Slashdot Mirror
J. P. Barlow — Internet Has Broken the Political System
MexiCali59 recommends an account up at Hillicon Valley on a speech by John Perry Barlow to the Personal Democracy Forum in New York. "The deluge of information available on the Web has made the country ungovernable, according to EFF co-founder John Perry Barlow. 'The political system is broken partly because of Internet,' Barlow said. 'It's made it impossible to govern anything the size of the nation-state. We're going back to the city-state. The nation-state is ungovernably information-rich.' ... Barlow said there is too much going on at every level in Washington, DC, for the government to effectively handle everything on its plate. Instead, he advocated citizens organizing around the issues most important to them. 'There is a circle of fat around the Beltway that is incredibly thick. We can no longer try to run this country from the center. We've got to run it, just like the Internet, from the edges.' Barlow also said that President Barack Obama's election, driven largely by small donations, has fundamentally changed American politics. He said a similar bottom-up structure is needed for governing as well. 'It's not the second coming, everything won't get better overnight, but that made it possible to see a future where it wasn't simply a matter of money to define who won these things. The government could finally start belonging to people eventually.'"
The government of the United States was never supposed to be the top heavy behemoth it is today. At the time our nation was formed, the states of our federation were intended to be much more autonomous - for exactly the reasons outlined in the article.
Local issues and positions can't be handled fairly from a central authority. A country this big just can't be homogeneous enough for that to work.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
There's too much information available to people! It makes them harder to govern! By golly, when people UNDERSTAND our Policies and can see ALL of our platform, it sure does make it hard to make them like us! When people can actually review what we've done without relying on the news centers, how do we keep up the lies? We're doing our best to keep them as uneducated as possible, by failing to properly support the school system, but they seem to be teaching themselves how politics work by discussing it with other people!
Oh the humanity! What ever will us political figures do if we can't keep the sheep acting like sheep!
...politicians can no longer get away with the same bullshit they once did. Imagine if the Internet was around during Nixon's days, or World War II. Things would have been extremely different.
Politicians have always lied...the difference is that the common person can now find proof about it in a matter of seconds with a single Google search.
Living With a Nerd
President Barack Obama's election, driven largely by small donations, has fundamentally changed American politics.
As long as he doesn't start governing according to what the polls want, he will be one of the most credible Presidents we've ever had because of his funding.
The Beltway has lost touch with the rest of the country. They have their own aristocracy of power and their goal is to stay in their cushy overpaid jobs and retire very rich. The internet will break up that political aristocracy and make them more accountable to the people.
"We can no longer try to run this country from the center. We've got to run it, just like the Internet, from the edges."
Up to a point. Exception - Arizona's new immigration law that gives way too much power to local police and tramples our Fourth Amendment rights - what's this BS about "proving" I'm a citizen and "proving" that I'm innocent? You're brown? Gotta be an illegal! Off to jail!
"Google’s capacity to control human thought makes the Catholic church jealous, I bet," Barlow said. "They wish they’d thought of it."
Huh? That makes no sense. Google controls human thought as much as the Encyclopedia Britannica did when I was a kid.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Barlow also said that President Barack Obama's election, driven largely by small donations
Obama's election wasn't driven by "small donations". It was driven by the fact that the country was sick of GWB and the GOP. Any Democrat not named Jane Fonda would have won in 2008. Obama's fund-raising achievements were very impressive but I wouldn't credit them with securing his victory.
Timing is everything in politics. If John McCain had beaten Bush in 2000 he would have gone on to be President (and the last eight years would have been very different, but that's another discussion). If Obama had run in 2004 he would have gotten creamed.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"Google’s capacity to control human thought makes the Catholic church jealous, I bet," Barlow said. "They wish they’d thought of it."
I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how exactly Google is controlling my thoughts. Sure, I use google, and gmail, and I have a Droid... how does that equate to controlling my thoughts? Maybe they have unique access to my thoughts, as written down, but that is a far different thing than control.
