Slashdot Mirror
CNET Interviews John Perry Barlow
slothdog writes: "CNET has published an interview with John Perry Barlow. He talks about the evils of corporate totalitarianism (Microsoft, et al), the tech industry implosion, and the DMCA."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
As a self confessed libertarian, it's odd now that he's talking about the dangers of a free market economy. A place where corporations can run rampant, free of the restrictions of legislation.
Maybe he's come to realise that, yes, we do need Government. We do need a protector of our basic rights. It's a shame George W. doesn't look like the man to do it.
-- Huh, what?
Suppose it is economically helpful to manipulate your stories for the purpose of attracting slashdot eyes. This would mean that slashdot's readership is manipulating the press. But there's more.
Eventually, non-slashdot readers would find themselves innundated by exactly the material that slashdot readers wanted to see. I expect the result would be the majority of these non-slashdot readers aligning their opinion with the slashdot faction (if it's said/written enough times, it must be true!).
This seems pretty far-fetched, but maybe the computer/technical world is 1) cliquish enough and 2) so sheep-like that it could happen. However, I expect that editors don't conciously try to create stories which attract slashdot readers. I think publishing firms prefer to take their bribes up front.
-Paul Komarek
This is precisely correct. Any group or person with absolute (or close to absolute), centralizing power must be democratically accountable to the people. However, simultaneously, we have to beware a centralized government that becomes too big, and thus too resistant to the voices of the people. A new check-and-balance needs to be created.
I favor the creation of a _third_ power force in the US and around the world: An augmenting governance mechanism coming straight from the people, using Internet technologies as a catalyst and ballot initatives as a basis. A deliberative, meritocratic assembly of the people who continuously make nonpartisan, legally binding decisions based solely on the merits of individual issues (but also don't trample individual freedom) is what's called for.
While this form of "more direct" democracy would appear to serve only as a check on our elected representatives, it also serves as a check on the overextending of corporate interests. For example, an assembly of citizens can very well decide to deliberate and vote on a resolution to boycott a company's products and then execute that without creating law, as boycotting is already a derivative right of all citizens in a free society.
The bottom line is that the people themselves have to start taking more direct action (either individually or collectively) against the centralized forces that menace them. Yes, it may seem to make more sense for the government to solve all or most of these issues. But if we allow government alone to work to protect us from corporatist control, then we end up with a government that's too big to not only be ineffective in protecting us, but also becomes a nasty, over-taxing, repressive bully itself.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist