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.'"

20 of 773 comments (clear)

  1. Broken? More like fixed. by JesseL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!"
    1. Re:Broken? More like fixed. by drachenstern · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly! Anybody with modpoints mod this shit up. That's exactly what Jefferson and his crew were all about! They had seen what it meant to rule an empire from a central seat, and they knew it wouldn't work.

      --
      2^3 * 31 * 647
    2. Re:Broken? More like fixed. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sounds exactly like "Small Government." It's not helping that this country is becoming more and more polar every day.

      I had the opportunity to meet some Europeans while traveling and they asked me what I would fix, and I want to go back to states rights.

      I explained it like this: Would you, in Sweden, approve of someone in Portugal being able to set laws that regulated what you did?

      More or less we have extreme right and extreme left coming out and people starting to side with either of them. So instead of everyone being happy we end up with two parties that absolutely hate each other.

      If hard core christian states in the south want to abolish abortion, have a 0 tolerance drug policy, etc. Let them. But there is no reason that they should be able to tell a Californian that they can't do that. Hell Colorado, Cali, and numerous other states are on the verge of all out legalizing marijuana, but it's the feds that are stepping in saying "Nope. Because we say so".

      Every state has the right to set their own drinking age, but the feds are blackmailing them into making it 21. Even so, every state has its own liquor laws. Stores in SC close at 7 pm, with only beer available at gas stations after that. Illinois, no one cares. Indiana is closed on election day and Sundays.

    3. Re:Broken? More like fixed. by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And what will you do when some of these localities start bringing back segregation, or other policies abhorrent to the nation as a whole? The federal government needs to be able to protect the rights of citizens across the country. That's how it got to be this way in the first place. Expecting people to uproot their lives and move to a different locality that respects them isn't a reasonable fix.

      If you find that the federal government needs more power, amend the Constitution to grant those powers. Anything else violates the 10th Amendment.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:Broken? More like fixed. by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      The founders tried the setup where the central government had virtually no power at all (the Articles of Confederation). That central government was so powerless that it had no armed forces to speak of (it could politely ask the states for one), no power to tax (it could politely ask the states for cash), and not much of anything by way of administrative bureaucracy. This generally didn't work because the states regularly flouted the national government and didn't care about the strongly worded letter they might get in return.

      After it became clear that the Articles of Confederation weren't working, they got together and drafted the Constitution. And precisely the arguments about strong-federal-government versus strong-states-and-localities created the beginnings of American political parties (the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists - later Democratic-Republicans). George Washington and John Adams had different views on this one than Thomas Jefferson. So no, it's not clear how "top-heavy" the US government was supposed to be, because no one ever really agreed on it.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:Broken? More like fixed. by Boronx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's what Jefferson and his crew were about, but they lost and the other guys won. If it wasn't clear then, it certainly was after Lincoln

    6. Re:Broken? More like fixed. by epiphani · · Score: 5, Informative

      The growth of government is directly tied to the growth of corporations. If you consider governments and corporations in the same category, here are the top 20 by revenue:

      US (Federal)
      Japan
      Germany
      France
      China
      Italy
      UK
      Brazil
      Canada
      Royal Dutch Shell
      Exxon Mobil
      Spain
      Netherlands
      Wal-Mart
      Russia
      Australia
      Saudi Arabia
      BP
      Norway
      Sweden

      Now, tell me, if BP had been at the top of this listen, what would have the outcome of this current situation have been? Or a better question: what would Nigeria be able to get BP to do about a disaster like this, given the entire budget of their government is half of BP's annual profit.

      While corporations exist in their current form, governments must always exist that are larger. Otherwise we're _really_ screwed.

      --
      .
    7. Re:Broken? More like fixed. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you'd be okay if the south brought back slavery?

      No, because slavery is expressly prohibited by the Constitution. That's what we're talking about. The Federal government should be restricted to what is actually written in the Constitution. You really, really need something that's not in the Constitution? Amend it. That's what we did about slavery.

    8. Re:Broken? More like fixed. by Em+Emalb · · Score: 5, Informative

      So you'd be okay if the south brought back slavery?

      Having lived in "the South" my entire life, every time I see someone ask this question it makes me want to scream.

      What the fuck do you think is keeping people "down here" from keeping slaves? Laws? Bullshit. How about it's morally extremely disfuckingtasteful and something that is a stain on the history of our country?

      How about that people and their morals change?

      How about common decency and respect exist down here in the "backwards as shit" south that a lot of people seem to think is one step away from becoming a bunch of drooling breeding idiots? Christ, people, WE'RE THE SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE. WTF?

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    9. Re:Broken? More like fixed. by node+3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And what will you do when some of these localities start bringing back segregation, or other policies abhorrent to the nation as a whole?

      I will move to a state that better fits my needs and beliefs. Or just go down the street and spend my money elsewhere.

      That's not as simple as you make it sound. Friends, family, schools, kids, jobs, money, opportunity. These things all have to be in alignment in order to simply "up and move" to a more agreeable state. If <insert southern state here> were to reinstitute segregation, do you think all the people affected or offended by this would be able to, or should be expected to, uproot their lives like that and move?

      It's absurd to expect people to move from state-to-state like they are simply not stopping at BP ever again.

    10. Re:Broken? More like fixed. by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If we find that the Feds need to do more, amend the Constitution!

      Now why would you go through that silly process when you can claim that it's a "living document" instead?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:Broken? More like fixed. by azmodean+1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In what world does the activities of a multinational corporation NOT include "interstate commerce"?

    12. Re:Broken? More like fixed. by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In fact is was Jefferson himself who killed it. His idea was to limit the federal government only to actions specifically allowed in the constitution, as would seem natural from the 10th amendment. However, while he was president, an excellent opportunity came up to buy a bunch of land west of the Mississippi. Napoleon wasn't going to wait all day for his money, so Jefferson bought the land despite the fact that land purchase wasn't a power granted to the president in the constitution. His plan was to buy it, then amend the constitution retroactively, but his supporters convinced him not to, because it might look bad for the upcoming elections.

      And thus Jefferson was the first to demonstrate that in practical matters limiting the government to just the constitution isn't as easy or as good as it sounds in theory.

      --
      Qxe4
  2. Oh noes! by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:Oh noes! by jgagnon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem isn't too much information, it is too much disinformation. People, in general, are too quick to accept something they read as true, especially if it is repeated elsewhere. Repeating information (good, bad, and ugly) is what the Internet does best.

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
  3. Re:I think what he means is... by MrEricSir · · Score: 5, Informative

    But they can also find the opposite. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it factual.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  4. election != fund-raising by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. yes and no by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  6. Only *my* kind of small/big government by Atmchicago · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Barlow's a Republican by john82 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.