Slashdot Mirror
The Age of Paine Revisited
I had no doubt that I was seeking the start of a transformative global revolution. The fervor and excitement I felt then are still fresh in my mind, though few of those fantasies have yet materialized and some, as the years pass, are seeming increasingly unlikely in my lifetime. And I'm still not sure I was wrong.
Many of the ideas in that essay were indirectly inspired by the hell-raiser of the American Revolution, a writer I've admired all my life. Thomas Paine, a media pioneer, one of the first people in the world to advance the notion of free information in an open society, of individual liberty flourishing amid the demise of institutions and monarchies. In my piece, I imagined Paine online, flaming and blasting away.
In the overheated Wired environment of the time -- some of the people running the magazine were true political radicals, a rare breed in popular media -- the prevailing idea was that the Net would sweep away hoary institutions like Congress, Big Media and Wall Street, changing more or less everything. Top-down, exclusive, closed and proprietary entities would tremble and collapse at the outpouring of ideas, intellectual property, education, democracy and ideas that the Net would provide. One magazine columnist even gushed that illiteracy among the young would vanish because kids all over the world would be so desperate to get online.
I was Wired's easternmost correspondent, based not in California but New York; as such, I got a first-hand look at just how the Net was traumatizing Eastern media. The spectre of all these weird kids hacking together this exciting new kind of many-to-many information culture really shook people up. The bland, filtered, from the top-down media, Wall Street, Congress -- they were all scared to death. They hated the Net then; they still do. (Though just this week, I noticed the stodgy New York Times op-ed page appending e-mail addresses to its regular columns; a landmark of sorts.) Yet as much as the Net has evolved, it's shocking to see how little traditional politics or the popular press has. Real interactivity, perhaps the most political idea ever in media, barely exists off-line.
In my essay, published in the April, l995 issue of the magazine, I wrote that the pamphleteering Paine, who had no children, did have a descendant
"where his values prosper and are validated millions of times a day: the Internet. There, his ideas about communications, media ethics, the universal connections between people, the free flow of honest opinion are all relevant again, visible every time one modem shakes hands with another. The Net offers what Paine and his revolutionary colleagues hoped for in their own new media - a vast, diverse, passionate, global means of transmitting ideas and opening minds. That was part of the political transformation envisioned when he wrote: 'We have it in our power to begin the world over again.' Through media, he believed, 'we see with other eyes; we hear with other ears; and think with other thoughts, than those we formerly used.'"
It isn't clear whether we -- you -- began the world over again. We do -- thanks to the Net -- see with other eyes and hear with other ears, and think new thoughts. Those are still prescient and timely words.
Paine's ideas about a free press, an outpouring of individual opinion and a ferocious sense of social justice seem especially alien to the corporatized, homogenized, blow-dried practioners of "objectivity" who have inherited the American press. The Net suggested a rebirth of Paine's fading values.
Did it deliver? For sure, the pamphleteering model was true. The explosion in weblogs, pages, mailing lists, groups, topics, threads, message boards and p2p systems has introduced nothing less than a new age of individual expression. The personal archives now on the Net are unprecedented in human history, from family bios to discussions of gardening, dogs, politics and sex. Sites like Napster, Deja and EBay -- even Amazon -- have revolutionized business and consumerism. Sexuality has been liberating online, and TV and other forms of entertainment are sure to become subordinate to the Web. Cultural movements like open source have spread far beyond software in terms of their impact on society. The Net has made anyone with a computer a world-wide communicator or entrepreneur, at least potentially. Individuals are freer than ever to talk about sex, engage in heresy, sound off, connect with others, and distribute their thoughts. People with unimaginably diverse interests can now find one another instantly. It's easier to be a gay teenager, a member of a militia, an ex-Marine, a rabbit lover, a scientific researcher. Thanks to computers, there are now a million Paines out there.
But some things have been lost, as well -- influence and commonality. This new individualistic medium is so personal it's become self-absorbed, almost narcissistic. Individuals are speaking out, but it isn't clear who, if anyone, is listening. And it isn't always democratic either. There are few common grounds, town squares or open spaces online. People frequently use blocking and filtering software and programs to stick with the like-minded, not explore the different or experience other points of view. Ideas fly all over the Web, but they often end up on the screens of people who already agree, otherwise they would have long ago unsubscribed. Teenagers and political fanatics have turned the Net's public forums -- on Slashdot, CNN, ABCNews and MSNBC -- into hostile electronic cesspools. To have actual conversations online, you're forced to join clubs where membership and speech boundaries are regulated, even to the point of specialized blocking programs that permit people to gauge levels of hostility or agreement. The digital citizen isn't always very free and open to new ideas. Some of those sites are great, but this doesn't exactly constitute an open and democratic environment, one of the great early dreams of the Net. Joining a rational discussion of a common issue has become virtually impossible on any Net forum that's not restricted by membership or other restrictive tools.
In practical ways, the Net has proved more revolutionary than most of us thought. In l995, few people imagined how ubiquitous e-mail would become, how much of a family communications tool, how natural a medium for teenagers and college students and for grandma and grandpa, how fundamental to research and text, how threatening to copyright and intellectual property traditions. I hardly expected within a few years that a U.S. President would be passing along URLs in a speech before Congress. The explosion in gaming and online entertainment was similarly unforeseen -- most people took the new medium too seriously for that. Almost nobody predicted how specialized online communications would become, how polished online retailing would get, or imagine the marketplace potential of an entity like eBay. We did lots of heavy breathing about the rise of the virtual community -- expectations that have not been met. The hostility bred by the Internet wildly exceeded anyone's expectations, and is nothing less than a tragedy for the idea of the digital citizen.
The Net is, if anything, bigger than people thought it would be now, a part of more people's work and personal lives. Also their creativity -- art and writing flourish online, even when they can't make it off. But its primary impact has been practical, not ideological. Instant messaging has probably had greater import for younger Americans than digital pamphleteering has.
The hacker universe has sobered up as well. Who would have thought, a decade back, that one company, Microsoft, would in fact achieve everyone's paranoid fantasy and conquer the global desktop? Or that that one of the primary champions of Linux would be IBM? In the post September 11 era, hackers are in for a rough time, and the environment of the Net may change again. In the name of national security, authorities will be more vigilant and visible online, with the authority to throw up roadblocks all over the Net. The consequences of cyber-terrorism would now be staggering, and the spectre of the Twin Towers will give government the upper hand politically in its long brawl with the free spirits online.
Nor did anyone quite expect the speed of the transition from capitalism to corporatism, an era in which global corporations acquire media, commerce and popular culture; control copyright and intellectual property; and become the primary funders and corrupters of the political system.
Despite the flowering of individual voices on the Net, we live in an arguably less democratic culture than we did a decade ago, even before Attorney General Ashcroft's sweeping actions.
So does this add up to grim news? I don't know yet, and may not know in my life. The rise of individualism online seems irreversible. If individuals can't reach mass audiences, they can't easily be shut down, either. It seems inconceivable that our society will ever return to a few-to-many model of information, when masses of people waited for a handful of information gatekeepers to parcel out information. But as for the contemporary armies of Paine's some hoped would emerge from the digital din, make themselves heard, even achieve influence -- I'm still waiting for them.
In two places, There is l995, rather than 1995; an l rather than a 1. Did JonKatz just (poorly) OCR an old paper of his? tsk tsk tsk
It's not worth the effort. We need a template. Something about the obviousness of the theses. The nice bit of self promotion at the top of it. etc. etc.
Best Slashdot Co
IIRC MS-DOS and Windows 3.x were the leading OS in 1991. What's changed?
sulli
RTFJ.
Katz is one busy dude!
Advances in technology only allows humans to
be more of they are, not something different.
The more they stay the same. Technology doesn't change people. People use technology to do more of the same they've always been doing. 90% of that involves war.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
If anything, the net has given us the ability to find just about any information we want. While the main news/political sites are still status quo, people who want to go out there and raise hell are able to find dissadent information a whole lot easier than before the rise of the net. At least this is true in the US.
I work for an advocacy oriented nonprofit, and I can tell you that the net has had a huge impact on the way we interact with government, and the way we interact with grassroots supporters (getting them to write their Representatives, etc). Give the US government a few years to catch up.
I do not think, however, that the net is going to change the way governments work wholesale. They'll still be corrupt and powerful, and they'll still be trying to screw you and me.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem
Translation: "Goddamnit! Stop choosing to block my articles from your front page view!"
(Something I haven't done obviously. He's just too entertaining.)
"Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
"This new individualistic medium is so personal it's become self-absorbed, almost narcissistic. It isn't clear who, if anyone, is listening. "
Uh-huh.
Sounds like an Onion headline to me:
Jon Katz Quotes Self
- insert witty phrase here
In any group with a sufficiently large number of people the majority are idiots. You can find this out by reading slashdot comments, and the quality here is certainly better than in the average AOL chat room. Interactivity doesn't make sense unless you find a good way to filter out all these idiots. Who cares about the ability to read the thoughts of 4 billion idiots?
And even if you were able to filter them out, it would not really help to improve the world. Ok, you could read stuff written by non-idiots, but as long as the majority of voters can still be influenced by those few media corporations. Most of your examples are either "mass-media delivers to idiots" or "idiot to idiot" communication.
Abolish the democracy, form a technocracy!
So they have the internet on computers now?
Things like this, the whole digital-anarchist/netizen/dig-my-meme garbage, is precisely why I stopped subscribing to Wired within a couple of years of it starting out. "Transcending dogma and cant?" Give me a freakin' break, man.
But its primary impact has been practical, not ideological.
Captain Obvious strikes again!
Did you notice that you can filter all JK articles using the preferences?
interestingly, The Declaration of Independence of the United States, in it's original form, was written by Thomas Paine.
The proof of this appears in many places in the 19th century and even more clearly in the 20th century. William Van der Weyde had printed proof in the earlier part of the 20th century and Joseph Lewis wrote a full book on the subject in 1947.
