not responsible for the conversations people have, so also a service provider is not responsible for the content of a user's email or web site. Keeping ownership and responsibility in the hands of the crator is essential to the maintenance of a free Cyberspace. If a third party becomes accountable for the ideas and opinions of a first party, that that third party is obligated to violate the first person's privacy, to monitor his email communications and web sites, and sometimes, to act as censor over the contents of those communications.
Inherent in the idea of the freedom of speech is the idea of fair comment or criticism of another person's ideas. This right manifests itself differently in Cyberspace because pointing works differently in an online environment and is therefore not covered explicitly under freedom of speech. The first and essential principle of reference is the right to refer. By the creation of a piece of intellectual property, one does not acquire the right to govern all discussion about that property. Thus people may send emails or establish websites about Star Trek, or they may express opinions for or against a politician's platform, and indeed, may parody or satire another work. The restriction on this right is that imposed by the intellectual property provision: a person may not take another person's intellictual property and use it without permission. Thus, a web site may talk about Star Trek, but it cannot purport to be Star Trek; a web site may criticize Coca Cola, but it cannot use images or artwork produced by Coca Cola. There is to be sure a fuzzy line here: Coca Cola may own its own logo, but the use of the logo could in some cases be a refernce to that company, and not a use of their ideas. Moreover, it is not clear to what degree a company may control variants on their words or artwork; and in some cases a corporation may use some word or artwork over which it should claim no ownership at all (as for example when Bell Canada tried to trademark the term, "The Net"). But in practise the line is relatively clear: it is crossed when a reasonable person might come to believe that the work in question is the work of the person or company to which it refers - thus G.W. Bush has a legitimate complaint if readers of www.gwbush.com would believe that this parody site was Bush's real home page. Another aspect of reference falls under the area of linking - companies and individuals have from time to time attempted to prevent persons from creatiung links to their sites. But a link is nothing more than a way of pointing: and just as my pointing at Bill Clinton in no way implies that I endorse him (or that he endorses me), so also the posting of a link carries no such connotations.
The final provision, that of quiet enjoyment, points to a person's right to use the internet without interference from others. The first and most obvious target of the quiet enjoyment provision is unwanted email (or 'spam'). This provision stipulates essentially that users of the internet have the right to be spam-free. The offline equivalent of the anti-spam provision is the security of one's property: just as no person has the right to make harassing phone calls, enter one's place of residence, or incur unauthorized expenses, so also senders of email cannot target unwilling recipients, place unwanted data into their computers, nor make them pay for the download. The 'quiet enjoyment' provision expresses the sanctity of one's computer; this is seen by the second provision, which prohibits arbitrary search and seizure. On the internet, a person's computer is his or her home; there should be a reaosnable expectation of security and privacy. This provision is intended to conver both physical search and seizure, as when the Feds come to your door and demand that you dump your hard drive, and also 'soft' search and seizure, as would be performed by software agents, viruses, or other online intrusions. References and Resources American Civil Liberties Union Americans for Computer Privacy Center for Democracy and Technology CDT's Communications Decency Act Issues Page Citizens' Internet Empowerment Coalition Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Cybotage (In German) EFF 'Know Your CyberRights' Sweepstakes Encryption Policy Resource Page Families Against Internet Censorship Global Internet Liberty Campaign Internet Advertising/Marketing Law Report Internet Declaration of Independence Internet Free Expression Alliance MCS-Special-Support Human Rights PeaceFire, Youth Alliance Against Internet Censorship Promote Responsible New Commerce: Fight Spam Regulatory and Legal Resources on the Internet Voters' Telecommunications Watch VTW Centre for Internet Education VTW Issues Page Web Blackout Commemorative
|
Copyright and Syndication |
| Content syndicator Moreover.com is requiring that users sign an agreement granting Moreover sweeping rights... too many rights |
| August 9, 2000 A few months back I signed up for a Javascript newsfeed from Moreover. The idea was to replace my existing newsfeed from iSyndicate. This would save me the trouble of messing around with frames; iSyndicate's HTML page allows minimal customization, but Moreover's Javascript newsfeed could be inserted neatly into a template page. Newsfeeds aren't hard to produce. Basically, for a newsfeed provider, it's a three-step process:
