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

[Daniel Kalchev]

On Aug 18, 2011, at 20:58 , Paul Lehto wrote:

> 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.

We are apparently discussing different things. Let me try one more time.. please just answer the questions.

Do you agree that 'democracy' needs to have defined borders, in order to exist?
Is it possible to have 'universal' democracy, covering everything and everyone, without even those governed knowing?

On the 'listserv' subject, if you remember, I said within that realm (server, service), you may have any form of governance, including democracy. The owner of the hardware, software, who pays for the services that are necessary for this to exist may so decide to submit their property to democracy and have someone be elected to actually manage it by all its users. In any case, this 'democracy' will be limited only to the realm of that particular 'listserv' and (in my opinion) will exist as long as someone pays the bill… 
Or, the form of management might be autocracy, or even anarchy.

> 
>> 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.  

This all makes no sense to me.

How is it there is a requirement to have democratically derived laws in order to have private or corporate governance?

> 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.

Ah, we have come to the true question. :)

Very curious you will say this, in light of your continued argument that anything outside democracy is bad and anything corporate is bad.

How come World Bank and the venture capitalist are not bad? 

Or, are these "our people" (in Al Capone speak)?

I will stop here. Those who can read and understand are still around.

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