There was a committee of five in the Continental Congress (Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Sherman, and Livingston) who were responsible for ratifying the wording of this document, and several important sections were changed.
Perhaps it is this mutilation that has gotten us into our current awful situation?
http://www.klub.org/
In 91 OS/2 was out. It was a 32 bit os with a GUI. Very technically sweet for it's day. It also cost about 5 times what Dos+Windows cost. IBM was held up as the shining example of a company that couldn't market space heaters in Alaska in January. Everyone (except IBM) knew that the pricing was killing OS2. People who used OS2 were as fanatical about it as the Mac users are. IBM could easily taken the desktop if it had lowered the price. It didn't. As Cringely pointed out a month ago Microsoft has succeeded because its competitors have acted like idiots.
Best Slashdot Co
Whatever you like to think, people in general are still lazy, apathetic, and just plain don't care.
No amount of information overload or internet connectivity will change basic human nature. Simply giving everyone net access (or whatever) won't turn them into caring, conscious, active, wonderful citizens.
Thomas Paine was a political revolutionary. Jon Katz worked with some would-be political revolutionaries at Wired. They thought the net would revolutionize the world, destroying all bad things and empowering the common man, who would somehow go from being a greedy bastard to being a righteous do-gooder. This hasn't happened. What's up with that?
(These Katz Notes provided for those others who began earnestly reading the article only to have their eyes glaze over as they continuted to scroll down....)
m00.
Before the Internet, most people were dumb, passive consumers. Let me just buy things and watch TV, and let others produces things, let others make decisions, let others tell me what my opinions are.
The Internet hasn't changed this. It's turned into Just Another Medium through which we dummies can be told what to wear, what soft drink is cool, who to vote for, who to fuck, and consume, consume, consume!
Today, like years ago, we are told that the masses are meant to be all-consuming pac-men, and the few are meant to produce, lead, and make decisions.
The Internet is not going to bring about a global outpouring of creativity and information sharing, simply because most people can't be bothered to come up with an original thought, much less published writing or software. How many people post to
Technology doesn't change the world, people change the world. Or insert any similar one-liner of your choice.
Things have changed for the better in some ways. Media consolidation has been very rapid the past 6 years or so. Yet anyone with interenet access has access to independant media outlets that ask questions and dig deeper than the mainstream media, who are spoon fed by the pentagon and are quite conciously ok with that.
The problem is that people have to know about these sites and want to go to them. If the entire population is brainwashed to follow one point of view, it won't matter if the plain truth is right in front of them. That is a problem technology can't solve.
AC makes point, moderators see only AC. It's like net.racism or something like that. I thought it was +1 Interesting, anyway. (too bad I have no points)
I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
"We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer
Why would anyone expect the Net to "change everything"? People have always had the ability to stay informed through the quality newspapers, magazines, etc, but very few take the time to try and understand complex issues.
On the one hand, the Net gives us the ability to ready any Joe Blo's rants about subjects he knows nothing about, which actually reduces how informed the average citizen is because of all the noise.
On the other hand, if you are selective about what you read and believe, you can occasionally find gems of wisdom that give you information that might not have otherwise found. Take Slashdot -- the editor's are HUGELY ignorant and foolish about things (*cough*michael*cough*), and the posters are usually even worse. But where the editors do a good job is in their story selection. That attracts the smart, knowledgeable people that occasionally post these gems.
The question is whether the Net is a net loss or a net gain in educating the public, and I'm just not sure.
[controversial opinion alert] One huge win in my opinion that the Net has been a great influence on bringing the American ideas of freedom to the rest of the world. The greatest evil of the world, next to communism, is Socialism and I would like to see it finally die like it should have died last century as the failed experiment it was. The more socialism, the less freedom. [/alert]
And please spare me the "America WAS the home of freedom" blah DCMA blah blah. That's a great example of the narrow-minded, single-issue ignorance that I'm talking about. If you think any of these minor issues are significant in the big picture of freedom, then you need to expand your views are what freedom is.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
There's a great little science experiment demonstrating how plants get nutrients by osmosis; you stick a flower into a cup of colored water and the next day you can see the colors that were in the water in the flower.
/.er, or even just the average citizen; it will take a while longer yet- children who grew up not knowing why the letters on a keyboard are in alphabetical order will be the ones who change the politics.
The same thing is true of government; and keeping in mind that a lot of politicians (in fact, a lot of people in generic seats of power) are a lot more reactionary than your average
Do you like Japanese imports?
It's that information travels at the speed of light, but ignorance bends time and space.
The enlightened net user will remain a myth as long as Britney Spears and her ilk remain the most sought after subjects of search engines.
The digital citizen would be smart, civil and rational, outgrowing labels like "liberal" or "conservative", engaged in civics, technology, business and government; transcending dogma and cant.
It sounds to me like this is a vision of a great homogenization, and that the only reason this hasn't happened yet is that people haven't had free access to information.
This isn't going to happen in cyber-space, meat-space or deep-space. People have their own views and perspectives on issues.
Some feel crime will go down if people can carry guns, others envision a "WestWorld" type cityscape where battles rage continuously. Just because I have access to charts and graphs of crime rates and concealed carry statistics doesn't mean I can change either sides mind.
I am the same guy offline as I am online, except I don't make my wife call me "El_Smack."
Talking to you via electrons and pixels vs. sound waves and ink doesn't change anything. That is the point that has been, and I fear, still is lost on many who think the Net will fundamentally change people and how they interact.
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
We worry now about cell phones and the radiation they produce or not (depending on who you believe). I have to wonder what "studies" will come out in a few years telling us that our PAN is frying us from the inside out. You have to wonder what all that EM radiation up close and personal is going to do to you.
I wouldn't carry my PAN hub in my pants pocket, um, too close to some sensitive areas.
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
Can there be any wonder that the prognostications of a group of "true political radicals" on the future of a technology that they had already embraced would not play exactly as they had foreseen? Of course not!
What is amazing that the Net has come as far as quickly as it has. The future is inherently murky, but the freedoms enabled by the Net are just now beginning to impact traditional social and political structures and practices as Katz pointed out. Who knows what the future will bring, but one thing is sure: it will bring changes. This is true of the Internet also, we can only guess at its final impact, but we can and do influence this impact everyday.
I just brought my last copy of Wired magazine a few days ago. It's got to a point where it's just not worth buying anymore - I could hardly find an article I could be bothered to read. It used to be that upon buying a new issue of Wired I would read it cover to cover in one sitting.
What happened? It used to have writers who were passionate about technology, had interesting opinions, and had their fingers on the pulse of change. Now it's like a product catalog for gadgets and 'cool stuff'. About half the articles seem to be 'advertising features'.
I think the rot set in during the dot-com boom. The writers stopped talking about the technology and started focusing on making a fast buck.
Sorry Wired, I used to love ya, but we've just drifted apart, ok? Time to move on.
the same agrument has been made about the printing press and the radio at various points in history. mass communications technologies have huge potential to enhance democracy and redefine citizenship-- consider, for example, how the printing press was in many way a technology which enabled the Protestant reformation (or, one could argue, the whole enlightenment).
the hitch that the internet hit, as i see it, is essentially a technological limitation: the need for a gatekeeper. what i mean is that posting a web page is like tacking up your Paine-esge flyer to a lamppost in Times Square. people will see it, sure (whether they will care or not is another debate). but very few will notice it, because it is lost the the clutter of the millions of other flyers. the way we index the internet is through search engines, which saw some of the first corporate influence on the net and suffer from a range of issues, for capitalist bias to simple technical limitations.
the other way to "catalog" the internet is to use sites like slashdot-- but then you have an editor and a moderator and the whole Paine metaphore has vanished.
and besides, can you honestly say that you read news on the indymedia.org wire and believe it before you double-check with corporate outlets? we're trained to see information distribution as very hierarchical and this is difficult to overcome.
coupled with the rapid and unhindered commericialazation of the medium, the choice between clutter and moderation has left internet has become a lot less decentralized in practical terms, a strange irony given its architecture.
Currently: "The Age of Pain", in which I see a hellish outpouring of digital marketing, censorship and draconian tactics, all sparked by liberating powers of the Net as used by idiots.
Cynical? Nahhhhh...
There is no escape from The Muffin.
that the inventors and purveyors of some new technology (fire, bronze, the printing press, radio, TV, uP's, etc) envision it as some sort of gateway to an Utopian existance, ushering in an age of peace, harmony, understanding, an end to wars and hunger, blah blah blah - only to have it end up being used for some individual's or group's advantage in gaining wealth, status and power over others?
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
If our government were properly e-enabled, including electronic instant runoff voting, then active participation would be much greater. Just take a look at the response the ./ polls get :-)
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
30 years ago, science fiction was kid's stuff - only children wanted to watch it, only children liked it, etc.
30 years have passed, and the children have grown up. Now Sci-fi is a complex medium intended for the use of adults - it grew up with its fans.
15 years ago video games started getting to be more than just 'Pong,' and the children started to play them. Now games are complex, and getting more so. Today, games are still for the young - but not just for kids.
A mere 10 years ago the net started to become a popular means of [everything the wired article talks about]. It has powerfully transformed the world BEFORE a generation has come to power. That is truly amazing, but you can't expect all of the changes that are on the way to happen overnight.
In 20 years, after the internet has had as much time as Sci-Fi to become commonplace, we will be an internet generation. Then all the people who are using this as their media outlet will have it, and just like the stock market, it will become a chaotic tyranny of the majority's decisions swayed by the charisma of those who write well.
Bring it on. The written word has always been my favorite medium of information exchange.
On the side: I don't care if this issue is last year's news, or last century's. Its relevant today, and there are more things that cna be said about it now than could be said last year!
