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

[linda misek-falkoff]

Resonatings....
emboldened for visibility reasons -

A terrific discussion is being rolled out which among other virtues is
exposing the desirable partnership of *meanings and means.*

In periods of great innovations, one can see systems of *patronage* in the
best senses, where those with means who have appreciation for meanings
others express well support those meanings with the means to accomplish them
- As with pairings of facilitating- providers and great painters,
philosophers, poets, thinkers, and of course yes Civil Society Advocates and
Movers.

Thoughts from here are that our closest political or social neighbors who
can provide means to move out meanings are those in the Private Sector.
Business.  The Professions.*

Those with means whose end-goals may merge with CS.  Those who might see the
lights of funding patronage roles to provide for CS participation shine over
horizons of mutual benefit.

(... Marginalia, one cannot resist inscribing the in annals of this mighty
developing dialogue).

*Which is not to say governments should bow out of support roles.
Representative, as they are usually meant to be.

With seasonal greetings, LDMF.
Dr. Linda D. MisekFalkoff.
*Respectful Interfaces*
For I.D.: A  programme of The Comunications coordination Committee For the
U.N. [NGO]


On 12/14/07, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071214/a3a31aa0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071214/a3a31aa0/attachment.txt>