rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ...

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
> As for "the old "as long as we can afford it" (ALAWCAI) 
> clause, you know
> that some kind of ALAWCAI is applicable to all rights, even 
> to the negative ones. 

Not really, but too philosophical and time-consuming a debate to get
into here.

> You yourself mention article 29 of UDHR as an ALAWCAI clause. 

That was sarcasm. It meant, "as long as free expression doesn't threaten
states, we'll allow it." 

> Within this group we have provisions in the charter that can be used
to 
> 'limit' what may be considered by someone as his FoE. For certain
kinds of 
> postings we can limit posting rights and or unsubscribe a list
participant 
> altogether. We are limiting some's FoE just because we collectively (a
word you hate)

whoa. I love the word. "collective action," "collective goods" it
reminds me of Mancur Olson, our faculty decision making process, family.
It is a false stereotype that methodological and political
individualists are "against" or "dislike" groups. We just have our
priorities right. one supports individual freedom, in part, so that
individuals can form (and leave) any groups they like. 

Second, you are confusing a voluntarist group (the IGC) with state
action. This group could decide (by consensus) that we all must salute
chairman Parminder with a hearty "Ni!" every time you post on the list
and kick off anyone who doesn't, then it can do that. That would not
violate my political right to freedom of expression, it would just make
me leave the group and start another one. 

> In fact in light of certain recent behavior on this list, 
> about which I ma getting many complaints, it may be found necessary 
> collectively (again) to revisit the ALAWCAI clause to FoE on this
list, because we may have
> discovered that there are some other kinds of behavior which one may
> consider his FoE, but it may not be possible for the group to 
> 'afford' if we have to remain effective etc.

Ah, so some of you do not know how to use spam filters....yes, that's a
good example of a policy we have every right to adopt. 

> 
> You know, when you say that you agree to what you agree to 
> above, we are really far away form each other in our views. 

???

____________________________________________________________
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