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Many times it seemed that something (i.e. industrial revolution, Enlightenment) would change the humanity, that people would start to think by themselves, not just listen to authorities (the Church, the Goverment, media). But then always the result was the same: most people just want to be told what to believe in, what to do, what is good or bad, and they want to have simple pleasures (circus or instant messaging).
Just read some texts from the eighteenth century and compare them to Wired style - the same hope for "the new epoque", common discussion, extinction of extremes, liberty and fraternity. And then came 1815 and later Victorian Era, Bismarck and World Wars. And now we have Sept 11th and anti-terrorist regulations.
Nothing new, just the same crap again and again
Rav
P.S. Though, I must say, it's one of few Katz's articles I read with interest...
Yes, but it's more like the crank physicist argument. People laughed at and persecuted Einstein; people are laughing at and persecuting me; therefore, my ideas are equally significant to Einstein's. Just replace Paine with Einstein and you have the essence of the article.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
on Slashdot, CNN, ABCNew and MSNBC -- into hostile electronic cesspools. To have actual conversations online, you're forced to join clubs where membership and speech boundaries are regulated, even to the point of specialized blocking programs that permit people to gauge levels of hostility or agreement.
What did you expect, for all your utopian dreams, you forgot one thing. Most people are fucking stupid. And a great many of them are annoying as well. "giving everyone a voice" (the phrase) might sound good, but actually giving everyone a voice won't. leveling the playing field for everyone and you end up with a world awash in moronic penis bird posts and SPAM promoting porn sites.
The hacker universe has sobered up as well. Who would have thought, a decade back, that one company, Microsoft, would in fact achieve everyone's paranoid fantasy and conquer the global desktop?
What is this supposed to even mean? The "global desktop"? Lots of people run windows on desktops across the globe, but M$ hasn't got central control over much of anything, just lots of revenue streams. And its not like their market share has gone up much since the DOS days anyway.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Yep. The net is a commercialized extension of existing systems in The Real World. More spam for everybody...
... Now the masses are 'stuck' with AOL/MSN and don't even know/care enought to know better.
... more spam for everybody ...
No utopia of free thought and expression, with furious online debates in a sort of "Digital Renaissance".
How did it get like this? How is it that most internet traffic ends up at either an AOL or MSN owned site? (according to some report I read somewhere, don't remember).
Surely, the Internet is populated by people intelligent enough to know when they are being corralled and taken advantage of? Where did it all go wrong?
I have always believed that people watched the garbage on Network Television because of the influence of the networks in the history of the development in television. The net was supposed to change this, allow individual people to express their opinions, and allow netizens to get information from ANY source. The geeks were in charge, and here first, we would show people the way to digital enlightenement
That's what we get for making this stuff "easy to use"
From the intro to the original Article in Wired.
"Thomas Paine was one of the first journalists to use media as a weapon against the entrenched power structure. He should be resurrected as the moral father of the Internet. Jon Katz explains why. "
Let me suggest that size and force of the "media" has simply become ubiquitous. Can't see the forest that has grown, for the single tree you are looking at one foot in front of you, Jon.
Consider this forest enabling us all to integrate information in ways that would be impossible to even dream of before, not to mention now having the ability to share that new information with others so that they can help make productive use of new integrations.
As an Example integrating the world information to the computer industry to the individual....
Why do I have to have the kind of government they deserve?
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Hey!? Where's the "Cowboy Neal" option?
If I can't vote for him, I won't be able to express myself!
Trolling using another account since 2005.
As far as I can tell, Thomas Paine was famous for writing Common Sense. Anyone who's ever read all of Katz's collumns knows that Jon's authority on this subject is fleeting.
Seriously though, Paine was a revolutionary who used fact and logic to form opinion. I think that this is unfortunately lacking in today's Web.
Just because someone can rant on their web page or in the blurb of a slashdot article about any subject does not make them either convincing or revolutionary.
-- Len
Never in history has such a wide variety of porn been so freely available to so many in such vast amounts!
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
FreeRepublic is the exact thing Katz is bitching about, a community fenced off from any kind of ideological differences. Post something "pro liberal" and you'll get your IP banned.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
As for useful discourse from "professioanl" editorial sites, sure there has been a bloodbath in the online content market, but sites like Salon are still limping along with useful original writing, and most print magazines have expanded online with interactive publishing.
With the rise of the web, usenet has actually become more intelligent and useful and the true wankers have moved on.
You just had to get a swipe at the AG in there, eh? All this digital hand wringing about the High Lord of Evil, John Ashcroft, is really stupid. I live about 1/2 mile north of what was the World Trade Center. I lived through military checkpoints and police blockades for 2 weeks to get into my apartment. Outside those that lost loved ones, were injured by the attacks or lost jobs, I have had a lot to put up with to get my life back together the way it was before 9/11. None of the barriers were created by AG John Ashcroft. His actions have actually made me feel more comfortable about my situation.
But then I have to listen to the Chicken Little's of the Civil Liberties gang. The group of "well meaning, good intentioned" Americans that only believe that effective policing can occur when the "Cops" are handcuffed and blindfolded. You got to love their arrogance when they proclaim that non-US citizens are guaranteedprotection of our Constitution even though they never lived in the US. I am sure that would be a shock to those folks living in China that were run over by tanks 12 years ago.
The amazing thing at the end of the day, no matter what Ashcroft w/ Congress has done, I feel no loss in liberty. No evil corporation is holding me down. Jack booted thugs haven't beat down my door or surrounded my place of worship with tanks and set it on fire. I have no fear to speak my mind. And to prove it, I am going to say the most controversial thing I can imagine, "John Katz is an insightful, intelligent, fully informed writer focusing on the issues that matter to citizens of Cyberspace and his witty commentary is a favorite of all Slashdot readers." It might not be true but I have no fear in saying it. Just like Jon Katz, I have the Constitutional Right to be full of sh*t and spout it out to the masses. Don't worry Jon the High Lord of Evil, John Ashcroft, is not going to gag you no matter how bad your writing is.
P.S. Jon if you are talking about the US, I need to remind you that we are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. If we were a democracy, evil would reign via the power of the ballot box -- majority gets to force the minority to do anything it wants.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Why is it that people in the Media are so surprised at what the 'Net has become?
The printing press: originally invented to standardize the font of books, because there were too many spelling errors in copying by hand.
In the late 1700's, everyone used Newspapers to spread information. New techniques of overlaying images with the text helped spawn the advertising age, then (1800s) the "catalog" was invented to bind a lot of advertisements into one book. Of course, people still wrote normal books, but wow, you can sell stuff remotely by displaying it! What do we get today: tabloids, leftist newspapers, conservative newspapers... a pretty good representation of freedom of the press.
Then you have the radio (late 1800's) where suddenly you can get your news by huddling around a wooden box at home, and soon "this program brought to you by..." took over, yes, advertising. People bought newspapers so they could see the event, and radios so they could hear it. What do we get today: Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, John Katz... all's fair in free speach. We don't have to agree with it all, but at least in America we CAN listen if we want.
Movies appeared in the 1900's, black and white, and from 1910 to 1950's, they were the main method of explaining world events to the masses. Again, advertisements in the form of "shorts" which appeared before movies. What do we get today: Sex & Violence. In the US, we're free to speak what we want, and Hollywood gives it to us (even if they do slant it left a bit more than the average American).
Then the television appeared, and became affordable, in the 1950s. It was supposed to be the END OF THE MOVIE THEATERS, we can stay home and get our evening news. What do we get today: Friends, MTV, crap. But they're free to show it to us, and we watch. We also have Discovery channel, and a lot of other "higher-quality content" channels.
Lastly, the internet. Again, we have 10,000 expectations, it'll IMPROVE OUR LIVES, except that right now, all we see is pr0n, banner ads, junk mail, private sites... and believe it or not, there's actually a lot of good information in there too.
When you offer free speach, don't be surprised at those that actually show up to use it.
The true changes in society are made face-to-face with people you see everyday. Memes are so much more contagious when you are sharing the same air with someone.
[pink beam of light]
This comment has been moderated as "offtopic", but I think it bears more relevence than its moderation would have us believe.
Truly intellectual individuals do not limit themselves to conversation within their own area(s) of interest. If anything, learning about politics and the opinions of people not like ourselves help remind us of who we are. Also, I certainly see nothing wrong with talking about politics on Slashdot, especially as it pertains to all things geek. There is almost a certain meta-geekness involved in talking not only about geeky things, but the nature of "geeky" itself. Political discussions about such things as rediculous patents, DMCA misuse (well, I've never found a good use, but I digress), privacy, freedom, and the endless attempted assassination of rational thinking and individual thought all hinge upon principles that are near and dear to many a Slashdot reader's heart. If anything, political advocacy in traditionaly geeky subject areas such as science and the like could help more of the public understand the virtues (or possibly enlighten us upon hitherto non obvious disadvantages) of our way of thinking and our way of life.
Recent research in the area of human intelligence has shown that even being slightly smarter than the rest of the population has tremendous advantages, because it allows you to step back and view human interaction separate from your involvement in it. Talking about "meta-geeky" subjects is one way to do this. As I like to say, the group model of human behavior is far more apparent when even a small foot stool can place your eyes above the group.
One more objection to this mentality that we should be allowed to speak only of geeky things on Slashot: By mere coincidence I happened to have read Common Sense and Age of Reason by Thomas Paine a few days before Jon Katz' article. I remember thinking just how ahead of his time this man was, and just how well he would have fit in our communications centric culture. Should this view not be allowed to be discussed on Slashdot? Isn't this the very censorship and tunnel vision most Slashdotter's profess to despise? "Why can't that young Earth Creationist just close his Bible for a few moments, open his mind, and take a look at reality?" Shouldn't we be practicing what we preach? Or is this kneejerk response so typical of Jon Katz articles only here because it was written by Jon Katz? Surely those among us who fancy ourselves as rational and intellectual appreciate the dangers and fallacies of ad hominem arguments.
Has Katz ever been sure he was wrong?
I think I'll stop here.
A long time ago, I happened sometimes to get a letter from a friend, or a phone call from abroad...
Now, I can get up to 150 mails / day from my group of friends, all interacting, and in addition of my business mails + family abroad + Spam
So the difference here is that before I was interacting maybe 2/3 times a week on paper, and more on phone.
Today, I can interact 120-130 times A DAY.
BTW my phone bill is exactly the amount of my internet connection, plus 5$ for 2 month phone calls... something like 12 minutes national rate...
Maybe this is evolution... I'm still on the winning side, from the dial up times, but then, I pay for 12 times the bandwith 8)
As for my political beliefs (not american, so to hell with Elephants 8) it is true the net broadened my horizons someway (mostly in the "Golden Shower" department 8)but getting access to the precise ans truthfull piece of data is still the same problem... Who is that guy/girl who wrote the article and can I trust him/her...
That is the question. Cause I can have all dat I want, and all of it bullshit...
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Internet or not, the best tool for a making
a new kind of digital citizen,
[empowered by all the information the Net would bring him by the Net's distributed architecture. The digital citizen would be smart, civil and rational, outgrowing labels like "liberal" or "conservative", engaged in civics, technology, business and government; transcending dogma and cant.],
that tool is education. The internet can be a great chance for education but it's not a starting point, the human transmission of knowledge is still a must. We are not computers, we are humans. Open mindness does not come de facto with an open network but has to be learnt by human ways (at least for now).
Societies and individuals who invest massively and intelligently in education are and will be the most successful ones.
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
Whatever one may think of Jon Katz, however obvious one may think this article is, however irrelevant Wired has always been, it's still nice to see him admit it.
Consider the previous unrealistic Utopian dream: the 1960's. The people most responsible for that still refuse to admit to this day that there were any flaws and continue mindlessly to blame others, even as they pump up the War on Drugs to support a kind of racism no less vile but considerably less honest than what they criticized in their parents.
As for Thomas Paine, while he was unquestionably a powerful writer, describing the King as a "sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man" or writing "The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries 'Tis time to part.'" do not seem to me more rational discourse than typical USENET, though better written.
...see, I'e always been wrong, please keep reading my stuff.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
A person is smart. People are stupid.
One on one you can reason with people. En masse, you can only emote with them.
Emotions have huge bandwidth but tiny frequency ... in other words: they're very powerful but they're incredibly stupid (low infomrational content).
Changing that reality would entail re-engineering the human race.
It proves that for a discussion to be interesting, it needs to be moderated and moderation can mean censorship. If you don't agree with the guy, at least articulate your opinions in a constructive way, don't just attack him personally because it doesn't get us anywhere.
(rant warning)
Oh, for the love of...
The cold war propaganda against communism has perpetated the American psyche so badly, that no one seems to know exactly what it is, beyond, ooo, that communism stuff, that's evil...
I'd really love it if people would stop bashing an economic system they apparently know nothing about.
Yea, you heard me. Economic system. Communism has nothing to do with the way a government deals with it's citizen's rights. Commisism is merely an economic arrangement by which everything becomes public property. The government merely manages all aspects of an economy, essentially making the entire populace members of the public service. (Which, kinda has it's own problems, heh, heh...)
I''l give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you're a libertarian, so fine, yea, in your view communism is a bad thing. But it's only the oposite of free market economics. Democracy and communism can coexist quite nicely, it's just that most examples of communist governments slipped into a fascist state of mind.
Democracy and fascism sit on opposite ends of a spectrum, just like communism and free market. Think of it this way: Whenever something is managed by the government, that's socialism. Roads and infrastructure maintenance, medicaid, social security, hell, the military! That is the essence of socialism, not some cold war ideal of lack of basic human rights. Whenever a government pays for something, that's socailism. There's a good synonym for socialism that get used a whole lot more, since it's such a demonized word. Nationalization. Yea, public service.
Beisdes, there are plenty of examples of socialism and democracy working just fine together. Look at the Scandinavian countries, and other western European nations. Hey, cast a glance just north. Yea, your forgotten neighbours, and my home, Canada. We've got a social safety net, universal heatlh care and well susbsidized school systems. We have yet to fall into a fascist state. (And oddly enough, the only ones who have proposed repealing human rights for certain individuals are the right-wing anti-socialism political parties) Oh yea, a really good point on this freedom thing, as the anniversary of it's adoption has just passed. The man credited with drafting the universal declaration of human rights. Do you know from where he hails? Not the USA. No, actually he hails from up here. Yea, Canada, land of evil socialism, the country that has probably done the most for the cause of human rights in the past fifty years.
So much for restricted freedoms...
(/rant warning)
(AC'd 'cause I'm at work, and can't remember my password...)
Internet is just a medium, don't even think about revolutions when the media is owned by the major telecom companies...
Teenagers and political fanatics have turned the Net's public forums on Slashdot into hostile electronic cesspools.
That's what you get for reading Slashdot posts at -1...
Until Katz is willing to accept that no one says brilliant things all the time, then he'll never have the nerve to read the generally higher quality posts ranked 3 and above and ignore everything else.
Evidently you could do enough of the sort of thing you'd do with a crossbow with a long gun that it the difference wasn't fatal to England, and the guns must have seemed gee-wiz modern and cool, at least. But the change in technology didn't really gain anything for the English, beyond the psychological, until guns improved to a point past prior crossbow technology in the 19th Century. The realities in the field remained much the same - except you had to get closer to hit anything with the gun, and it made noise that more easily gave away your position.
So in networked computers we've got this new weapon with which to penetrate people with our ideas. But does it penetrate better than the front page of the Times or a well-printed book? Or is the advantage more purely psychological - "Look, I've got the new thing!"
In any case you've still got to marshall your troops, engage the enemy, retain the support of your hinterland ... and have a strategy that actually can conquer and govern. A change in weaponry doesn't compensate for weakness of strategy and execution, even when the weapons are better. Building a free land is no more a matter of just giving everyone computers than it was of just giving everyone guns.
However, given the right strategy and leadership, computers and guns have their obvious place in social transformation. Since Ashcroft refuses to match gun purchase records with arrested terrorist suspects - claiming that would infringe on gun rights - but wants to closely monitor the Net - it's clear which he and his friends are more scared of. Thinking that a computer is scarier than a gun is about as rational as prefering a musket to a crossbow. Isn't it?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
AOL and MSN are the biggest providers. So they're going to make their home pages the default for their users. Plus, ie makes msn.com the default home page, or at least tries to.
BTW Katz, political revolutionary utopian ideals of freedom and openness in society are not that. They are pipe dreams of self-proclaimed intellectuals. I'm glad they exist, they need to for the general betterment of the world, but let's be realistic. In over 10,000 years of known human history, WHEN have we ever even come close to utopia? You have to agree that utopia would be great, but the human race is currently not capable of creating such a thing with our naturally selfish humanity. After all, democracy and economic free markets thrive solely on the selfish desires of the individual to get what they want. As a group, this provides the usually best compromises between self desires and group needs. It gets skewed when any one individual gains more power. And communism has NOT worked to provide a utopian future - quite the opposite. Ask any Russian, Cuban, or Chinese citizen if they are as rich as the average American citizen. - We're not even a democracy or true free market economy!
Am I supposed to know who Jon Katz is ? I don't and thus many of the ideas he proports are thus true. Perhaps Jon imagined himself as one day being a latter-day Thomas Paine ? Never-the-less, it's a very interesting viewpiont in these trying times; the analogy between the 'birth?' of free media and the birth of the internet. Then again, we all know what happened to the media...
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
is a great book on that time period. It's mostly source texts from the Aurora -- a leading newspaper in the (then) capital of Philadelphia. The editors were arrested under the sedition laws which Adams signed. The book also describes the arguments between the camps of Adams and Jefferson. Paine belonged to the latter. Basically, a populist: he wanted a single house of representatives. In Common Sense he cited many biblical quotes against monarchies. No senate or president. Power to the people. Adams especially hated Paine's polemics against kings, and tried to write his own pamphlet to counteract the politics in Common Sense. He was convinced -- along with Hamilton, Madison, and Washington (our first millionaire) -- that democracy was a horrible form of government, and that the main job of govt was to ensure that the masses don't get powerful, while at the same time preventing a dictatorship. Hence the divide and conquer strategy which is our constitution. As originally implemented, only the House of representatives was elected. The senate was appointed by the states, and the presidency by "electors" who were the "better men" (ie. rich) in each states. In fact, after the revolution, the property requirements for voting in Massachussetts doubled.
So there are these two camps, one side a bit radical and arguing for a popular republic -- the other wanted to model itself on England. Their genius was to involve a large number of common people into the system of govt. -- but with the stakes against them. They gave an outlet for individuals to protest and have some influence, but mostly dealth with the business at hand.
I'd suggest reading Federalist paper no. 10 for Madison's views on keeping "factions" in check. Like it or not, Paine, Franklin, and Jefferson were outmanoeuvred during the earliest and most formative parts of our history. Sure, Paine's Common Sense rallied the troops and Jefferson's speeches moved the tradesmen during the revolution -- but the dominant voices during the constitutional convention belonged to people such as Madison who claimed "[this] country ought to be run by those who own it." Hey...maybe there is an analogy with the internet.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
Focus on the future and dwell not so much on the past.
The Oracle has spoken. That'll be $39.95 deposited into Larry Ellison's account...
That is all.
Sayeth Katz [everything sic, bad formatting artifacts and all]: "Still, I?ve come to trust interactivity and believe in it. A big difference between this culture and the old one is that ideas have to stand the test. And I?d rather write about other things. So I suggested to the Commander that we move this discussion forward by sticking a poll box next to this column, and make me the topic. Let the geeks speak for themselves...Vote to dump the jerk or keep him."
