[governance] SOPA or no SOPA

[Paul Lehto]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:

>
> On Dec 15, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Paul Lehto wrote:
>
>
> *I guarantee you that pharmaceutical lobbyists know how to fly the
> airplane of government VERY well indeed.*
>
>
> Well, Paul. I do agree with your arguments and they are valid. About the
> only problem I have is the fine print you added here --- how to fly the
> Government. Yes, they do! Which was my point, precisely. :)
>
> But "we" are not the Governments. We are the people, who have elected
> those Governments and entitled them to care for us.  [snip]
>
> I for one, would prefer to see situation, where the Governments pilot the
> plane that carries the Corporations.
>
> The point go "common sense" is that it is.. common. That is, everyone
> understands it. Just like respect.
>

Now I understand your perspective better, and I agree with it. It strikes
me as a democratic perspective at heart.

The plane of democracy has been hijacked, and all I'm saying is don't blame
the flight patterns on Democracy when the hijackers control the plane of
Democracy. The hijackers are special interests that don't consider the
common interest or common sense, as you express it.

The special interest is a fatal flaw or serious challenge to achieving
common sense.  At the very heart of the idea of gathering "stakeholders" is
the notion of a stake - an interest of some kind in the process.  By
gathering only the stakeholders, the only people at the table, by and
large, are those with a special interest of some kind in the outcome,
sometimes with token "public interest" representatives.   But, by gathering
only or primarily those with a "stake" in the outcome, one is tending
strongly only to gather those with special interests in the outcome.

The writers and thinkers I admire all identify *disinterestedness* as a
critical factor for good government and good policy.  *But a truly
disinterested person doesn't really have a "stake" in the outcome,* in the
usual ways we understand what a "stake" is.

*By gathering only those with a special interest stake in the outcome,
internet governance by stakeholder processes works to nearly guarantee, for
structural reasons, that the common interest or common sense you talk about
is NOT achieved as an outcome. *  The one area of exception appears to be
technical questions where often there is a single right or best answer. In
those areas, a stakeholder process might work and can be "trusted" not to
make special interest value choices along the way.  Outside technical
areas, where value choices must be made, the stakeholder structure will
help strongly to defeat common sense every single time, because all or
nearly all of the players are there for themselves,  and not to vindicate
the public interest or the common person.

Paul Lehto, J.D.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111215/ee01b9f2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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