<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Michael, <br>
<br>
Is it possible to deconstruct some of the scientific (scientifism)
in the arguments presented by MM? This is important as it quite a
popular view in the US. Not to be conflictual, but there is a
rationale that drives this view.<br>
<br>
For instance what I find unscientific is that a particularly type of
libertarianism (no expert on US, but from afar, happy to be
corrected) starts off from the Hobbesian state as Leviathan monster.
It is axiomatic, or a priori. It values individualism (over the
collective), and sees govt action as interfering with that freedom.
The free exchange in the market is the realm of freedom, and the
state should stay out of it. The Nozik etc arguments do justice to
libertarian conceptions than do, what shall I say, the flamboyant
claims made on the school's behalf that are anti-government. <br>
<br>
In some South countries it was fashionable to prefer socio-economic
over civil and political rights, distinguishing us from 'liberals'.
In context, these were justified - particularly as an organizing
principle. But with an aggressive state one quickly realised that
both were important. With many countries following the rich country
examples in "standards" for secrecy, terrorism, counter-terrorism
lowering civil and political rights everywhere, I do hope for more
liberals of the type that say, "I disagree with what you say but I
will defend your right to say it". To some it may seem anti-American
to criticize the PATRIOT Act but much is well founded and not
necessarily anti-US, and contestable in too many instances on simple
libertarian grounds . I would be more skeptical of their position on
socio-economic rights, however. As is evident in this thread. Govt
seems to have a a role to play (even passing laws to leave the
internet market alone would indicate that it is primarily a
political construction) unless a strong case is made against it.<br>
<br>
But the differences are important as we can disagree on first
principles, and the rest is merely symptomatic. But these principles
need more explanation, but perhaps differently from what we have
had.<br>
<br>
Riaz<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013/04/17 06:29 PM, michael
gurstein wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Apart
from all the completely gratuitous ad hominem's -- "pursuing
a political agenda", "honest debate", "you and others who so
fervently blah blah…", "sane people blah blah" and the
rather silly attempt to hijack a discussion by insisting
that his position is "scientific" and thus anyone else's is
presumably what… superstition? I see little interest or
value in pursuing this discussion… That kind of stuff may
fly in academic environments where grad students and junior
colleagues have no choice but to listen and nod and go on
but is really beyond the pale in the real world except those
who get their policy discussions via Faux News etc.etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">M<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Milton L Mueller<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:39 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/
public good<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
michael gurstein [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">mailto:gurstein@gmail.com</a>]
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">And
in that context I pointed to the discussion around these
related issues by Inge Kaul and Joseph Steiglitz in the
UNDP Human Development Index supported effort to
re-awaken/redefine issues concerning "public goods" and
take them out of the dessicated hands/minds of the
professional classical (read ideologically Friedmanian)
economists/public policy geeks/academics. And to recreate
these notions as a tool to support those looking to
protect the public interest from the onslaught of those
who would destroy thist at the altar of universalized
Hobbesian privatized interests. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] Right. So
from my perspective you are just flatly admitting that
you are pursuing a political agenda and there is no
real scientific basis for your claim. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">I’ve got an idea: why don’t
we have an _honest_ fact-based debate about the role
of the public sector in the Internet’s development and
use? Instead of arbitrarily attaching a label “public
good” to it and trying to derive pre-ordained policies
from that, why don’t you just come out and say, “I
think there should be more governmental control,
subsidization and regulation of the Internet”? Make an
honest case for how that will change things for the
better?<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">If we have such an honest
debate, the first thing that you and others who
believe so fervently in public sector-led development
will have to face is that privatization and
liberalization of telecommunications is what led to
widespread diffusion of telecom infrastructure, and
that the attendant deregulation and free trade in
information and telecom services led to the rapid
diffusion and development of the internet. And
conversely, that 70 years of state-owned monopolies –
telecoms as public good –stunted development and led
to penetration rates of 10% of less and waiting
periods of sometimes 6 years simply to get a telephone
line. And it is still countries with the least
liberalization who have the least-developed, least
accessible internet sectors. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">I know that the unparalleled
success of neoliberal policies must drive
anti-neoliberals crazy. But, there it is: undeniable
fact, played out in country after country, year after
year, for 20 years. I am so sorry that reality did not
conform to your beliefs. I really am. You have my
deepest sympathy. Those “dessicated” market processes
actually produced more public good, more public
benefit, than your telecom socialism. Ouch. That must
hurt. Deal with it. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">Typically, sane people adjust
their beliefs to reality. They do not try to re-label
reality so that it conforms to their ideology. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"> <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">And
to my mind if there is a suitable candidate for the type
of redifinition in which they are/were engaged "the
Internet" is surely one, and rather than defining the
Internet in such a way as to obviate the possibility of it
being understood as a global public good, perhaps better
to understand how the definiition of the Internet should
be recognized as one that at a minimum accommodates such
notions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">[Milton L Mueller] An
accurate, reality-grounded definition of the internet
can easily accommodate notions of non-proprietary
spaces, commons, common pool governance, as well as
private, competitive market-driven spaces. The whole
point, which I have tried to make in papers such as
this <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102</a>
is that the Internet arrived at a very powerful,
creative balance of private, competitive and open,
public spaces. It wasn’t planned, it just happened,
because it worked. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">Before you mess with that
equation, I’d ask you to at least seek to understand
it. Show some respect for economic and political
science, actually READ Ostrom and don’t just chant the
words “commons,” and “public good,” understand how
economic structures and incentives affect what
happens. Pay attention to the private, competitive,
market side of the equation, show it some respect,
apply labels and concepts critically, testing whether
they actually conform to reality. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>