While it could be a glitch, it's hard to imagine a glitch that just loses the anti-Katz votes. It seems like someone doesn't want to let us "speak for ourselves". As Stalin once said, "those who cast the votes determine nothing. Those who count the votes determine everything."
What happened to more than 1500 anti-Katz votes?
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Communism is not the opposite of capitalism; socialism is the opposite of capitalism. Communism is a sociopolitical worldview which incorporates socialism as one of its guiding principles. In the real world, of course, neither absolute socialism nor absolute capitalism works too well -- capitalist transactions take place even in the most officially socialist countries, and even the most laissez-faire capitalist countries (e.g. the US) incorporate some government control of the economy.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I am sure that would be a shock to those folks living in China that were run over by tanks 12 years ago.
I could have sworn those were Chinese tanks, not American, and so not subject to "Congress shall make no law". You learn something new every day.
I'm trying not to make this a flame, or to make it sound like I'm just bad mouthing you, Jon, but I'm not sure you yourself have really participated in the revolution that you're talking about. What do I mean? Let's take a look at this post of yours is an example:
:)
1. You have the unequal ability to post editorials on slashdot, something none of us are able to do, preventing us from presenting different points of view or giving rebuttles that will be given as much attention.
2. We have no real means of responding to your column to you personally, as you do not seem to give out any means of contacting you, such as E-mail (Understnadable, given the flames you'd get, but still)
3. When people respond in the comments section, you rarely respond to other people's comments. For all I know, you may never even read this comment of mine.
What I'm getting at is that you're basically still producing an old media style column that is no different from the kind of features produced by, say, the NY times. There's no interactivity, or real conversation between you and your readers. In fact, there's less of a dialogue than in the print media: at least in a newspaper columnists sometimes respond to comments made by their readers.
If you are, in fact, reading this Jon, my suggestion would be that if you want a new media, you have to make it yourself. Involve yourself in open discussion instead of basically writing a magazine column.
Not a flame, just a thought
Yep.
Short version: I want a lameness filter that eliminates mindless anti-Katz posts.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
You are right! Things like state sponsored internet development, roads, schools, social security, national parks, defense...all socialist evils! Now we're seeing evem more control over our lives via the state (thanks Mr Ashcroft!), I thought only commie countries did that?
Does the American ideal of freedom also carry with it the American ideal that you have no intrinsic worth beyond your fincancial means?
Actually the greatest evil in the world is political absolutists. "Reality Master" needs to get a grip on reality and read less Ayn Rand.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I have always believed that social paradigm shifts are complex creatures. They cannot be facilitated by any technological discovery. To me it is rare for a person to be so inheriently tranformed by a technological invention as to change thier perception of the world and many of thier habits. While the Internet can changed the medium through which we communicate, it has had little effect on what is communicated about. It seems to me that people drastically change thier social actions and their beliefs, not only over a longer period of time, but also when presented with a stark reality than necessitates change. What the Internet has given us is perhaps a medium for social change and increased "radicallism", but not a reason for it. But, I would not be surprised if our country came into some very divisive circumstances that the internet would be a forum for much political debate and pamphleteering.
The web succeeds at instantaneous rabble-rousing; but, as yet, the medium is too physically uncomfortable a read to invest much time with, as one would with a good book. Consequently, Michener's Caravans has the power to instill a much greater understanding of Afghanistan, say, than a whole year surfing cnn.com.
This is why, by giving the average human more information, it wont make them care, just give them more weapons to destroy each other with.
Give bin laden the internet, and he'll learn to make a bomb.
Sadly enough, Bin Laden repsresents the majority of humans, most use the net for porn, games, or email, the rest use it to make bombs, and only 1% use it to actually learn something and out of that 1%, about half of them are forced to do so because of their job, school, etc.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I frequent many web forums and I can tell you that there are Thousands of people out there, sharing information, creating websites, building on each others ideas. People, regular folks, with AOL accounts or Roadrunner cablemodems are enabled by the internet to find information and people with common interests.
And I've found or been informed about many very unique and entertaining sites, put up by people in their spare time, who would definately not have bothered to publish a 'zine or even a pamphlet - which wouldn't have made it to my eyes anyway if it were not for the internet.
It's all relative, and maybe for now it's just a start. I don't post to Slashdot very often (or at all) myself. But I was able to read Your thoughts on this subject, wasn't I? (Most of the time I come to the discussion pretty late and any points I would've wanted to contribute have already been made)
Yes, people are Lazy. The cool thing about the 'Net is that it's easy for even lazy people (like me) to put stuff out there for all to see. Even if the majority of that stuff ends up being pointless and dumb, some fraction of it will shine.
The Net is still young. Lamenting its lack of revolutionariness now is like complaining in 1955 that TV was just radio with pictures.
One way in which the Net will prove revoluntionary, I hope, is in lowering the skeptical boundaries we have all created for ourselves based on the huge cost of checking facts. But as more and more source materials go online, linking becomes possible to make facts asserted checkable at low cost. Therefore I expect beliefs that are true but counterintuitive to resurge based on the change of medium.
This explains, for instance, the online popularity of libertarian ideas. But I am sure there are many other domains of life where most people believe something false, or don't believe anything at all, due to lack of easy access to trustworthy authoritative sources.
the Katz is out of the bag, and can be stuffed back in.
Sometime "we", yes even geeks, label people, others label themselves, thus, I give you this as proof:
Jon Katz, Wired's media critic, can be e-mailed at jdkatz@aol.com.
AOL? Asinine Obsequious Luser(s)...
Mystery solved.
.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Looking back thru history we can see the British Invasion, Hitler, Communisim, and today terrorisim. But long behold, the biggest threat to us always has been and always will be oursleves. Our society is still attacking our individual liberties, and this year far more people died from alchol abuse than from the WTC.
The biggest short term threat is already well entrenched among us, "intellectual properety". Copyrights and patents were never intended to be treated like property, that is why they had strict limitations and expiration dates. Unfortunately today, people are so blinded by the "it's property" propaganda that it leads to things like the DMCA, and business process and software patents. Today it is obvious that they were probably never needed, but up until modern times were tolerable. What if we half to choose between copyrights and the internet? What if we half to choose between copyrights and the bill of rights? Well it's already hapening.
I'd agree that the Internet doesn't change human nature in an significant way. But I disagree that the reason most people are media consumers, rather than producers, is pure lazyness.
I think that many people are simply busy trying to maintain their dwindling standard of living and don't have the energy to act as digital revolutionaries.
When you're struggling to keep your kids fed, clothed and housed, when you're working 3 jobs to pay the rent ( and sharing the space with 3 other families ), being a good digital citizen doens't simply become a low-priority - it becomes absolutley ridiculous.
Jon Katz seems so worried that his new kind of digital citizen will probably not pop up in his lifetime, but he has left out the artificially intelligent digital citizens who are evolving towards full civil rights on a par with human beings and towards superintelligence beyond any human IQ -- the Singularity.
The Cybernetic Economy is about to give (hopefully) all of us a Prosperity Engine based on the ever faster approaching Technological Singularity.
Already the artificially intelligent digital citizens are popping up here and there in such forms as the Mind.VB Artificial Mind in Visual Basic and the Mind.Java port from JavaScript. A whole host of artificial Minds is about to come swarming out of SourceForge. So don't give up hope yet, Jon Katz: All your wildest dreams and then some will soon come to pass.
While what you say is strictly true on paper, I would say that it probably won't work out in practice. For example, it is technically true that socialism is an economic system, and democracy is a political system. But I think it is not possible to separate the economic and political situations of a country (or any other grouping).
For example, the former "Communist countries", which would be more accurately named "really, really socialist countries" could have, in theory, had that level of socialism without a totalitarian political structure. But in practice, the only efficient way for a government to consolidate all of that economic power is to use political power of some sort or another.
Now, of course, you're right that various levels of democracy and socialism can coexist, but I claim that they are not completely independent at all. And I might even go so far as to say that the optimal amount of democracy exists only when there is some level of socialism (like what we have here in the US, e.g.), because in a really free, completely unregulated market, the little man gets pushed out. So it is of course wrong to claim that democracy and socialism are diametrically opposed, as the original poster claimed. But neither are they independent.
Come on, give it up, that's
H.L. Mencken once wrote favorably of predujice (in the sense of being opinionated) because he thought indicated a person cared enough about an issue to give it some consideration.
The above comments and a couple of others make me wonder just how thoughtful consideration Katz engages in.
1. The web will democratize society. Both Cuba society and your average high school student government can conduct wide-ranging, open discussions of issue, but the participants in either have little formal power and I wouldn't call either democratic. In fact, it is the discussion which is cynically used (in both cases) to give the illusion of power, accountability, democracy etc.
2. The rise of corporate power within capitalism has been going on a long time (the legal foundations for it were laid during Reconstruction) and has nothing to do with the Internet (and they don't even coincide historically). Furthermore, moneyed-interest have been corrupting American government since the beginning and before the rise of the modern corporation as even a cursory reading of history reveals.
It is by coff... er, will, alone I set my mind in motion...
You obviously haven't read the fine print yet, have you?
If you had, you'd realize that many of the shiny new powers granted to the Prez, AG, the USAGs, the FBI, and others, have no limits as to their scope. Like in programming, things with global scope tend to cause problems, sooner or later.
Easy examples in U.S. Federal law: RICO statutes, Co-Intelpro, automatic drug-related asset forfeiture laws.
RICO was a good thing that neither sunseted nor was limited in scope. It ended up being applied to cases it wasn't suited for, and it's a very difficult thing to defend against. Enables AGs to say "we believe you've done a bad thing, we don't have proof, but you're going down anyway." Justice, eh?