The first of these search engines have been doing for years. It is not hard to write software that scans a site and retrieves the URLs. The second is a bit harder because categorization can be hard. This is why most syndication companies provide only a small list of categories - "Tech news," for example, or "China." But with more and more news agencies producing content in RSS format, it is getting easier for syndicators to assign items to the correct category. The third area is where the changes are taking place. Once restricted to producing output on HTML pages, syndication companies are now placing their output into specialized files. The idea here is to allow web site owners to embed syndicated content into their own sites. That's what Moreover does with its Javascript feeds. It collects headlines and then saves them to a specially designed Javascript file. This file is updated every day. Webmasters who want to include their newsfeeds need only include the Javascript file - a simple one-line command - into their web page. Which brings me to the topic of this article. As I mentioned, I signed up for the Moreover newsfeed and tested it on my website for a while. This past Tuesday I received a nice letter from Moreover's account executive:
All, I won't reprint the attached contract, but it is available - in MS Word format - here. The document itself is a mess - full of corrections and type-overs. And signing the document implies agreement that Moreover has exclusive rights to - well - everything. From the contract:
3.1.1 |
Copyright Tips for Online Educators |
| University professors should hesitate before they insist on stringent enforcement of copyrights... experience from other fields shows that the artists often end up holding the short end of the stick |
| "L. Heidi Primo" wrote: Aloha from the Big Island of Hawaii: I am another one who has been lurking on the edges of this list silently for months. I am jumping in here to respond to Stephen Downes' interpretation of copyright law. I have done extensive research on this topic "Survey of Intellectual Property Issues for Distance Eucatiors and Online Teachers" and wanted to provide a link to a fairly thorough explanation of the related copyright issues written cooperatively by myself and a colleage in Alaska. It can be viewed at: http://homepages.go.com/~hiprimo/primoles.htm If anyone is interested, it also has a hot-linked bibliography/ webography, which points to law schools and organizations which are dealing with some of these controversies. Heidi Primo and Teresa Lesage's article, cited above, is a good overview of copyright as it relates to distance learning and is supported with an excellent list of references. It provides a clear, concise statement of one side of the issue. I would like to offer an account of the other side; Primo and Lesage offer a useful platform. They write, Intellectual Property is the original product of our own experiences and thoughts. How can we put a price-tag on it? How can we market it, license it, box it and put it on a shelf? One of my major criticisms of the pro-copyright lobby is that nobody questions this assumption. Indeed, Primo and Lesage offer this as the starting point for their essay. But they do not consider whether it is appropriate to box knowledge and put it on the shelf. Consider, for example, the argument that university professors are, for the most part, already paid to produce intellectual value for society. What reason is there, therefore, to charge society again for the use of learning they have already paid for? Indeed, the entire question of whether knowledge and information ought to be a commodity ought to be challenged. One could certainly advance the argument that much knowledge - basic mathematics, for example, the priniples of reasoning, government and legal information, and more, ought to be in the public domain, and ought not, therefore, be boxed and shelved. Primo and Lesage continue, One of the rationales for the existence of copyright law is to encourage and promote creativity, which ultimately can only benefit society. The protection of the law acts an incentive to artists and publishers to invest time and money in artistic enterprises. There is no doubt that this is one of the major arguments advanced in favour of strong copyright protection. Scott Adams has made this point in a number of recent Dilbert cartoons, and SF writer Spider Robinson made the same argument in a recent issue of Canada's National Post newspaper. They are only the latest of dozens. It is, however, an argument which withstands not even the slightest scrutiny. The idea, of course, is that people will not create great works unless they are paid to do so. But that begs several questions: First, is this this even true? Many of the great works of recent years were produced with no regard to financial award: the Linux operating system, the Apache Web Server, the World Wide Web. Thousands and thousands of articles appear daily whereby the writer received not one cent. Even academic authors, who write important papers for respected journals, are not paid money for these efforts. No, the creative process will continue, and even great works will continue to be produced, even is the creators are not paid directly for this work. Second, it begs the question of whether copyright is the only means through which authors may be compensated for creating original work. The concept of royalties is recent; academics and artists historically worked under the patronage of nobles and kings. Nothing prevents academics and artists from being paid on this model, and indeed, it was this model which spawned the development of publicly funded universities in the first place. Third, it is not clear that copyright law even works as intended. As Courtney Love made scathingly clear in her recent defense of Napster, artists are not the primary recipient of the benefits of copyright law at all; indeed, she describes the very real scenario in