<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=us-ascii" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Roland Perry wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In message <F9A5545095B749C0A18CABB699E483FD@userPC>, at 05:28:08 on
Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Michael Gurstein <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com"><gurstein@gmail.com></a> writes
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Well, as Margaret Thatcher (in)famously said at one point, "there is no
society" (and thus presumably no "social/public interest") and then she and
her accolytes proceeded to ensure through policy and process that her wish
was made flesh to the continuing detriment of all.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have
been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the
government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a
grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're
casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no
such thing as society."
So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or not
people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in their
adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the current USA
healthcare debate.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
How we see it greatly depends on whether one sits over decades and
generations of structural advantages, built often through through
unjust and even illegal means, or whether one is at the wrong end of
socio-economically exploitative structures. I think it is too easily
assumed that all of us who do not need these 'magic crutches' are
somehow special and we deserve what we have, and those who do not have
all what we have deserve it too. Thats an ideology. And there is
another ideology opposed to this one which believes that there is at
present large scale social injustice which has to be corrected by
strong positive measures for social justice - which often involves
redistributive measures which you call as 'magic financial crutch'. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments got
themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the perceived ills
on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe the current mechanisms
were failing their collective citizens?
</pre>
</blockquote>
or maybe the question is<br>
<br>
How many on the list believe that the Internet, in the directions that
it is taking, may exacerbate entrenched structural advantaged and
disadvantages, It is therefore important to have pulbic interest
policies to ensure "realization of internationally agreed human rights,
social equity and
interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic
development" (from IGC's charter). And such policies are only possible
if there are adequate public policy mechanisms, and therefore such
mechanisms should be organised as soon as possible before it is too
late. Obviously governments will have to play an important in any such
mechanisms, but these mechanisms should be much more widely
participative, follow global HR and other socio-political norms, be
based on clearly articulated principles (constitutionalism) and not be
ad-hoc, transparent and involve a strong role of civil society
organizations. <br>
<br>
<br>
BTW, would like to have an IGC vote between the two propositions. We
can propose a question - which of the two formulations in your view
more correctly describes the situation vis a vis the current evolution
of the Internet, need (or not) for public policies, and the role of
governments in this relation. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:$hQPRxWsseRLFALv@perry.co.uk" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is most of the IG debate in a nutshell.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>