[governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality

[Parminder]

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <4B46D0F8.101 at itforchange.net>, at 12:00:16 on Fri, 8 Jan 
> 2010, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>
>> there is another ideology  opposed to this one which believes that 
>> there is at present large scale social injustice which has to be 
>> corrected by strong positive measures for social justice - which 
>> often involves redistributive measures which you call as 'magic 
>> financial crutch'.
>
> Just to be clear, I was describing what I believe to be Margaret 
> Thatcher's views, when she made her much misquoted statements about 
> "society". That was many years ago, and I don't necessarily agree with 
> the philosophy either then, or now. But I do feel that if you are 
> going to criticise someone, the least you can do first is properly 
> understand what it is you are criticising.
Mr Perry

I well know what I am criticizing, or rather engaging with, so I request 
that you avoid snob statements. They are very disturbing, especially in 
the cross-cultural and geopolitical nature of this group. Do you Mr 
Perry ever in London, or wherever you stay, in a group pf people 
discussing something say to anyone - 'if you are going to criticise 
someone, the least you can do first is properly understand what it is 
you are criticising'. I am just trying to understand. Also i criticize 
no one, just viewpoints,  unlike what you have done. So please....

You quoted Thatcher, and then explained the quote using the 'magic 
financial crutch' language, and then through comparison with the issues 
involved in US health insurance debate  went on to wonder if anyone 
wants governments to get more involved in IG 'on the grounds that they 
believe the current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens'. 
That is a very consistent political narrative, and I do understand it 
completely. (In any case my statements engage with whoever holds views 
represented in the mentioned statements.) On the other hand (since you 
used the above distasteful snob language) I can say that  before 
answering *you* should at least properly understand what who are 
disagreeing or agreeing with. For substantiation of this pl see below.

>
> Meanwhile, I spend quite a lot of my time working for various 
> charitable ventures which are in a very real sense "society's" 
> manifestation of the philanthropic "Fairy Godmother", or to use your 
> words "a redistributive measure". 
No, thats not the meaning of redistribution. In a way quite to the 
contrary. 'Fairy godmother' business is charity, with moral-ethical 
basis. Redistribution is a term of political economy, and presupposes 
political power as its basis. Charity is often the rich persons look at 
social injustice, frameworks of political power and redistribution are 
that of the (politically conscious) people at the wrong end.


> However, the donors in this case are giving voluntary, and it's matter 
> of plain fact that many redistributive measures are forced unwillingly 
> upon the wider public. 
Exactly the issue, thanks for constructing it for me.  All voluntary 
stuff is good. but that does not replace redistribution of the political 
kind, which is what neoliberal ideology seeks to do. So,  both your 
position and my critique is consistent, unlike what you propose.


As for 'being forced on the wider public', of course who likes to lose 
power and resources, while forgetting that they are often the product of 
unjust and exploitative social structures,and thus need corresponding 
corrective measures of redistribution.

>
> That's what "politicians in power" (or what we call "Government") 
Micheal has pointed to a good critique of how language is 'constructed' 
for ideological purposes. I see government in frameworks other that just 
'politicians in power'. We work  in  many forms  of  engagement  with 
governments, with great results.
> spends much of its time doing. 
if you mean redistribution, that is one of the main jobs of governments. 
Incidentally governments in the North spend 40-50 percent of country's 
GDPs, a good amount of that on redistribution, while they advocate still 
weaker states for the South.

> For example, Margaret Thatcher is famous for a failed attempt to 
> redistribute local property taxation from a basis of per-dollar-value 
> of your property to a per-adult-resident in the property.
On my reading, per-dollar value property tax looks much more 
redistributive that per-adult resident. So Thatcher was being regressive 
and anti-redistribution that she is known to be, and was not  in that 
sense not furthering redistribution, but the opposite.
>
>>  I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments 
>> got themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the 
>> perceived ills   on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe 
>> the current mechanisms   were failing their collective citizens?
>
> Of course, I posed that rhetorical question because the overwhelming 
> feeling I get from most lists like this is that Government 
> intervention is not welcome when it comes particularly to meddling 
> with content on the Internet (although some people are happier for 
> Governments to intervene to break up large monopolistic infrastructure 
> providers).
I too posed my response because the overwhelming feeling I get is that a 
few more articulate and dominant voices seem to dominant the list 
discussion in a manner that makes it look that civil society in general 
has views that are broadly neoliberal, especially in the area of IG. I 
proposed a vote since I am confident that the greater majority actually 
does not really think so. Positioning dominant views as something 
natural and commonsense, is the very basis of hegemony. (Now before you 
again react inappropriately as you did the last time, let me tell you 
that my critiques are political and not personal, unlike what comes out 
of the language you used.)

Regards

Parminder



____________________________________________________________
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