File this one under Rant/Drug Induced/EFF Nonsense
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
the problem with the "destroy government" crowd is that we need strong regulations for something like the economy to work. since 1994 when the republicans took over congress, we have systematically taken away governmental regulatory powers over the economy and wall street. the result is the financial meltdown in 2008
so obviously, we need a strong central authority to monitor and control the economy to keep it healthy. the libertarian myth of unicorns and leprechauns and a marketplace which regulates itself is factually and historically false, just study the banking panics of the 1800s and why we had the great depression in the 1930s: this what you get with a marketplace that is not regulated. the natural state of the marketplace is manipulation of the market by its largest players (corporatism) and constant bubbles and pops (greed, then fear and panic: all you need is simple human psychology for that). the libertarian myth of a level headed marketplace of equals is mythmaking, not reality
that being said, there are plenty of areas of bloat where the government can and should be downsized. its just that i see no intelligence in the "destroy government" crowd, just a lot of people with an almost religious fanaticism to the idea of small government, ready to hack away at everything. we need intelligence on the issue: WHERE do we cut, because obviously we don't cut everything, especially with the need for the strong regulation of the economy
to deny that is to simply stand in complete denial of what 14 years of deregulation of the economy wrought in 2008
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The real power of democracy is overthrowing the veil of pretend democracy, which advocates ignorance to a sub-par governance system.
I will bend like a reed in the wind.
Sounds like he's complaining that the Internet has made the central government more democratic. This doesn't require that we govern more at the local level (although we could). It just means the old regime that could control the central higher-level government won't function efficiently because the masses are now capable of being more involved.
The Internet has increased the democratic nature of government. This doesn't necessarily make the job harder, just different. The large central government now must function more like the smaller local governments for which he is advocating. Makes his "solution" seem unnecessary.
Corporate greed and the ease for them to "purchase" government officials, the total lack of oversight in spending and operation, ignoring the will of the people and doing whatever the f*ck the governments wants, the constant blaming the "other" party for any problems, trying to fix things and sway the people with marketing instead of any actual actions, the corruption (Sure BP is at fault for the oil spill, but wasn't our government supposed to make sure they were in compliance? Oh that's right, it's just cheaper to buy them off with hookers and cash. Gotta keep the share holders happy.), becoming so large that it's just utterly inefficient to run has made the country ungovernable...
There, fixed that for you.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
the idea that the government created the greed in the hearts of bankers is obviously false, but it is more disturbing that so many people like yourself think that the banks needed government encouragements to act greedily
the community reinvestment farce is indeed a misstep by the government, and was wrong, and contributed to the 2008 meltdown, absolutely. but it is no more than propagandistic alternative reality mythmaking to believe this is the causative agent of the meltdown in 2008. do you do not see that it merely enabled simple human greed? it scares me about you and anyone else who believes this nonsense
"If the Federal government had stayed out of it, it wouldn't have happened."
you really believe that? you really believe a marketplace without regulation functions better?
at best, you can say government missteps hurt, and that the government needs better policy. but please don't tell me you actually and honestly believe that no government regulation somehow results in healthier marketplaces. if you honestly believe that, i really fear for this country, that somebody can be so deluded
please read up on economic history. please educate yourself about how the economy actually hurts. please admit to yourself that the marketplace's greatest enemies to stability and health are NATURAL enemies (manipulation by large players, simple human psychology of greed and then fear and panic). please wake up from the propaganda
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Ironic how The Peoples' Republic of America has been found "ungovernable" and surprise, surprise: the answer is governing at the STATE level! It's almost as if this guy is channelling the Founders.
No, we simply don't believe that it was greedy bank behavior that cause the meltdown. It was government-provided immunity. Nobody had to care about the credit quality of mortgages--they were Fannie Mae insured!
yes, the feds forgot to lock the doors. which allowed the robbers to steal the loot. so you blame the feds, and give the robbers a pass! and then, you conclude that the real solution to the robbery is to take off the doors entirely!
Attempting to choose what is good for us ranges from bad to disastrous...
the regulations don't tell you how to live your life, fool. the regulations simply prevent you from committing crimes. duh. is it your assertion that if we had no laws against mugging and no police to stop muggers that no one would get mugged? then why the hell do you believe that an unregulated marketplace will have no crimes committed? why are you so daft? ...often because the regulators become pawns of the regulated.
on this part i agree with you 100%. so it is my assertion that we should get the graft and corruption out of the police department. meanwhile, you assert we should get rid of the police department!
what the hell is wrong with you?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The thing that Barlow fails to understand is that the country was never well run from the center, even before the Internet. Most of the problems in this country are a result of attempting to run nationally things that are best run locally.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The country is not "becoming more polar every day". Read a little history...it is and always has been polar. That is a strength, not a weakness. Diversity, right?
Also, the logic of the article is flawed. Study after study has shown Obama's primary funding was not some unprecedented tidal wave of small donors: Wall Street and large corporate donations made Obama's advantages. Wall Street because they knew they were going to need bailing out (in all sense of the word) and large corps because large corps love large government.
