Slashdot Mirror
Should You Care About Politics?
Jim Deggan, a self-described Linux Geek from Sunnyvale, California, e-mailed me last week that he hangs around sites like this one specifically to avoid talk of conventional politics, "or any reference of any kind to people like Al Gore and George Bush." He appreciates the advance warning Slashdot provides: that he can block all stories with the "United States" logo and thus access a politics-free environment. But he was curious, before he blocked, about whether there was some reason why he shouldn't. (Maybe the real question is whether it's even possible). He was surprised to see me writing about politics at all, since he assumed from my previous writings that I didn't like the subject any more than he did.
Nobody can blame Deggan, a database administrator, for wanting to avoid the bizarre ritual going on in that other realm. Most people on this site feel just the way he does. But the truth is, he can't avoid politics, even if he wants to. And since he cares about technology, there are compelling reasons why he might want to pay attention and perhaps, one day, even participate.
It's been more than a decade since William Gibson articulated the idea of "cyberspace," and the surreal revolution he predicted has not only come to pass but has become one of the most significant political forces in the world. Computer networks are blasting away the existing political landscape, reconfiguring it in ways we are just now struggling to figure out.
Gibson's paranoid notion of a world ravaged by ruthless, greedy and competing multinational corporations whose power derives from hyper-linked information networks is transcending fiction. The skirmish between AOL/Time-Warner and Disney over cable domination and other issues is a prescient conflict-of-the-future right out of Gibson and the non-virtual games "Mage" and "Shadowrun." The disorienting thing is that we have two political cultures, the old and the new. And the new tends to make the ancient mistake of underestimating the old, corporate and otherwise. Government is seen as clueless and toothless, but program's like the FBI's "Carnivore" program and laws like the DMCA suggest they still have plenty of sharp teeth, a strong reason for caring about politics.
The odd reality is that some techies can be "tech smart" but "world dumb" -- that is, their work and interests tended to be internal and circumscribed. Some (not all) think that knowing about programming is the same thing as understanding technology or its impact on the world beyond. Many think they live and work beyond the reach of politics or government. This intensity, I suggested to Deggan, kept them from grasping the fact that what they are do is often intensely political, both directly and indirectly. Code, for example, is more significant each day, relating to freedom, culture, intellectual property, commerce. The content, language and architecture of cyberspace now affects almost every aspect of the political and economic system.
What economists like to call "late capitalism" -- the emergence of a new post-capitalist, techno-driven global economy -- is characterized by the astonishing growth of multinationals : Microsoft, Barnes &Noble, Wal-Mart, Bertelsmann, McDonalds. More powerful than most governments, these conglomerates operate beyond conventional oversight or regulation, acquire culture, business and media, render conventional political boundaries obsolete. They operate in a new kind of social geography, powered by technology. They corrupt politics by becoming its primary bankrollers. They smother innovation with legal assaults, assault individualism. Simply put, they have taken over, without much of a tussle. Our only hope is that eat each other, as Gibson suggested.
Technology is the central element in their rise. The focal point of these companies' power is an electronic network that covers the planet, and a marketing system to expand and inventory it. This power has no world headquarters; it's in the ether, built into the very architecture of the cyberworld Gibson foresaw. That's what makes technology so political, and gives us so many powerful new reasons to care about it and the political environment surrounding it.
This new kind of politics provokes relevant questions about whether conventional civic systems can or ought to survive, but at the same time it makes politics more important than ever. Ironically, though there's less reason than ever to pay attention to the two-party politics practiced in Washington, there are more reasons than ever to care about politics itself.
Among them: privacy, ownership of ideas, control over software and hardware that powers the network, the use of supercomputing to address social and medical problems, the open source challenge to proprietary institutions (which is shaping up as one of the landmark political struggles of the new century), the use of computer-assisted gene mapping to engineer human life at the hands of for-profit bio-tech companies, and control over creativity itself. Compared to the Bush-Gore-Nader agenda, those kinds of political issues are in urgent need of debating.
The truth is, technology and politics are no longer separable. Almost every citizen, from the hapless buyer trying to get tech support to the parent eliminating a potentially retarded embryo has to deal with technology, even though we don't have any national philosophy of technology and it almost never surfaces directly as an issue in our political system.
Congress is awash in last-minute bills relating to telecoms, free speech online, encryption, privacy, pornography. The gaming culture itself has become one of the biggest mainstream entertainment cultures on the earth, even though the violence allegedly caused by videogames has become a frequently invoked issue in the presidental election, raised by Gore, Cheney, Bush and Lieberman.
Right down to its conception as a communications tool that could survive the Cold War, everything about the Net is intrinsically political, from the distributed architecture incorporated into its design to the empowerment it provides for its users. Conventional politics will shortly feel its effects on the way money is raised, voters vote, volunteers are recruited, on the potential for new candidates and parties to reach new audiences. Whatever the early coders and hackers intended, the information revolution they've created is an in-your-face slap at the way much of the world has done business for centuries.
