[governance] ITU participation by CS (was: IG questions ...)

[Dan Krimm]

At 5:34 PM -0500 12/14/07, Avri Doria wrote:
>On 14 dec 2007, at 17.12, Dan Krimm wrote:
>
>> The main problem with *all* of CS is funding!
>>
>
>yes, but ...
>
>we do it out of love even without the funding.
>
>seriously, for many people CS activism is the second or even third job.
>
>so not to slight the importance of getting more funding (as important
>as any of the other issues)  but it is not a cause of most
>activities, and i think the lack of funding, while making it harder,
>won't stop the most dedicated.


Yes, but...

It's the subtle balances of who is available to participate that most often
make a difference in political dynamics and results.

You can easily stop some of "the most dedicated" by filling up their time
with something else necessary to pay the bills and/or feed the family.  The
point is that "the most dedicated" are not enough to do the job, in the
full political marketplace.  We also need "the next most dedicated" and
"the third most dedicated" et cetera to participate, to beef up the numbers
against the numbers the opposition is putting up.

Your vision seems to operationally define "dedication" tautologically as
"whoever shows up" but this misses the role of not only *desire* but
*resources* in governing who shows up, and unnecessarily demeans those who
would give an arm and a leg to show up but haven't got spares to pay the
piper.  Defining "dedication" as being measured simply by who shows up
completely misses large segments of the population that don't have the
disposable resources to allow it.

Funding is not the root cause of any activities, but it is an *enabler* of
such activities, and lack of funding can suppress those activities in spite
of great "causation" trying to move them forward in any individual instance.

"Holier than thou" is not a productive way to evaluate CS participation, at
the end of the day.  It divides us (by creating a sort of elite hierarchy
of class) rather than bringing us together in our common (classless)
objectives.

Political participation is not free (in the "unpaid" sense -- even if it is
sometimes free in the "politically unfettered" sense).  Individual
transaction costs, learning curve investments (and other barriers to
entry), and "opportunity costs" (potential gains given up in choosing a
low-return activity over a different higher-return activity) are an
important component of any economic analysis and must also be taken into
account if we expect to make a rational analysis of collective political
dynamics.  In short, such costs become practical economic fetters in lieu
of explicitly political fetters, and those fetters are no less effective
than the political variety.

This is at the root of the influence of money on politics.  It's not just
abject corruption of political accountability, but rather, basic access to
the game in whatever form it is offered.  Simply put, the game is not free.
Treating it as if it were free just plays into the hands of those with the
money to play consistently.

Dan
____________________________________________________________
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