which a band can sell a million records and lose money in the deal. It is arguable that the lion's share of the profits from copyright legislation benefit the copyright owner, who is very frequently not the producer of the original work. The distance learning community especially should be wary of recent initiatives on the part of the American government to extend the provisions of WIPO to include a "presumption" that work perfomed by contract is "work for hire," that is, that unless the contract states explicitly otherwise, the work is considered to be owned for the company which paid for the work rather than the person who perfomed it. Academics should also be concerned about efforts to abrogate "moral rights" (the right to preserve the integrity of a work). Primo and Lesage comment, According to this definition, then, every part of an American Distance Learning application would be logically protected under U.S. law. So then, would the resources, documents, readings and contributions, which make up the classes. Academics ought to consider this very carefully. If indeed the presumption is that teaching a class is work for hire, and if indeed the presumption is that the company which pays for the work owns the rights, then under existing and proposed legislation, the employer (i.e., the university) owns the "contents" of a class, online or not, and not the professor. In a more competitive academic environment, one could easily imagine a professor being prohibited from giving "performances" of a class at one university the contents of which were in large part developed while working at another university. One could also imagine - and it is already happening with companies like UNext and Hungry Minds - a university selling the sole and exclusive right to certain "performances" to a private provider, this forcing the professor into an exclusive (and one sided) arrangement with a corporate entity. Copyright protection - as authors and musicians have already discovered - is very much a two edged sword, one edge of which appears considerably sharper than the other. I won't analyse every statement in the essay, but you can see where the general tenor of my remarks is heading. Primo and Lesage wrap up their argument with the following observation:
Without the support and confidence of distance educators in their ability to protect their rights after publishing on the Internet, asynchronous learning and web-based classes will not flourish. Where is the evidence for this? The evidence seems, indeed, to be contrary: that learning on the internet has flourished just because of the absence of rights restrictions. Where before the internet came on to the scene, the domain of knowledge was reserved for a privileged few, but today it is accessible to the masses. No wonder the monopolists are threatened. I think that academics should think very carefully the implications of a transforming of what they do from a *service* to a *product*. They should ponder the implications of what happens what what they do in their day to day lives can be packaged and sold. They should be wary about what will happen should they ever lose the right to perform this service without the permission of various copyright holders. Academics should be aware: the vast majority of writers and musicians is dirt poor, while the vast majority of university professors is relatively well off. And they should not be so eager to join the ranks of the creatively underpaid. |
Resources and References
| E-books and Their Future in Academic Libraries Good analysis by the University of California's Ebook Task Force. Raises some technological issues but focuses on rights management, quoting one respondent who said, "Print has many rights and powers that e-books don't. We like e-books but we must not allow ourselves to be locked into technology or legal/social paradigms that impair our ability to support open research, teaching, and public discourse of our community. We will favor vendors who support open process of scholarship and long-term preservation so we will not rush into e-books." Vy Lucia Snowhill, D-Lib Magazine, July/August, 2001. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july01/snowhill/07snowhill.html |
| Kent: The Genome Superman Profile of James Kent, who recently published the human genome sequencing algorithm for all to see. And who has some very responsible views on patents and copyrights: "...all of the attention showered on Kent has also led to an avalanche of job offers, but Kent is not tempted in the least to make a foray into industry. 'At least not until the U.S. patent system changes a little bit,' he said. Almost all genomics companies hold patents on genes, which Kent is patently against. 'The human genome is a lot of work to sequence and put together, but it's not a human invention, and not something that we scientists have added so much value to,' he said." By Kristen Philipkoski, Wired News, August 22, 2001. http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,46154,00.html?tw=wn20010822 |
| IP @ The National Academies Just launched, a very important site on intellectual property, copyrights and patents. As they say, "From Internet content protection to human gene patenting, IP rights in many forms have emerged from legal obscurity to public debate. This website serves as a guide to the Academies' extensive work on Intellectual Property and a forum to discuss ongoing work." http://ip.nationalacademies.org/ |
| Digital Copyrights and Wrongs A sycophantic look at copyright and online learning with a few links to information on copyright and fair use. There's nothing new here and a lot that is just wrong. For example, Tip 1, "Remember, new tools, same rules," is false. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) changes the rules substantially. And ignore the recommendations in Tip 4 - encryption and watermarking are currently no defense against copying and therefore a waste of time. So why this link? The article is from Learning Circuits, which means it will get wide circulation (it's already covered, uncritically, in elearningpost). ASTD could do so much better, and so can you. By Donna J. Abernathy, Learning Circuits, August, 2001. http://www.learningcircuits.com/2001/aug2001/@work.html |
| The End of Innovation? OpenP2P.com editor Richard Koman with Internet law and policy expert Lawrence Lessig. This article reinforces a point I made in a recent paper: that recent increases in copyright and patent protection are concentrating the control of information in corporate hands: "The power to develop technologies that enable the distribution and research into the technologies for encryption is essentially centralized into the hands of those digital rights management companies that are supporting mainly traditional Hollywood or media interests." August 7, 2001 http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2001/08/07/lessig.html |
| 2 Scholars Face Off in Copyright Clash In a Chronicle article unsure of which way it wants to fall in the debate, two professors express their views on copyright and the recent enforcements of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the United States. Trotter Hardy says it nicely, "Academics make a living from free speech. They don't make a living from copyrights, and they don't sell copyrighted works. They use them, quote them, pass them around, and use them in publishing their research." By Andrea L. Foster, the Chronicle of Higher Education, August 10, 2001. http://www.chronicle.com/free/v47/i48/48a04501.htm |
| Your rights: PC lemon laws PCWorld.comIn PC World's January Reliability and Service survey, nearly 1 out of 11 respondents said their new PC didn't work when they first turned it on. http://www.idg.net/ic_662517_1794_9-10000.html |
| WRITING THE LONG HISTORY OF CIVIL RIGHTS Several recent books counter a simplistic, popular view of the movement as a tidy and long-finished battle, writes Jacquelyn Dowd Hall, a history professor and director of the Southern Oral History Program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. http://www.chronicle.com/weekly/v47/i46/46b00701.htm |
| Copyrights: For Russia no Love http://www.idg.net/ic_655747_1773_1-3921.htmlTITLE=TheIndustryStandard--OnlineactivistsarecomingtothedefenseofDmitrySklyarov,whoisthefirstpersontofacecriminalchargesrelatedtotheDigitalMillenniumCopyrightAct. |
| Merriam-Webster announced a deal today with Delmar, a division of Thomson Learning and provider of learning products and services. The agreement gives Delmar the exclusive rights to sell and distribute three of Merriam-Webster's medical reference titles, including its "Medical Desk Dictionary." The dictionary -- which includes more than 57,000 health-care terms, abbreviations, and names -- is being marketed for both professional and home use. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010719/neth026.html |
| violence against students atEthiopia's Addis Ababa University , UNESCO has launched a"worldwide alert network" for human rights violations againststudents and faculty at higher ed institutions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_1273000/1273793.stm |
| UNESCO's Networkfor Education and Academic Rights will notify humanrights organizations, journalists, governmental officials, andothers able to take action against such violations . In thebroader scheme of things, the organization hopes that its mereexistence will intimidate leaders of countries known forinfringing on the rights of students and faculty -- and perhapslead them to think twice before sanctioning police brutality. http://www.unescosources.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/300 |
| Why Can't Johnny Respect Copyrights? Teaching respect for copyright and intellectual property os part of a proposed manditory curriculum in the U.K. But this particular bit of a child's moral education sidesteps the fact that the morality of current intellectual property legislation is highly contested. "Young people, and other people, believe in a version of the copyright law that is different from the one now on the books. Many of them believe, for example, that if you buy a CD, you buy the right to share it." By Alan Docherty, Salon, July 16, 2001. http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/07/16/abc_ip/index.html |
| MIGHT MAKES RIGHTS Which human rights are universal? That depends on which humans you ask, writes Carlin Romano, critic at large for The Chronicle. http://www.chronicle.com/weekly/v47/i44/44b01201.htm |
| Bush Announces KeyEd. Dept. Nominees President Bush has announced his selections to head the offices for civil rights and special education, two of the most watched positions in the Department of Education. http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=42web_appoint.h20 |
| Supreme Court: Database archiving violated copyrights http://www.idg.net/ic_635543_1773_1-3921.htmlTITLE=IDG.net--Severalpublishersviolatedthecopyrights'oftheirfreelancewritersbyplacingtheirarticlesincertainelectronicdatabases,theU.S.SupremeCourtruledMonday. |
| Bush picks foe of affirmative action for top education civil-rights post http://www.chronicle.com/daily/2001/06/2001062601n.htm |