As interactive tools transform the lives of millions of once disenfranchised kids, who now have access to much of the world's archived information despite frenzied efforts to block and filter them, technology has also empowered and politicized the young. That has traumatized educators, politicians and parents, but the fact is that kids can escape suffocating adult restrictions on their cultural and social lives. In political terms, that may be the biggest whopper of all.
So the citizens of cyberspace have a tricky dilemma. While it's difficult to take seriously a system that labors for months and finally offers us George Bush, Al Gore, Ralph Nader and Patrick Buchanan and their Pleistocene campaigns, it is becoming almost impossible to live in this space and avoid politics. If you don't find it, it will find you.
Next: Birth of the CyberNation. Filling the new space with an ethical platform.
Robert Heinlein said it best: for all its problems, politics is the only way to get things done that doesn't involve breaking heads. And if you leave it to the crooks and empty suits -- which is what we have done -- the results are disastrous. BTW, Heinlein's book "Take Back Your Government" is still in print, and surprisingly useful 50 years after he wrote it.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
(Paraphrased, as I don't have the exact copy on me)
If you live in a society where you can vote, do so. ..). Then do exactly the opposite.
If you cannot find someone to vote FOR, find someone you can vote AGAINST
If all else fails, ask the advice of a well-meaning fool (there is always one or two about.
I've found it to be a quite useful guide in confused times. .
Oh, and Katz makes an excellent well-meaning fool for the final method. . .
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
The best way to put it is: If you don't care about the government, then the government won't care about you.
If you don't take the time to use the little bit of influence you have, the government's not going to bother doing anything to please you. Why should they care if they upset you, or even take away your freedoms, when you won't spend the time or the effort to let them know how you feel?
Sitting around complaining and doing little more doesn't change anything, it just makes you unhappier. And the fact is, it has a lot of effect on your life - even if you're not in the US. Don't believe me? The free market and capitalism sure didn't bring about this internet thing.
Oh, and if you're only concerned about the internet, technology, computers, and programming, then you're in trouble anyways.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
I have a close relative with a Ph.D. in Political Science. He's constantly criticizing politics. When folks ask him why he studies something he hates so much.
His answer: He has friends at the Centers for Disease Control who have no liking at all for viruses or diseases, but find them nonetheless absolutely fascinating....
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
However, those that are a bit more pessimistic view the whole process of government as pointless. I have been like that myself at times. We can't realy do anything to fix it, just like in our jobs, so we often want to leave to go somewhere else. I still think I will end up leaving the U.S. to move somewhere, I have a few ideas of places, but I am waiting a bit so I can see if improvements will be made in the U.S. The problem, and sites like slashdot particularly cater to the paranoid people when dealing with news, is that we hear the bad stuff more often than good. Honestly, I don't know if anything good is going on in the government right now, but from what I see and hear they are only sitting around wasting my tax money trying to find ways to take away more rights. Of course I am going to have a negative view towards politics, and since the majority of people in the U.S. seem to be content, nothing will happen to change it.
I think I fall within the standard point of view of slashdot readers. I can be enraged about some things such as laws like the DMCA, but when picking an elected official such as president, I am more apathetic. I am going to vote for Browne as I believe he is closest to what I believe to be right, but I know he won't win. It reminds me of a lyric: "Informed, but powerless."
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
It was created a long time ago. It is based on some really great ideas, but it also contains a lot of cruft and anachronisms unique to the time in which it was created. It has been surpassed by newer systems and should be redesigned from the ground up, but nobody can agree on what to keep and what to throw out. So, as a result, we keep chugging along with it and putting up with its shortcomings.
Consider:
1) The Electoral College is a throwback to a form of representative democracy born in an era when direct democracy was not technologically feasible. The notion that a person whom the majority of Americans hate could still become President because he won in three states should be quite troubling.
2) The Bill of Rights is in serious need of revision. Does anybody even pay any attention to the ninth and tenth amendments? Of course not. Legally, they are too vague and the government can't tell when it is violating them. As a result, they are ignored just as vague terms in a contract may be safely ignored by the parties. What about the third amendment? Quartering soldiers in peacetime? Does anyone really think this applicable to the 21st century?
Perhaps it's time to re-think the system. Keep what's good, but throw out the cruft and make it usable by average Americans without degrees in Constitutional Law.
If the lameness filter actually worked, would you even be reading this?
Yes, I completely agree with this sentiment. I have promised myself that from now on I will vote in every local, state, and national election. And I will NEVER AGAIN vote for a Democrat or Republican candidate. I will vote in this order of preference: Green, Independent, Libertarian.
What's wrong with this country is not "Liberal" or "Conservative" philosophy, but entrenched power locked in place for our representatives by multinational corporate power through media management and campaign contributions. The whole system is completely corrupt.
I've protested. I've sent letters (snail-mail) to my representatives. I've voted (though I missed '96). Frankly, no matter what I do I feel completely unrepresented as a constituency and citizen by those in political power. I'm at my wits end here. I'm a pacifist, so no black bloc activity for me.
