Paul,<br>I don't see how the argument you so extensively devoted yourself to make (and with which I agree) is pertinent to the issue pointed out by Sonigitu. <br><br>"No
matter how dedicated a tiny minority might be in not using contracts
(and thus the contract laws of some country or place) <b>they will still
claim the legal right to the ownership of their own server, or their
own computer, thus implicating the property laws of some country</b> or
place, even if this tiny few refuses other legal structures like
internet commerce with its contracts and terms of service with Visa,
MasterCard, PayPal, or the like. Even this tiny minority on the
internet will still claim, very likely, some kind of right to be free of
basic denial of service attacks, and so forth."<br><br>It seems the issue lies here. Implying legal right to ownership of physical goods (especially is immovable) might be said to be inevitably tied with the property laws of some country. But what about the legal rights to ownership of intellectual property? <br>
<br>"there are always "background" laws from some country or
jurisdiction that structure transactions involving the internet."<br><br>I believe what Sonigitu, along with others in this list, is pointing out is that the US Congress, when faced with the choice of whether to make US law influence to a higher or lower degree the "transactions involving the internet" in ways that will impact individuals wholly outside of the US government's legitimate sphere of political power, usually opts for the first option. And what arguably distinguishes it from the legislators in other countries is that it takes much less, if any, consideration on how its choice will affect people in other countries. <br>
<br>Ivar<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 17:12, Paul Lehto <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sonigituekpe@crossriverstate.gov.ng" target="_blank">sonigituekpe@crossriverstate.gov.ng</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p>Thank you Daniel.</p>
<p>The truth is that interest has over taken RESPECT of each other.</p>
<p>The World would give us more than we currently have; if will could put respect first.</p>
<p>The US do have great interest; and WISH to control an orderly Global Village.</p>
<p>To me its time to set the Global Village with the rules and regulations for a more respectful World Societies.</p><br></blockquote></div><div><br>This reminds me to bring us back to a prior discussion, where I showed (except to the satisfaction, it seems, of a couple posters on this list) that there are always "background" laws from some country or jurisdiction that structure transactions involving the internet. No matter how dedicated a tiny minority might be in not using contracts (and thus the contract laws of some country or place) <b>they will still claim the legal right to the ownership of their own server, or their own computer, thus implicating the property laws of some country</b> or place, even if this tiny few refuses other legal structures like internet commerce with its contracts and terms of service with Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, or the like. Even this tiny minority on the internet will still claim, very likely, some kind of right to be free of basic denial of service attacks, and so forth. <br>
<br>If there is to be any civilization on the internet, we need legal tools that go beyond the primitive tools like retaliation and social ostracism (not available for anonymous attacks) that are practiced in extremely rare, relatively law-free situations. <br>
<br><u>If we start out with a truly law-free system, people will rapidly develop a very large consensus that there needs to be a way to enforce promises (such as those in contracts) so that trust and reliance on the word of others can be promoted</u> -- this is very good for the economy among other things. An extremely large consensus will rapidly form, for example, that when one buys something or says something, the thing one buys should work at a basic level, and the words spoken should not be a direct death threat. This leads, respectively, to what's called the "implied warranty of merchantability" in contract law and certain criminal / libel laws (in common law countries) to protect the reasonable expectations of buyers and the reasonable expectations of those who wish to engage in free speech. "Free speech" has never meant - to any serious thinker anyway - speech entirely devoid of all civility and respect, no matter how extreme. <br>
<br>The key to all of this is a balance. <u>There MUST BE some "structuring laws" like those I mention above, <b>but they SHOULD BE</b> <b>as neutral a playing field as possible</b></u>. What it seems we all want to avoid (but some confuse the issue by implicitly stating that this kind of abuse of power is <u>the ONLY thing</u> governments do) is prevent heavy-handed government control and over-structuring of the internet. But just because we oppose heavy government censorship in China, for example, does not mean that ALL LAW is a bad thing. <br>
<br>Law is, as I try to show in brief form above, <b><u>a necessity at some <i>basic </i>level</u></b>. The question is only <b>who</b> the governments will be that will provide the necessary law (even if this law is chosen in an internet contract with a "choice of law" provision) - even if we have to create a new global democratic government system for the internet - and <b>whether </b>that law will be a type of neutral law facilitating the freedom, equality and protection of all, or whether it will be driven by special interests or for the advantage of certain public or private power brokers, whether they be business interests or governmental interests. <br>
<br>Neutral laws can be imagined or derived from thought-experiments involving the idea of the "veil of ignorance." That is, we imagine ourselves before birth, ignorant of whether we will be born rich or poor, healthy or ill, etc. Not knowing our fate, we are not able to prefer any special interest. Under these situations, we quickly develop very large majorities if not unanimity that all humans should be considered equal in certain basic respects, etc. On a little more sophisticated level, we can also imagine similar neutral laws for the internet. <b>This "veil of ignorance" example can be used as one test of whether a given law is of the neutral, freedom-facilitating and equality-facilitating type,</b> or whether it is of the special interest/power broker type of interference that very few really support, both in the real world and in the "veil of ignorance." <br>
<br>We ought not to engage in fantasies of "no law." Those who do engage in such fantasies are either doomed to very primitive conditions of retaliation or ostracism when things go bad, and they simply don't "see" the invisible laws that continue to structure human interactions, whether they know it or not. What we, I think, all want to do, is make sure we have a framework of neutral laws that facilitate the structures of freedom but at the same time also make sure that there are no, or very few, unjust laws. Without law, it is the law of the jungle -- victory of the powerful over the weak -- that dominates, and it has been a number of centuries at least since a majority thought the law of the jungle was in any way just (if indeed a majority EVER has thought so).<br>
<br>So I am not confused with those who rely too much on consensus, I will also add that in certain important cases we will also need not consensus-based decision-making but majority rule decision-making. But here, there is such a thing as "the tyranny of the majority." Majorities can oppress minorities. To solve this democratic dilemma, we have developed TWO tiers of law. First there is constitutional law - the most basic protections and rights - which mere majorities can not change (but usually large super-majorities can). Second, there is "regular" law. In all of the <u>situations where the tyranny of the majority danger is greatest, we protect freedom and equality with the high constitutional law</u>, so that temporary majorities don't take advantage of minorities (e.g. constitutional rights against race discrimination, etc). <br>
<br>With all of the understandable anti-law or anti-US-hegemony talk on this list, I think it is important to understand that from the perspective of being behind the "veil of ignorance" it can be seen that while reasonable people may disagree on the number of laws and sometimes on their content, there can be no *reasonable* assertion that the internet (as we know it) can exist WITHOUT law entirely. So the question is <b>who</b> will make the laws and <b>for where</b>, and <b>what </b>their proper content should be.<br>
<br>Paul Lehto, J.D.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br></font></span></div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">-- <br>Paul R Lehto, J.D.<br>P.O. Box 1 <br>Ishpeming, MI 49849 <br><a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com" target="_blank">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="tel:906-204-4026" value="+19062044026" target="_blank">906-204-4026</a> (cell)<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
</font></span><br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>