That said, I like the conclusion...less central government, more distributed decision-making. The change from a decentralized, Jeffersonian ideal to the current near-DC-opoly occured in fits and starts, it did not happen simply when the Federalists "won". And it really gained its momentum when the Democratic Party was founded - explicitly by the way - to use tax money to get elected (and pay off) politicans who would avoid bringing up issues that might lead to the defeat of slavery. The "spoils system" as centralized government was openly called at that time, was the primary tool the newly founded Democratic party used to reward politician to stay quiet on the slavery issue.
How the Democratic party manages to spin themselves as the friend of black people is amazing to me. First they fight against outlawing slavery, to the point of nearly destroying the country, then they re-enslave millions of blacks with government "benefits" programs that also destroy the family structure, and support abortions which overwhelmingly destroy black babies (20 million-ish so far?). No wonder liberals fought so hard to control the educational system: no honest reading of history could lead you to think Democrats want anything other than total control over the black population.
I have to hand it to Democrats and the liberal machine...they've pulled off a massive marketing coup.
Protecting and enforcing the values upon which the nation was founded does not require massive micro management.
(emphasis mine)
That does mean bringing back slavery, as slavery was a core institution at the time the US were founded. Too often people say "but it's not in the constitution!" either as a knee-jerk reaction or as a weak attempt to say that something is not permissible. How about instead of talking about the constitution all the time we have a real debate?
What bugs me is that so much of the so-called "states rights" movement is nothing more than a series of pick-and-choose ideas. We don't want federal programs (except Medicare! And agricultural subsidies! And small-business loans!) We don't want the federal government involved in schools (but we want school prayers! And no evolution!) We don't want environmental regulations (but now the Louisiana governor wants the government involved in cleaning the oil spill!) And on and on and on... The constant whining for small government has little credibility anymore.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
Your post pretty much consists of worthless ranting but one term caught my eye: corporate anarchists. I've heard people use it before but what on earth does it mean? There is no wikipedia entry on it. Can you define it? And if you can't, why are you using it?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Sen [Name] is an opportunist, who's got a real talent for [talent]. But he and his [party affiliation] buddies have broken the political system. Because they hate [something important]. They're [vitriolic adj/noun combo], hiding behind the brand name [political adjective].
FTFY
Wow. Somebody's been drinking a big helping of Ma Pelosi's Pot & Kettle Kool-Aid. In slightly modified form (name, party, adjectives), your remark can easily apply to 90% of the politicians in Washington. Take the blinders off.
we both agree on that
i believe the solution is to clean up the government
why do you believe that the solution is to get rid of the government?
bad regulation compounds an existing problem. you believe bad regulation is actually the source of the problem. this is like saying that if the police didn't have corrupt officers that no one would get robbed. hilarious!
you're daft, you're insane, you are hopelessly propagandized
please try to understand that having no regulations is far, far worse than whatever problems we have. really. take your kneejerk blinders off for once and examine the simple truth, please
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the text of Mr. Barlow's speech - but the part cited by the author doesn't inspire confidence in his insight. California's issues are a microcosm of the federal problems, exacerbated by the initiative process. The state has become governed by mass vote via initiatives. In effect, every single person has become a special interest, or at the least easily manipulated by them. That process is not dominated by the net, thought it has slightly worsened the severity of the problem. With initiatives having hamstrung the budget process, the government is unable to flex the budget to accommodate economic reality, or reduce a budget bloated with special interest projects without now cutting vital services. "The Edge" isn't the answer, it is a large part of the problem. The reason we have a representative government is that the people who created the Constitution saw that what was needed was people who could look at the overall picture and set priorities and see them through. We need to do what the founders expected of us, elect intelligent people of good conscience with the courage to set priorities and actually make decisions regardless of the consequences to their political future. This is true at both the state and federal level. Too often, we elect people based on a beauty contest, asking too few questions and demanding too few answers, and then we fail to let them do the job we elected them to do. Governance from the "Edge" would be a surrender to chaos.
Why do we need statesman to be held in high regard? They're human, just like the rest of us. Some may like to surf p0rn or diddle the occasional intern. I elect my representatives to handle my affairs in the capitol. Not because they are better people than I. But because I'm too busy doing other things. Same reason I pay someone to mow my lawn.
The whole idea that politicians' words are worth more than that of the average citizen was just an excuse for them to manipulate the system for their own gain. "Trust me. I know better than you." is just a line of bullshit employed by every confidence artist in the business.
Have gnu, will travel.