So, some of my friends tell me that if I don't like it here I ought to leave; these folks are somewhat nationalist. You know, I'm seriously considering emigrating from the United States and removing my taxes from the US revenue base. Maybe they're right! It's the only protest I can think of left to do. If a few tens of thousands of well paid geeks up and blew out of here that would make a real dent on the tax base. A few hundred million anyway. Money is something I know these politicians understand.
I don't mind paying taxes. I'll pay taxes for education, health care, supporting the elderly, safety regulators, defending our borders, etc. But I'M SICK OF PAYING TAXES FOR INTEREST ON OUR NATIONAL DEBT!. I'm sick of paying taxes for ridiculous "defense" systems like SDI, which clearly can't work and serves only as a money funnel to defense contractors. Look at the Bush tax cut: forget how it's spread to benefit mostly wealthy tax payers, and instead consider the rationality of dumping a trillion dollars into our economy at the same time the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates. The Fed doesn't want to stimulate the economy... they're trying to control inflation at the same time the Republicans promote a highly inflationary tax cut, which WILL NOT PAY DOWN THE DEBT! The Democrats are no better... just look at the crap Gore promotes.
Maybe it is time to blow the hell out of this country.
Politics is only one way of organizing society. You can also organize society by using private property, and allowing people to trade amongst themselves. This works just peachy as long as private property rights are secure. People can plan, they can freely associate with others, they can refuse to accommodate uncooperative people, and they can get the full benefit of their activities.
In a political system, anything you do benefits everyone, but the full costs fall on you. THAT is why so many people are uninterested in politics. And that is why you have to watch out for political solutions -- because people who take an interest in politics usually do so because they intend to use the political process against other people.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I hear so many people whine on a day-to-day basis about how they have to vote for either a republican or a democrat to avoid throwing their vote away. Bullcrap. Do a little math... Voting for a republican or a democrat isn't going to swing the vote one way or the next. On the order of tens of millions of people will vote for each of Gore and Bush, and your singular vote will not sway either of these. But that's not what voting is about, one person's vote has never determined the next president. Put your vote where it will be useful, and make a statement about how you want your government to be run. Find a third party candidate who supports how YOU feel your government should be run, and cast your vote for them.
The majority of the people I know want a third party candidate to win, and the majority of those people are afraid to vote for a third party candidate for the above stated irrational fears. Well I have news for you that does matter; if everyone who wanted a third party candidate to win had the courage to vote by their heart, we would have a strong government by the people. Instead, we have a situation where the majority of the U.S. population votes like sheep, and we keep putting the same criminals back in office. Wake up and stand up, people!
Please find out what you're really voting for before you do: www.issues2000.org
I hear so many people whine on a day-to-day basis about how they have to vote for either a republican or a democrat to avoid throwing their vote away. Bullcrap. Do a little math... Voting for a republican or a democrat isn't going to swing the vote one way or the next. On the order of tens of millions of people will vote for each of Gore and Bush, and your singular vote will not sway either of these. But that's not what voting is about, one person's vote has never determined the next president. Put your vote where it will be useful, and make a statement about how you want your government to be run. Find a third party candidate who supports how YOU feel your government should be run, and cast your vote for them.
The majority of the people I know want a third party candidate to win, and the majority of those people are afraid to vote for a third party candidate for the above stated irrational fears. Well I have news for you that does matter; if everyone who wanted a third party candidate to win had the courage to vote by their heart, we would have a strong government by the people. Instead, we have a situation where the majority of the U.S. population votes like sheep, and we keep putting the same criminals back in office. Wake up and stand up, people!
Please find out what you're really voting for before you do: www.issues2000.org
Yes, but corporations use their power to lobby the politicians for laws and bills that will benefit themselves, not the people as a whole.
Sure, boycotts *can* work, but not very often, corporations would much rather throw a chunk of change at the person to get them to shut up rather than be exposed. I know about this first hand, a friend of mine found worms in a popular food brand, when she complained, she was given a gag order and given some money, this happens alot more than one would think.
The corporations think of it this way, is it cheaper to shut this person up or to change our product or whatever they are complaining about. They always want the settlement, it's much cheaper and not costly to their image because they can simply get a gag order.
They can really disrupt the politcal process too. They have money reserves which transfer into lobbying power that the average Joe just does not have. With all of the media-mega-mergers too, we have lost our ability as citizens to have corporations fairly reported on. If there is something these companies don't want the public to hear, they just won't report on them, and that in my opinion, is wrong, and is much more dangerous than the government.
Fight Corporate Power!
Actually, yes ;-)
The difference is, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, that the malicious at least sleep. Those who mean well never rest.
Gore's position is to give "targeted tax cuts" to things he likes. Nader wants to tax "things he doesn't like". Both are using the power of the state to micromanage individual behavior.
Given the choice, I'd vote Browne. But given that Browne's not gonna win, I'll take Bush. A fool? Sure. Malicious? Perhaps. But at least malice sleeps at night. Those with good intentions never rest.