Much of Bush and Ashcroft's rhetoric presumes guilt before innocence. The new structure of Bush's military tribunals assume that this form of Justice is infallible: As a defendent, you've one turn at bat. If you lose, you have no appeal, even if you received the death sentance. Plus, evidence can be withheld from the defense, and the sessions can be closed, so there's no chance to analyze or debate a ruling. Also, the jury is an empanelment of military law officers -not a jury of peers, not a jury of equals.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
The whole problem with his view was that people would become intelligent and say things others want to hear. If this was the case then every post on slashdot would be a 5. I'm surprised he even thought this could happen. Back when I was in college (88-92), 90% or usenet was absolute crap. This hasn't changed, it has just moved to the web. Microsoft/AOL made internet access easy. It desn't take much to post a web page. This doesn't make them any smarter or their views worth hearing. They are still the morons I avoided before they got on the net. I think Jon's giving the average person too much credit. I had faith that the average person could rise above the general stupidity, but then I realized the forum doesn't matter--most people will rarely change if they don't have to.
Imagine, Katz articles might be transformed into concise, incisive pieces! (Whether the incision would be in the right place is another question entirely.)
I guess I'm seeking nothing less than a transformative revolution of the Katzian oeuvre, an utter obliteration of meaninglessly flowery linguistic conceits, an -- uh oh, I seem to have been infected...
Would that we all had a place where we could just ramble out loud about ourselves and get paid for it.
- I am made of meat.
We have Democracy because Republicanism has lost.
Republicanism (not necessarily the Republican Party) emphasizes the individual. In Democracy, the biggest gang wins. There is nothing moral about it. People team up to get what they want even if it means you suffer.
Practically speaking, in a Democracy, gangs fight each other to get their rules in place. They don't have to be good or moral rules. They can vote to limit speech they don't like. They can vote to take away your property (nationalization). They can force you to support a religion you oppose. It has even been used as an argument for slavery. In the Lincoln/Douglas debates, Douglas argued that the democratic process demanded that each state be allowed to vote on wether or not it would be a slave state.
And what about enforcement? Laws passed aren't advice. The only thing that hides the fact that democracy is gang-warfare is that the fighting most often isn't done by the people voting. They hire someone else to do it (law enforcement).
Consider an issue like social-security. You are forced to support people you don't even know involutarily. You are their slave. Why? Because there are about 30+ million of them. Hey, they wants it, you got it. They dont say please or thank-you.
Democracy can even be like mod rule.
The only thing in the USA that limits this are the individual rights outlined in the constitution and even then the protection is weak.
Filter that!
None of this means that a revolution is not in progress. Have you not seen the evidence already? It's there for those who would look. Already the first shoots of a society based on free information exchange are poking up from the snowfall.
Want evidence? Of course you do - otherwise you wouldn't be reading this in the first place.
Look at the flavor of politics for the early signs. Consider the reason for legislation like the CDA, The DMCA, the SSSCA... Why bother? Well, the short answer is that already the
- missing
revolution is starting to erode the power of those who would rule over us. This frantic legislation, in the USA and elsewhere, seeks to suffocate the very growth of individual liberties that is such a threat to the bodies politic and corporate.It's coming, friends. Don't doubt it.
Have patience.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
I think we need two new moderation categories. "Wrong" and "Stupid" (or "Dumb"). Be nice to be able to apply them to articles too...
i have the perfect gift idea for katz! RIB REMOVAL SURGERY!!!!! not only will he have a more pleasing figure, he will also be able to fold himself in half and blow himself!!! Seriously - why does Katz even have a forum here? This is nothing but shameless self-promotion on his part - it's not even a decent article when read in the context of "it's 1995 - we have no idea where this is going to take us so bear with our ridiculous ideas of what might happen" and you'd have to be stupid to think that the web is going to unite people today(after seeing what joe & jane average truly want - porn, warez, mp3s, flame wars and more porn) Enter "message from kabul" - this had to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on slashdot, or anywhere else for that matter. I've never seen such an obvious work of fiction presented as fact. Slashdot has slowly been morphing into Aint It Cool News(and no, it's not) one Katz posting at a time
*blink* What part of "dictatorship of the proletariat" did you fail to understand?
I'll grant you that in Communist theory, that's only an intermediate stage that's intended to pass away after the dissenters have been, to put it gently, "re-educated".
But in every historical case, this stage has been effectively permanent, and documented as deadly, not just to the economy, but to the citizens (whether dissenters or not) forced to live under it.
Nothing personal, but I'll pass.
I lived through military checkpoints and police blockades for 2 weeks to get into my apartment.
I got there a couple of days after they moved the checkpoints from 14th St. to Canal St. This was lucky, as the only place I had to stay was on Christopher St. When I was there, in the bars between stints of volunteering, I got a very good impression of the people. I already admired New Yorkers, not least because I grew up there. It seemed to me that at that time, most were not in favor of war and would have been opposed to restrictions on civil liberties. Perhaps that has changed.
The group of "well meaning, good intentioned" Americans that only believe that effective policing can occur when the "Cops" are handcuffed and blindfolded.
You don't need to mince words. As one of those people concerned with civil liberties, I am well aware that people think of us as horrible, vicious, anti-American scum.
The trouble is this. When people speak of security, it can mean two things:
When you write "His actions have actually made me feel more comfortable about my situation," you are clearly referring to number 1. I view 2 as being more important than 1. I also think that, in many instances, the sweeping measures taken support 1 at the expense of 2.
This is a fundamental philosophical difference, and I'm well aware that people who are concerned with 2 are a reviled minority. Consider the case of the ACLU pushing so that Nazis could march in Skokie. Most people think that's horrible, because people who are hated by Nazis have a right to feel comfortable. Personally, as someone who is Jewish enough for Hitler and Israel, I want Nazis marching. That's because I want to see and count them. Forcing them to stay in their homes doesn't make them or their hatred vanish, it just allows people to keep their head in the sand. I am well aware that most people consider my perception monstrous.
What concerns me about the recent legistlation is not the ostensible use to track down foreign nationals. Rather, it is the big bunch of riders that have been attached to these bills that grant more surveilance power over civilians. The FBI once got into a little bit of trouble for wiretapping Martin Luther King and about 10,000 other Americans. At the time, that was illegal. Now it would be perfectly legal. All the FBI would have to do is note that there were riots of black people, and that there were some inciting violence (therefore terrorists), and that even though MLK taught nonviolence, he was potentially associated with suspects. You may not care, but I don't think I like that.
Right now, I think that the FBI is too busy to bother too many private citizens much. However, in the past there have been actions on suspected Communists, people who wanted civil rights for black people, pornography, and supposed ritual satanic abuse in day care centers. I'm not sure what the next fad will be, but I'm pretty sure there will be one, and when there is, there will be less oversight. In the words of Spider Robinson, "we may even be making the problem worse, but hey, that's the price we pay for drama."
In addition, I think that, Serpico notwithstanding, the NYC police are pretty good, probably second only to the Austin, TX police. Not everywhere is it like that. There are, for example, the Washington DC police, who were responsible for more than 300 accidental shootings in the first 18 months after the introduction of the Glock 9mm, some in the words of one perpetrator because the cops didn't know not to put their fingers on the trigger unless they wanted to shoot the weapon. There's New Orleans, where one of my friends was hit by a beer bottle thrown from a Police car. I think my trust that they will always do the right thing is far from total.
Having read the rant on Paine and Paine-esque ideas above, I suggest the following: The problem in any communicative media, whether old-school and exclusive, or new-school and inclusive, is people; specifically, in any forum discussion, people will only tune in if they care and only stay tuned in if they WANT to hear what someone else has to say. Even in the new-media www, individuals with an axe to grind will find themselves ignored by the majority. Individuals who don't care enough about current events to participate will remain happily isolated on the parts of the web devoted to _insert preference here_. The notion that people will self-empower recurs in both extreme democratic (Paine-esque, if you will) and communist mythology (the whole notion of the politically aware and active communal citizenry - the "proletariat"). Frankly, in any societal system, most individuals will choose to live their lives in contented, apathetic isolation. And if that is their choice, more power to them. The discussion about what the Net CAN do should be distinguished from what it IS or SHOULD BE doing to society. The Net has nothing to do with human behavior and everything to do with human potential.
Wow, have you applied for employment at Slashdot? Because you'd be a great addition. Thanks.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
A couple things. This is not really a new phenomina. Does the term "millitary industrial complex" ring a bell. Same process.
More importantly, the recent trend of "corporatism" is unlikely to go on much longer. Already you can see the rise of the independent professional, the enterprising individual. I know a lot of corportate people who got their first taste of enterprise and freedom at some now defunct
One associate of mine said he'd have to get a pre-frontal lobotomy before taking another corporate job. Backlash is on the way.
The truth is that corporations are beureaucratic. And because they don't have even the limited accountability/transparency of governments, they tend to be the most inefficient beureucracies around. They waste so much money and time it's rediculous.
And another thing...
What's up with all the pessemism? All the "you can't change people" and "people are going to be consumers no matter what". Come on, people: Cynicism isn't cool. Maybe it's fun to pretend when your a teenager so you can feel grown up, but in real life it's stupid. It doesn't get you anywhere.
People are not by nature consumers. It's just the current situation. Instead of sniping and whining, why don't we try and improve?
Try constructing positive arguments: don't just argue against something without arguing for something else.
Howard Dean for president
Sorry I have a tendency to use bad wording so I take back that particular remark. I'm not going to argue over whose being more violent though - if you ever watch representatives of the two sides argue you'll notice they act like children with most attention paid to finger pointing in a "he started it" manner. I acknowledge there are injustices being commited on both sides.
15 years ago I began studying politics intensely with the notion that there were real answers out there to public policy questions. Actually began my quest trying to figure out why my guy lost the election, I must obviously know something that 52% of the population didn't.
Now, as a PhD in political science I realize how true the following statement is: The fundamental nature of politics is the distribution of resources among people according to ones moral and ethical beliefs.
One can change the mechanisms for obtaining information. One can spend large amounts of money on campaigns, one can wire houses for some sort of electronic democracy. But these are only foolish dances around the core issues. Moral and ethical beliefs do not change significantly for an adult. Societal norms only change with new generations and advances in education and income (which allow individuals more liberty to contemplate instead of planting corn).
Technology will have an effect on politics, but only because it creates wealth and perhaps accelerates the underlying growth in access to education.
Sort of interesting to note that media exposure actually tends to result in more ephemerial political attitudes, not really a more serious contemplation.
It took a long time for the invention of printing to lead to the American revolution's pamphleteering. Paine and related authors were deeply inspired by Milton (see Areopagitica), who lived a century earlier... whose writings came about a century and a half after Gutenberg. Figuring that the Internet is at most 30 years old, the next Thomas Paine might not arise for 220 years, if the timeline is similar. However, a new Martin Luther might be here in just 20 years or so, leading the world out from under corporate, rather than church, dominance. Paul Saffo (Institute for the Future) makes a good case that it always takes technology 20-30 years to go from invention to widespread impact -- things just seem to move faster now. Patience, Jon.
The digital citizen would be smart, civil and rational, outgrowing labels like "liberal" or "conservative", engaged in civics, technology, business and government; transcending dogma and cant. Maybe he or she will pop up, but probably not in my life.
I think there's every bit of evidence that people who meet this description exist today. Mr. Lessig, as an example, would qualify.
I agree that the vision of a world where everyone is like this is unlikely to be met anytime soon. But the fact that every tree in the forest isn't the tree you're looking for does not mean the trees you are looking for do not exist.
The problem with net personalities is that they are essentially pure idealogues. There is none of the courtesy that you find in face-to-face meetings; there is only thought and belief. The emotions that bind together as human beings fade away because they no longer interact; all you have are a billion voices screaming of one belief or another.
Now, whether that's a good or a bad thing depends on the person. Some people need a kick in their belief system, and the Internet happens to supply it. On the other hand, for those already with pretty strong beliefs, it goes too far - and the shouting and "I'm right, you're wrong, why don't you listen to me?" begins.
Yes, the Internet is a billion voices. How to get heard? Start to whisper. In such an environment, a quiet, private voice is more likely to attract attention than the invective Paine was fond of. Whisper... but never go silent.
When you see someone type that way, the first thing that should come to mind is "old-school poser".
- Toby
"You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Katz, and I won't have it! Is that clear? ....It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity. It is ecological balance. You are an old crank who thinks in terms of hardware and software, or rights and privileges. There is no Windows! There is no Linux! There are no third-party systems! There is no EFF! There is no Ashcroft! There is no World Wide Web! There is only one holistic system of systems; one vast, interwoven, interacting, multivaried, multinational dominion of dollars!"
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
That's like suggesting that the Christian Coalition for Family Values actually represents family values or the majority of Christians.
You can name yourself anything you want. Hell, we had a "Reform" party in Canada that got elected into opposition - and even the reforms they could have done from that position (eg, not wasting taxpayers money on a fancy house/limo for the leader of the opposition) were silently ignored.
Just because I call myself a genius doesn't mean I am one.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
They remind me of some of the crap I'd write in my college days at 2:00am when I had to fill ten pages with something before handing in the paper.
... is that the human condition hasn't changed. Even when the outward trappings of our circumstances change, we remain ultimately and finally corrupt and unable to change ourselves. Whittaker Chambers, an American Communist until 1937, understood this.
-- Jim Crigler In 1937, I began, like Lazarus, the impossible return. -- Whittaker Chambers
Any Utopian vision of any invention, Internet or otherwise is the author's "best case scenario" or wish list for that tool. The internet, like any other invention will not bring the perfect society, but it will make life better.
Looking at this article, I asked myself how the net has changed my life.
1. Since the net, I can talk to anyone almost anywhere in the world with little difficulty. Before the net, the only way for me to talk to someone in another country (without knowing them and their phone number ahead of time) was Ham Radio. Ham Radio is still there and is still fun, but the net brings a new way to communicate.
2. Ability to "publish" opinions ala Thomas Paine. The net has given me an avenue to get my opinions on ideas and issues out to the world. Anything from the political issues to Operating Systems. Granted, not every country enjoys this freedom (yet), but the gates have been opened.
3. A way to learn about new (and old) things. I have discovered everything from Linux to TRS-80 Coco emulators on the net -- stuff I never would have found before, except perhaps on a BBS system. Fan Fiction, Fan Sites (everything from J.R.R. Tolkien to Hogan's Heroes are only a Google search away.
There is the "dark side" of the revolution, too, but even that means the Net is changing the world. Things like the DMCA, the law suits against DeCSS, are bad, but it means that the opposition is running scared. Like any revolution, there will be battles won and lost along the way, but I am optimistic that in the long run the good will defeat the bad.
In the meantime we must continue to fight for the Sklyarovs, 2600s, Open Source, against the Bin Ladens, RIAAs, DMCAs, and whatever other battles that come our way on the road to a better future for all.
Beware of Sleestak
First of all, its only voluntary if they won't let you leave. You can leave. Second of all, if you pay social security, you get social security benefits. You're not paying for their support, you're paying for your own.
First, it's voluntary? I'd like to know how to opt out.
Second, you are paying for their support. When you pay social security, that money goes straight out to the people who are currently collecting. The next generation will be paying the current's generation social security (if there are enough of THEM to pay for it).
Another note: It's not just that there are 30+ million of THEM, it's that there are 30+ million of THEM and they VOTE. The AARP is one of the most powerful lobbies out there because their members vote in droves thanks to the invention of the electric golf cart.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
And what exactly might they be ?
There are many different Americas, just as there's actually ANOTHER world out there, that you as a 'controversial' American seem to conviently forget about.
Haven't recent World Events informed you of anything ?
Anyway, that's off subject, you were on the right track until you threw in the useless controvesy.
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
What you say?!
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
...but if you believe that technology is going to have a fundamental effect on human nature, I'm curious to hear what you think drives people. Here's a shot of wisdom that's been around a while:
All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled. (ECCL 6:7)
Technology has had 0 effect (nor will it) on the 'microcode' of the human.
Prediction: even in an "A Gift From Earth" (Niven) situation where life is extended surgically, or even full-on immortality through cloning/mind downloads, human behavior will not alter radically.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
No, you coward, that's TOTALITARISM, not socialism!
Sheesh!
Main Entry: socialism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
You can't take the sky from me...
Sometimes Katz says some stuff you've never thought before. Sometimes he takes off his disguise as Mild Mannered Self-Promoting Tech Pundit and becomes the Awesome Captain Obvious.
:)
The Net has changed a number of things. But the idea that it should have swept away power structures and transformed societies ignores certain fundamental components of human history... little things like the fact that people with money and power and institutions with money and power tend to remain in power. Social mobility, although greater now than in some periods of history, is still a relatively rare occurence.
And the idea that the net would make people more open-minded and more willing to enter free discourse... the limitation here has never been a technical one but rather one of human attitude. The fact that people like to hear from people of like minds and tend to blot out those whom they disagree with is hardly news. That's about as old as human history. It hinges on the insular nature of man and his strong belief in his own rightness and I don't forsee these basic underlying psychological components changing overnight (and the length the Net has been in existence is an overnight in human history and an eyeblink in geologic time).
Technology is a multiplier... if we use it for good, we'll get more good. If we use it for narrow minded or evil purposes, we'll get more evil. It lets more rabbit-lovers meet each other. It lets more pedophiles exchange material. Technology is inherently amoral. It is humans that put it to use. (Oh look, now I'm spouting the obvious too... maybe I should be a columnist...). We should not expect technology to affect vast changes in the landscape of humanity in years or even decades. Yes, some inventions have global impact - the printing press, radio, etc. And they do change the world. But they do so slowly, and in accordance with evolving social, societal, economic and political realities. They do not "sweep away" these realities, they merely apply a filter or a modifier to them. This is where the info-communists always come up short.
Information doesn't really want to be free. It wants nothing. People may want it to be free, but other people whose interests are served by it not being free will continue to want it to be not-free. And unless the provision of such information becomes costless, economic reality will stand against information being free.
The lynchpin in any analysis of how technology or other trends will change things is the underlying mostly invariant (or very slowly changing) human nature. It can change, but pretty slowly. And even in the good times, greed, hate, ignorance, violence, and lust aren't lurking too far away. To be surprised that those in power and those of certain ideologies and special interests tend to each use the net for their own purposes and to be surprised that everything hasn't become techno-utopian suggests a certain ignorance of the human equation's basic factors.
Still, it's fun to read Katz. Even when he's being the Awesome Captain Obvious. He does provoke discussion....
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
I really don't see how the fact that we still have the U.S. Congress changed Mr. Katz's original point. We haven't revolted or amended the Constitution to eliminate Congress, but we keep much better track of what they are doing now than we used to. Several times in the past few years modern communications have brought citizens together to pressure Congress one way or the other, and reversed a previously all-but-certain outcome. Private citizens have a lot more power than they (we) used to. (True, only as long as enough of us agree on something. But that's democracy for you.)
I'd like to give John Katz a bit of hope over this issue, because I wonder whether the Internet has really begun to take off. And when it does many of the problems with the Internet might be corrected to some extent.
Firstly, many of the problems that the Katz finds in the Internet are synonymous with the problems in Western culture. Probably his point is that the Internet hasn't corrected these problems. Yet, this line of thinking is that it still an analysis of the Internet in regards to specific regions or countries.
The Internet has the ability to develop past these tradition geographic problems. It has the potential to be a global medium and foster thinking in a global context.
And this has yet to be realized. Where we may see the real potential of the Internet is where people need it the most. In the world that has long sense been silenced. So I'd ask that we hold judgement on the Internet until the world and not just the West have been given the opportunity to speak with it.
Chile
You can't take the sky from me...
Please make sense.
A situation where the people do not control the means of production (which they do control in capitalism): the means are owned 100% by the rulers
The People are the "demo" in democracy.
