[governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting An Irresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei...

[Paul Lehto]

On 8/18/11, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:
> My point is rather, that any 'democracy' is only possible within well
> defined borders.
> As long as Internet spans those borders, the said democracy cannot be
> enforced.

If that were the case and all that need be said, why would any
reasonable person refer to the internet as "democratic" in a
meaningful sense of the word democratic?  Indeed, you admitted a
couple weeks ago that listservs, a common feature of the internet, are
autocratically ruled by their administrators, and presumably every
person can set up their own tin pot autocracy via their own listserv.

> I have never, ever advocated anarchy in any form. Nor I have advocated
> abandoning of Governments and especially their duties.
>
> It is your choice to call private, non-corporate management 'anarchy'.

I've said there's democratic governance, with policy choices ranging
from heavily regulated to laissez faire policies, and then there's
private corporate and private non-corporate management or regulation
(which necessarily requires that foundation of democratically derived
laws I referred to earlier), and THEN, if we take seriously any person
who wants the "government out of the internet" there is anarchy,
because without government laws of contract for example, there would
be no internet as we know it.  No matter what one thinks of entities
like the World Bank and venture capitalists, they require a stable
legal system sensitive to the rights of property and contract before
they will invest very much in any venture in a new country.

Whether or not you have exposure in this area, I don't think it's
reasonably debatable that stable legal systems featuring predictable
laws of contract and property are required for the reasonably
efficient execution of modern business.   So, while I'm willing to
stand corrected that you are not in favor of anarchy (if I actually
said so), my point still stands that even the private non-corporate
management you cask me about relies upon a FRAGMENTED system of
national laws.  These corporate or non-corporate managers cannot have
power greater than the sum of their parts -- the countries can not
delegate more power than they have.  So, with private management, one
either has the same problems as with governments, or else one is
creating a limited or not so limited form of world government using a
private structure.  Privatizing government.

You can call private corporate or non-corporate management whatever
you like, but you can't call it democracy, because it is not
accountable to the People of any jurisdiction or combination of
jurisdictions.  I suppose that is why I, fairly I think, persist in
implying that you are arguing against democracy.  The only way out of
that conclusion would be to show that the private non-corporate
management does not enforce or govern any substantial right or
interest of the people.

The key problem in government is that law is force, so how does one
justify the use of force against another person or persons?  The sole
justification is the consent of the governed.  Private corporate or
non-corporate government does not have the consent of the governed as
a whole.  At best, if it has anything, it has the consent of an
aristocratic subset of the people, like the class of all investors or
company owners, or the class of domain name owners, etc.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

PS  If that doesn't work for you, maybe a volunteer can step in and
restate both our positions with clarity so that everyone, including
myself, can understand where the miscommunication or disagreement is
here.

>> Thus, we only have a choice of regulation in pursuit of the public
>> interest via democratic laws, or regulation by private interests via
>> contracts and the like. Both public and private regulation outcomes rely
>> on democratically passed laws for their very existence. The internet does
>> not and cannot run in a legal black hole of zero law.
>
> Yes, as long as you assume that governance == enforcement.
>
>> Whatever problems may exist in the challenges of global internet
>> policy in terms of democratically passed laws having sufficient global
>> reach to satisfy Mr. Kalchev personally APPLY EQUALLY to the 'hands
>> off' approach of laissez faire, which still relies upon a huge number
>> of laws from numerous countries.
>
> These laws govern the relationship of the entities, that use Internet,
> outside of Internet. This is because outside Internet there are borders,
> there are local and more global laws, local and more global Governments
> (democratically elected or not -- with the same effect as to their
> effective powers).
>
>> It's fairly simple at bottom: Shall we choose democracy, or something
>> else for internet governance??
>
> Why you insist there is no democracy in Internet? It is just covering
> specific areas, exactly like the 'real world' democracy does.
>
> If you speak of the world outside Internet, divided by borders,
> governments and laws --- how you imagine every one related to Internet
> (in theory, every human being on Earth), having a democratic vote for a
> single planetary democratic Government -- thus having universal
> democracy and universal democratic laws.
>
>
>>   The plus for democracy is that we can
>> still choose laissez faire policy after appropriate debate and vote,
>> and reverse that choice later on, if desired. On the other hand,
>> giving up on democracy as unworkable is a revolutionary coup d'etat,
>> with yet another revolution needed to get democratic power back.
>
> So we come back to my original statements on the topic....
>
>> I sit here in one place and contract with websites whose contracts recite
>> in one that
>> US-California law applies, another says New York law, a third Japanese law
>> and a fourth may demand Chinese law. Even lawyers don't know what these
>> all mean, even if they know a couple.
>
> There is always the "common sense law" -- unfortunately, I don't believe
> it is something  lawyers study or apply. :)
>
>> The law, under Any system of government constitutes another kind of
>> 'operating system' without which no one would have felt safe enough to
>> privately invest in the internet at the levels seen in the last few
>> decades.
>
> This is interesting... My observation is exactly opposite. Many have
> invested - collectively, a lot more than the richest corporation has
> ever invested in Internet. Yet all these individuals did not care much
> under what law this happened or what their profit would be. I understand
> this is different way of thinking from Corporate America, but it did
> involve some bright US fellows as well.
>
> Don't get me wrong - I will be more than happy, if there could eb
> democratic form of Internet governance. I just see none, two decades
> since Internet has become accessible to anyone and changing everyone's life.
>


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
____________________________________________________________
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