Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcvax!unido!tub!hex
From: hex@tub.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: USENET anarchy ! - (nf)
Message-ID: <53200001@tub.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Jul-87 12:55:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: tub.53200001
Posted: Mon Jul 13 12:55:00 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Jul-87 04:15:24 EDT
Lines: 103
Nf-ID: #N:tub:53200001:000:4746
Nf-From: tub!hex    Jul 13 17:55:00 1987


 In a discussion about the future of the net, killer!elg writes:
 
> [...], the problem of a
> vocal minority making it appear that an action is unpopular when it really
> isn't,[...].
> 
> I think it's time for the Net to graduate from being an anarchy, to being a
> democracy.
> 
> [...] The individual reader should lobby his system administrator, who
> is paying the bills, rather than mailing "votes" as it is done currently.
> [...]
> Of course, that also brings
> up another problem:  enforcement of edicts. 
> [...]
> The only
> thing I can think of would be some sort of automated mechanism to
> automatically do it for the system administrators... bringing up the
> possibility of a net.fascist figuring it out and doing it himself... hmmmm...
> it looks like there's no easy solution, after all!
> [...]

Bad, bad feelings with that.

I consider computer networks like the USENET as a big, big chance for a major 
change in the organisation of society. Society is already changing,
driven by technology (this is true even for 3rd world) and by mechanisms 
of the local and global economics (for example the inherent cycles in 
capitalistic economy). 

Unrecognized by many progressive people, technology (especially information 
technology) is removing some constraints 
on the movement towards a *free society*, as a collection of open-minded and 
responsible individuals, as a community  where *every* human being can find 
a place to live and grow ;
a society without the need of big, static, often inadequate and highly 
volatile systems like nuclear attack/defense systems, central energy supplement.
Also a society, which isn't so centralized, that it could be taken over
by the next Hitler in the right moment.

Of course, it could also lead to the opposite (remember 1984 !).

One of these constraints is the dominant system of one-to-many communication, 
which is enforced by factors like high cost of publication, large communication 
overhead (public media) or limited distribution, slow speed of transmission 
(conventional mail) which means lack of appropriate media.

The media is here !
We use it daily, almost successfull.
But we are almost blind for the impacts.

The idea of a dynamical evolving, self-ordering system not defined by static 
laws which are protected by threat of violence is what I consider the theoretic
base of *anarchy*. 

You will say: "But there's nothing protecting the system of pevertion and misuse
by ill-minded individuals !"

As history shows, this is equally true with rule-based systems, which are 
"protected" by power forces. They seem to be more stable, there is less
*obvious* misuse. But they may be much less usefull than possible too, because
of unsatisfied demands raised up by new conditions or not foreseen in the 
original design. 
In this case, where change would be appropriate, the powers and forces 
are blindly defending the old system because it has ruled their minds, too.
(It will also be in their interest to keep the status quo.)
Their interest is (or will become under corruption of power) in keeping the 
people dependant, dumb, and manipulatible instead of helping them to become 
free and responsible individuals.

No rule should be made for eternity. If it's protected by powers which can use
violence (USENET: excluding someone permanently from the net) instead by 
a collection of individual decisions (USENET: "flame" or author filters, 
skipping notes, unsuscribing groups) it will be much longer in effect than 
adequate.
In declaring some disturbing behaviour "bad" and forcing someone out of the 
system, (in jail or out of the net) all his possible powers for recognizing the 
flaws of the old rules and developing the new ones is permanently lost !

I mean:
WHAT'S WRONG TODAY, CAN BE RIGHT TOMMORROW. LET'S KEEP THAT POSSIBILITY !

So please, please, please don't give away this chance by "upgrading to 
democracy" ! May be, we need different tools or rules, but let's 
think, think, think first before we introduce representive or even
direct democracy with a net.administration and a net.law protected by a 
net.police killing people of the net or excluding them from every group 
except net.prison.

DON'T GO THE WAY OF LAW AND ORDER.
DON'T GO THE WAY OF CENTRALISED POWER.

GO THE WAY OF FREEDOM AND RESPONSABILITY.
GO THE WAY OF LOVE AND UNDERSTANDING.


Marcus Verwiebe, Western Germany. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BITNET: hex@db0tui6 alias tub.BITNET (preferable since cheap)
UUCP: ...!pyramid!tub!hex  (or ...!unido!tub!hex from Europe only)
       or {path to your nearest UUCP-BITNET gateway}!db0tui6!hex
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------