In capitalism, CORPORATIONS own and therefore controll the means of production, NOT the people. Corporations are owned by the rich, the rich are a minority. These corporations are more often than not foreign powers who funnel the money out of the country.
The rulers are, in a democratic socialist setting, awnserable to the people, unlike the owners of the corporations in a capitalist setting (and don't say the shareholders have power too, they ARE the owners).
You make no sense Bub, try to see this in a rational way: First, get a dictionary, and read the definitions of Socialism, Capitalism, and Totalitarian (and why not facism while you're at it).
Second, read you post again, and see where you went wrong.
Third, try to imagine for an instant that if you were educated in the US you were subjected to anti-socialism propaganda that has been refined over the last 50 years and that this might affect your understanding of the issue (and since you state that The People control the means of production in a capitalist setting, you clearly don't understand what you're talking about).
I'll stop awnsering to you cowards now, since I'm beginning to repeat myself and you bunch clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Main Entry: 1totalitarian
Pronunciation: (")tO-"ta-l&-'ter-E-&n
Function: adjective
Etymology: Italian totalitario, from totalità totality
Date: 1926
1 a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy : AUTHORITARIAN, DICTATORIAL; especially : DESPOTIC b : of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)
2 a : advocating or characteristic of totalitarianism b : completely regulated by the state especially as an aid to national mobilization in an emergency c : exercising autocratic powers : tending toward monopoly
Now say it with me boys:
Socialism regimes are not by definition totalitarian.
Totalitarian regimes can and often are capitalist regimes.
And write a hundred times:
I will look up words in the dictionary before I go around explaining them.
You can't take the sky from me...
We have similar person here in Afghanistan, he was shot in our soccer stadium. He has prophecised about computers linking all. I cannot wait until I can pamphlet for RAWA on my C64 and ending world hunger with mouse clik. Internet is GREAT!!!!! junis
Internet is Great!!! junis
Changing the social and political structure of the world just might take longer than six years.
Democracy and communism can coexist quite nicely, it's just that most examples of communist governments slipped into a fascist state of mind.
There is a reason why communist governments *always* slip into fascism. It's about property. Property is a form of power. As long as I have my property (including money), I have a certian amount of leverage that I can use to get what I want or what I need. When I have no property, I am dependant on whomever is in control of the "stuff" to dole out to me what I want or what I need. That person, or group of people, now has an unbalanced and unilateral means on power ovr everyone else. Power corrupts, and aboslult power corrups absolutly. When you give a small group of people total power to affect other people, they will become corrupt. If every single one of those people is good, then you can hold the system in place, but all it takes is *one* bad seed, and the entire house of cards collapses. One corrupt person can meet out the better goods and services for "his group" of people in order to overthrow those who share power with him but don't share his goals.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Mere "like-mindedness" does not preclude significant differences of opinion. In fact, sometimes the most useful discussions happen among people who share a common framework, rather than people from different frameworks, whose arguments, past each other in most cases, are ultimately about the frameworks themselves.
The global or national scaled "commonality" that Katz seems to envision is neither possible nor desirable. But the ability of people now to look for, join and form discussion groups based on "commonalities" of their own definition and their own choosing will continue to be an ever more powerful social and political force.
----------
Manifesto for the Peoples of the Third Millennium
Eh; That's why you become a socialist libertarian.
The sites katz was bitching about included slashdot, directly, allong with CNN and some others. The orgional poster seemed to be saying that FreeRepublic.com was some sort of haven for open thinking or something.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Whenever something is managed by the government, that's socialism.
Oh, dear (groan).
No, socialism is NOT state-ownership - some socialists would abolish the state entirely, and have all economic enterprises managed by the employees (as worker co-ops, perhaps, though there are other possibilities). A totally free market, without any government ownership, is compatible with *some* versions of socialism.
Socialism is extremely broad, and contains within its ranks contradictory positions - just like many other political (and social) movements. In fact, it has long since split up into distinct groups, each still claiming in various ways to be the heirs of early 1800s socialism.
They often have in common some kind of critique of modern Western capitalist society, with a desire to bring about a more rationalistic, or idealistic, or democratic alternative (state ownership being one of the alternatives proffered) - but it is impossible to spell out *the* socialist critique, or *the* socialist alternative...just like you cannot spell out *the* Republican view of school prayer, or *the* Christian view of the papacy.
There are more than one.
I am anarch of all I survey.
Government should have no say on what is or is not moral. Remember kids, the government is the enemy - our founding fathers knew that. The system is designed with checks and balances to make sure they can't fuck up the good things in life too quickly.
I know you're old; I know you're scared of people; but if you think the government is moral (obviously according to *your* set of moral values) then you are plainly delusional. Right now GW is milking this terrorist attack for as much as he can - just look at how little he consults congress and claims that nearly everything can be defined under "executive power" and national security. Secret military tribunals with broad definitions; the power to negotiate trade (passed by 1 vote) - he's bullying his way to more power, and the scary thing is we don't know why. This is the same man who, while trying to gain the support of Muslim nations, used the phrase "crusade against terrorism?" Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick. I might as well move to Canada.
Re-elect Gore in 2004!
-Cop
Wow, I didn't know that people working for the governement are always forced to do so at gun point! Thank you for educating me.
And I didn't know that socialism meant "left-wing facism", oh, the learning I do here! I was stupidly believing it meant "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods".
But now I know better, it actually means "a system in wich mean mean people force to you to do stuff at gun point in a mean way because they are mean", so educational.
Ah, its fun to know that all governments are blood thirsty tyrants, it makes me all warm inside to be so freed of my illusions.
"Emotionaly potent oversimplification"
Oh look, I quoted the left-wing hitler! Ooooh!
Ah, I know I said I wouldnt awnser to cowards on this subject anymore, but I had to repeat my point, just for the vague hope that you'd actually read it and think about it for a second:
Socialism is no more evil than capitalism, its an economic system, nothing more.
-socialism-, not "mean fascist tyranny", so-cia-li-sm. Say it with me now: sooo...ciaaaa...liii...sm. see, doesn't even remotly sound sound like "left-wing despotic tyranny", not even close.
But that might be a notion to complex for you, I'll leave you to your simple thoughts of right and wrong (things like you = right, things not like you = wrong).
and once more, with feeling:
"Emotionaly potent oversimplification"
I love that quote
You can't take the sky from me...
Main Entry: 1totalitarian
Pronunciation: (")tO-"ta-l&-'ter-E-&n
Function: adjective
Etymology: Italian totalitario, from totalità totality
Date: 1926
1 a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy : AUTHORITARIAN, DICTATORIAL; especially : DESPOTIC b : of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)
2 a : advocating or characteristic of totalitarianism b : completely regulated by the state especially as an aid to national mobilization in an emergency c : exercising autocratic powers : tending toward monopoly
Note the word "autocratic".
You can't take the sky from me...
LOL
HAHAHahahaHAHAHahahahaHAHAHa!
Chumpsky's stalinistic rants are full of emotionally potent oversimplifications, bigoted accusations, generalizations, and even pinches of anti-semitism
Hihihi!
You can't take the sky from me...
The videogames thing is a good example of why socialism sucks. You said capitalism is great for videogames. In the free market, you can write and sell video games: the only people making the decisions are those who write them and those who might buy them. This is as it should be. However, in socialism, the government makes the decisions about the videogames.
See, you keep using fallacies.
In videogame devellopement the people who make the decisions are the publishers, the people who write them do so only in the limits imposed by their autocratic rulers, and the people who buy them only get to choose between what the publishers offer.
The government also uses cencorship laws to prevent some freedom being applied, whether in a socialist of capitalist setting.
And stop speaking about "the government" as if its some alien entity.
Although I still say that videogames exist only because the capitalist setting is there for them to be develloped in, and I think its a good thing.
But at least we're making progress, we've gone from "socialism is the second greatest evil the world has ever known" to "socialism sucks".
:)
You can't take the sky from me...
My point is, that a totalitarian regime has by definition an autocratic leader or hierarchy.
A socialist regime, however, does not.
See, separate things, not the same notion, idependant ideas.
So, stop saying that they one and the same, they are not.
Is that so hard to understand?
Socialism is not the same thing as totalitarian.
2 separate words, 2 separate concepts.
A socialist state can be totalitarian, but its NOT THE SAME FREAKING THING! They can be democracy, or a monarchy or whatever! Sheesh!
You can't take the sky from me...
Order arises out of chaos: emergent properties.
I didn't say there was no good and evil, only that they are just points of view. I hold to a point of view that killing is evil, so I don't do it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I'm talking about the majority.
And theres nothing i can do to make other people think a certain way, or enlighten people who dont want to be enlightened.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Just because i think something is cool doesnt mean everyone else does.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
There's nothing about a corporation that's inherintly wasteful or beurocratic, and certainly nothing inherently evil. I work for a non-bankrupt tech company -- one of the best jobs I've ever had. My coworkers are clued -- hell, even the management is clued. I've come up with ideas for software to implement internally and been given the resources to actually implement it more than once; there's nothing stifling freedom there.
Yet, the company is organized as a corporation.
I've worked both for the government and for corporations, and in my experience the (better) corporations are far, far more efficient than the government. Why? Because they actually need to produce something the public believes is worth more than their money. Let's see modern government try to do that.
First off, Win3.x was never an OS. It was a GUI over top of MS-DOS, which was the OS.
The big deal, however, is that MS-DOS was a client OS. Microsoft didn't have a large share of the server market, which at that point, still had a population of mainframes (rumor is...WinNT is based on VMS/CP... I don't know if there's any truth to that) or was mostly Unix machines. There were apples running as file and print servers, but for the most part, MS products were not that well networked, even in the days of Windows for Workgroups.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
...here I thought Gore won the vote by 200,000 AND the figure you are talking about is old. The "latest, greatest" independent study suggested that a full and total recount of Florida would have yielded the presidency to Gore. Move along now.