[governance] Is This An Issue for Internet Governance/Internet Human Rights?

[Daniel Kalchev]

Paul,

Like I said before, Internet is different.

Internet is different, because for the first time in (known) human 
history, there are no borders and everything/everyone is accessible for 
everything/anyone. This is what all human rights principles try to 
achieve -- it is a given with Internet.

What you call "democracy" is just an example of hierarchical governance 
system. You elect somebody to take care for things on behalf of you. You 
give up your own rights by submitting to that form of governance.
The principle is the same, whether that someone is your village's war 
leader, your town's mayor, your King or your President. These are just 
labels and no matter what the political system is, are just a form of 
hierarchical delegation of rights.
Just as much as an King may not care about you, so can any President. 
With the King, typically to remove them from power, you need to shed 
some blood (or a lot), with a President, you use more "civilized" 
political tools -- or not that civilized and somewhat bloody if you 
consider recent events.

Any political governance system will be "good", as long as everything 
goes well. Again -- look at recent events in Africa.

Do you see significant difference for the ordinary person? Because I don't.

Internet has removed borders. It has already transformed lots of 
companies (to more flat structure), killed others that didn't want to 
adapt, changed a lot of governments.
Who could even imagine a service like eGovernment from any traditional 
democratically elected government?

Internet is all about choice.

> Let's cut to the chase, then.  You've ignored my most important point
> that the *only* source of legitimate governance is that based on the
> consent of the governed via democracy.

Like the majority elects a mayor, president etc. whom I have serious 
evidence to believe is evil person, running for the office for 
illegitimate reasons. But you see, I am from the minority, my voice is 
not even noticed in the celebration of democracy...

That is, I did not submit, or consented to that 'government', but I am 
nevertheless obliged to obey whatever they decide to put on me. How is 
this different from your fears of commercial terms and conditions 
inpacting someone who does not agree to them? At least with contracts, 
you have the choice to not sign up -- not so with governance.

But back to your very question. I do not ignore or deny that the only 
source of legitimate governance is based on consent. I state this in all 
my comments. But I do not see what 'democracy' has to do with this. 
Consent is consent and has nothing to do with democracy.

When you speak of democracy, what you consider democracy? The political 
form of governance at say national level? Or the community form of 
governance within a 'club'?

PS: On re-reading your question, another interpretation occurred to me:

Today, democracy is considered the only source of legitimacy, because it 
so happens that the most powerful countries (governments) in this world 
call themselves democratic. In other words -- they claim this because it 
suits them, and their servants. Everyone is happy now.

Back in time, when kingdoms were the prevalent form of governance, 
everybody, including the church claimed that the only source of 
legitimacy comes from God and is given only to Kings. Everyone was happy 
then.

At that time and also much earlier it was postulated that the only 
source of legitimacy comes from power -- being able to slay anyone 
around you gave you the legitimacy to declare rules. Everyone was happy 
then.

> You cite various reasons for you to prefer non-democratic governance that all sound in the area of "pragmatism."

Interesting, how you came to such conclusion? Could you explain? Perhaps 
it is my limited command of the language..

> I had previously given an example of the pragmatic reasons a bribery-practicing industrialist (or whoever) would give for supporting a bribery-based political system, but such pragmatic reasons, whenever they are offered, are morally and politically empty
> of justification and legitimacy.

You need to understand, that ANY political system is bribery based. The 
bribe may be different of course. Sometimes, the price will be just 
"your name will be remembered as Nth President". I hope you do not 
believe the myth that politicians are not human.

> The same can be said for any autocratic type of governance, including but not limited to that of governance by CEO or Board of Directors:  It may "make the trains run
> on time" as Mussolini is mistakenly believed to have always done, but it still doesn't provide any political legitimacy.

That Mussolini did bad things does not mean he didn't make trains run on 
time. It may be that he needed trains run on time, for his bad things to 
happen.

But how does the ordinary voting person care? :)
They don't care, as long as the bad things do not happen to them personally.

> 1. Where do you get your political legitimacy for your non-democratic
> forms of governance?  Do you deny that non-democratic forms of
> governance are illegitimate when the concern fundamental questions of
> public policy on the internet?

Any non-democratic forms of governance are illegitimate within a 
democratic framework.

This of course has nothing to do with Internet, or with Governance as such.

I still have the feeling that when you say "democracy" you view ONLY 
"democratic government" and nothing else.

In my opinion, Governments do not understand Internet and therefore 
cannot govern it. If they are tasked to govern something that they do 
not understand, practice shows they will engage non-democratically 
elected parties and the whole talk about democracy becomes non-sense. It 
is that simple.

Also in my opinion, Internet as such does not need such form of Governance.
Specific objects and activities within Internet may need Governance. 
Most of these are governed already anyway. Most of these are private in 
nature and not subject of 'democratic governance'. Some of these aspects 
are even governed by Governments. Democratic or not, does not matter 
much in their own area of power and control.

> 2. Do  you dislike democracy for policy or political reasons, or do
> you (which may be the same thing) just want to keep democracy "in its
> place" and out of the internet as much as you can?

Democracy is an beautiful utopia, just like many others. The evil is in 
the detail.

My standing on 'democracy' is very much neutral. I am just recognizing 
that it is the current state of art in governance.

Of course, democracy has it's place. It is applicable in situations 
where there is a need to elect somebody to represent you, because you 
are: unable, do not care, not experienced, not interested etc.

Internet is different :)
Internet lets you have it as you like. You may have democracy, you may 
have aristocracy, you may have dictatorship, anything. All at the same 
time. Nothing of this will break the Internet.
Because the parts that make Internet are all private and because deep 
into their hearts private people do not accept any form of governance, 
or are subject to different governance regimes and because Internet has 
no borders, you may have it any way you like. True freedom :)

Here is an example you will surely like: You happen to live in a 
'non-democratic' country. But because of Internet you have the ability 
to enjoy the results of what 'democratic' countries have done. You live 
your virtual life there..
Sounds familiar? Could you imagine it the other way around? Because 
Internet has no borders.

Like I said it long ago in this discussion: at the moment you have 
democratic (or not) Governments control Internet, a new Internet will be 
born. Then they will run to catch the new one again.

You probably do not understand my position. It is not rebel. It is not 
anti-democratic.

Frankly, this discussion is not going anywhere. The main problem is that 
it always revolves around "we want to (democratically) govern it all". 
You can't. You just cannot govern the whole of Internet. Forget about 
this and you may have success. Governance needs to be applied to 
specific areas and each area may require very different type of governance.

Daniel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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