| Copyright - Wrong! The doctrine of fair use is under attack through new legislation and lawsuits. The author argues that this could undermine teaching and learning. Imagine this: Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters told American Libraries that "pay-per-view is not bad. It may be a better policy for libraries that don't have many researchers using their resources. Subscriptions can be real costly, but pay-per-view can make them affordable." By John Palatella, University Business, June, 2001. http://www.universitybusiness.com/0106/feature.html |
| Education as Commodity Good overview, with good links, of the issues that arise when ecucation becomes a commodity. Looks at copyright issues, faculty or author compensation, and rights management. By Mary Axelson, ElectronicSchool.Com http://www.electronic-school.com/2001/06/0601ip.html |
| Proposed Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Known less formally as the Hague Convention, this agreement would govern the enforcement of copyrights and patents world wide. A lot of the coverage coming from the United States has been like this article in Wired. As the CTP document states, "Keep in mind that this treaty will apply to nearly all private litigation, including litigation over libel, slander, fraud, violations of intellectual property rights, unfair commercial practices and a zillion other things. In these areas you can be sued in foreign countries, and the judgments will be collected in the country where you reside or have assets." But the issues are deeper than that, and the question really is: how can the Americans continue to enforce their very wide and generous copyright protections worldwide without at the same time allowing other countries to enforce other protections, such as moral rights? This CTP page is an excellent resource on the Hague Convention, contiunually updated and comprehensive with links to reams of background documents. http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/hague.html |
| Schools Are Joining the Digital Copyright Battle Online educators want the same rights to use book excerpts, music, and movie clips as classroom teachers have. By Nicole St. Pierre, Business week Online, April 11, 2001. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr2001/nf20010411_126.htm |
| Copyright and Online Learning Issues and Solutions As teachers and their students continue to depend upon published content, sometimes the best way to access that content is to copy it. But, by law, most copying requires permission. In this slide show, a CANCOPY representative explores the copyright implications of electronic access in the online environment and suggest ways to keep that access legal. CANCOPY has administered the copying rights of creators and publishers in Canada since 1988. By Laura Davison, December 13, 2000 (Virtual School Symposium) http://www.albertaonline.ab.ca./symposium2k/ppts/A3/index.htm |
| How Patent Attorneys are Stealing Our Future Jesse Berst gets this one right - patents and copyrights on internet technology are out of control. Anchordesk, ZDNet, January 18, 2000. http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/story/story_4364.html |
| Marketplace of Ideas: Selling Patents Online Here's an item which could have implications sooner rather than later. A growing number of start-ups are creating Web sites for the sale of intellectual property rights. By Paul Jacobs, L.A. Times, October 25, 1999. http://www.latimes.com/business/cutting/19991025/t000096587.html |
| A Tale of Two Patent Strategies Why build anything when you don't have to? Companies are beginning to focus on registering patents and copyrights and waiting for the royalties to roll in. By Bill Roberts, Electronic Business, October 1999. http://www.eb-mag.com/registrd/issues/9910/1099ip.htm |
| Court limit publishers' rights to free-lancers' work Hey, here's a copyright case where the writers win! Publishers can't include work by free-lance writers in their electronic databases without the writers' permission, an appeals court ruled. San Jose mercury News (AP), September 28, 1999. http://www.sjmercury.com/breaking/docs/022316.htm |
| New e-book standard launched Using a combination of HTML and XML, the standard includes provisions that define a file format, a transmission format, markup format for formatting and a rights certificate, which shows ownership of the e-book. By John D Spooner, ZD News net, September 1, 1999 http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2338466,00.html |
| NetAid Beginning with a concert, NetAid "is a long-term effort to build a community of conscience dedicated to providing basic needs: food, shelter, legal protection, human rights and health care. NetAid artists and sponsors will work to build this new community - long after today's concerts are over." http://www.netaid.org/ |
| DisInformation Jammer site, good critiques, focuses variously on cyberia, native rights, environment, and various other disinformation issues. http://www.disinfo.com |
| Policy and Participation on the Canadian Information Highway This paper proposes that the issue of universal access be addressed in the broader conceptual framework of the right to communicate. As well, the policy debate should be moved to the political arena through an initiative to incorporate the right to communicate in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By Willian F. Birdsall, in First Monday, Issue 4.3, 1999 http://131.193.153.231/issues/issue4_3/birdsall/index.html |
| Are You a Copyright Criminal? Writers, designers, artists and copyright owners are becoming more aggressive, using new tactics and technologies to enforce their rights. By Dave Zielinski for presentations.com http://www.presentations.com/create/organiz/1999/06/31_f1_cop_01.html |