[governance] Can governmental powers be limited?

[Avri Doria]

On 22 apr 2007, at 17.09, Milton Mueller wrote:

> I've changed the heading.

good if i had read more of the threads before answering i might have  
done it myself.


>
>>>> avri at psg.com 04/22/07 4:32 PM >>>
>> i have heard this argued before but never understood it.
>> it is like saying that putting the fox in charge of the hens
>> will limit their power over the hens.  governments, those in
>> power, have always sought to expand their power over people
>> and have ever attempted to minimize the actual influence
>> of democracy.
>
> I recognize the risk of involving governments, but they are already
> involved, and becoming more so, so we have no choice about taking that
> risk.

Yes, like the camel with its nose in the tent, they are in the  
process of forcing themselves into the process - and if we let them,  
we will eventually be the ones out in the sand storm.  But they do  
not control it yet, and I just don't see the logic in handing it to  
them.

>
> What you are saying is that no government has ever been constrained by
> law. Isn't that obviously false?

I am saying that no government is ever voluntarily constrained by  
law.  And even when laws are created, they will break them with  
impunity if allowed to.  History shows that governments only allow  
themselves to be constrained when forced to do so.

>
> Think of the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, or
> the many examples of European privacy/data protection laws being  
> used to
> stop governmental actions. Recently another attempt to impose content
> regulation on the internet was struck down by the supreme court.  
> That is
> governmental power being used against itself; checks and balances.  
> Where
> did those constraints come from? They came from legally binding
> governmental agreements (laws).

But these things are achieved with great difficulty and are  
constantly being chipped away at. As I recall it took a revolution to  
get those amendments, and even then without a cranky individual or  
two who refused to sign off on the constitution of an incipient state  
without them, they would not exist.  Do you think you could get the  
current US government to grant it populations such freedoms? (well  
maybe you could still get the second amendment - gun sales are still  
supreme)

Yes, people have been forcing governments to legislate protection  
against the governments.  And in cases where a government is already  
in the dominant position there is no choice but to try.  But in this  
case, while there may be the beginnings of government influence, they  
do not control things yet.  I fear that the FC, or any other Inter- 
government agreement, is capitulation for peace in our time.


>
> I think in the context of an international negotiation, one that  
> allows
> nonstate actors to participate directly, there is some chance of
> imposing direct, strategically placed limits on the possibility of  
> state
> intervention, and getting governments themselves to recognize and
> (usually) respect that limitation.

Again as beggars at the banquet, they will grant you a few crumbs.

>
> Again, I am fully aware of the risks of such an approach. But please
> tell me, if we don't establish formal limits that governments  
> themselves
> agree to and ratify, how do YOU expect to constrain state  
> interventions?

I do not see them as being in the position of international  
interference in the core of the Internet now.  They are trying and  
yes, they are gaining ground.  But we do not stop them by  
surrendering to their demands for control.

> If you have a better way, I am totally open to it. Really; there's no
> "not invented here" syndrome, I just want the result.

I think we are already on that path.  E.g. ICANN for all its flaws  
does offer a start and a model of both what works and what doesn't  
work.  And I believe it is better to build/fix on this start then it  
is to surrender to governments or to try and start something  
completely new in the same space.  I also still have faith that the  
IGF, with its open structures and completely malleable possibilities  
can be effectively used to motivate many of the needed changes in  
existing IG structures and can be used to kick off new processes in  
other IG areas once we know what they are.  And I believe we should  
be building other bottom up coalitions as necessary. and yes, I  
believe we should allow representatives from governments and  
businesses to participate in these coalitions as equals.

Basically I think we should build on all that we have instead of  
throwing it all out and begging governments in a FC to give us a voice.

I think it is important to realize an extension to the principle of  
subsidiarity (which Adam reminded us of in his note).   Not only  
should control be divested to the smallest authority possible, but  
that often that authority is the individual or affinity groups of  
individuals.  The goal should be for as much of governance as  
possible to be self governance by the individuals on the network and  
by the bottom groups they themselves create.

a.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance