Aw: Re: Aw: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net

[Yehuda Katz]

I beg to differ  Eric,
Perhapes I should have posted Michael & Rolands comments together (below here),
so that you may follow the logic.

..."Roland Perry wrote, à la Michael Gurstein:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00049.html

In message <F9A5545095B749C0A18CABB699E483FD at userPC>, at 05:28:08 on
Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> writes
>Well, as Margaret Thatcher (in)famously said at one point, "there is no
>society" (and thus presumably no "social/public interest") and then she and
>her accolytes proceeded to ensure through policy and process that her wish
>was made flesh to the continuing detriment of all.

	"I think we've been through a period where too many people have
	been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the
	government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a
	grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're
	casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no
	such thing as society."

So it's nothing to do with "social/public interest", but whether or not
people can expect a magic financial crutch to support them in their
adversity. It's almost exactly the same set of issues as the current USA
healthcare debate.

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?  ...
-

..."Roland Perry wrote:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00055.html

... That's a misrepresentation of the Thatcherite doctrine. The UK continued
with policies that were much more socialist than many other countries
(Nationalised Health and Education, widespread welfare system etc). 

Her statement, which is basically "There's no such thing as a Disney-esque
Fairy Godmother" did not deny the possibility that the State should continue to
organise a very wide range of state-run benefits, and collect large amounts of
taxation to fund them! ...
-

..."Roland Perry wrote:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-01/msg00070.html

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. ..."
-

Just to be clear Eric,	"Thatcher's Views" and any Goverment with ONE+Plus
BILLION PEOPLE are going to have to venture off into the Magic Kingdom of Fairy
God Mothers (or the 'Land of Bailouts & Voodoo Economics') in order to FUND the
"Entitlements". And the Chinese proved my point.

Roland and I are just being 'practical & pargmatic' about the economics
surrounding the 'Request of Rights' this List deems to advance.
If it were economically possible to do, it would have been done by now.
So go ahead Eric, Fart in the Hurricane.
--

..." Eric Dierker wrote:
>Faulty logic Yehuda.
>Mere numbers and size are not reasons large governments do not do things.  
>Perhaps you would do yourself a favor and study bureaucrats.

Perhapes You should study India, 'They' (Bureaucrats) are going to look you in
the face, shake their heads, ah-ha, ah-ha,... and not do a damn thing about it,
Because there is no way to do it. They don't have the structure or the economic
resources to Fulfill the Rights that you so elequently impose upon them, by the
swift touch of your electronic keyboard, sharp tongue, and first-world station
in life. 

Adios Amigo ;-)

--- On Fri, 1/8/10, Yehuda Katz <yehudakatz at mailinator.com> wrote:

From: Yehuda Katz <yehudakatz at mailinator.com>
Subject: Aw: Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Friday, January 8, 2010, 6:55 PM
>>
>>Hurray for you Parminder!
>>
>>That was exactly my conncerns, when You'all were pushing for "Entiltlements"
as
>>I put it on Aug 2009 (Thu, 27th)*  through the IGC**: Statement by IGC
>>supporting rights and principles .
>>
>>And it is exactly why the Chinese did not want it pursued [Try providing
>>Entiltlements (Fulfill the Rights) for 1.3 Billion Chinese and then another
1.3
>>Indians], Governments weren't designed to handle the load.
>>
>>I'll go alittle further too say, And that's why I'm calling for something new
>>(A new Government Design).
-

Ref:

*  Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund? per Yehuda Katz
[governance] Right's Entitlements - ?How to Fund?
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-08/msg00325.html

** Concensus Call per Lisa Horner
FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2009-09/msg00136.html
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t