[governance] critique of the IBSA proposal

[Paul Lehto]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann <
ivarhartmann at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think you misunderstood me Paul. I don't oppose gov involvement, I oppose
> a push away from whatever we have now to exclusive gov involvement. I'm
> obviously pointing to multistakeholderism (this message shouldn't be that
> hard to understand in a group like this, where this concept has been
> exhaustively discussed).


OK, thanks for clarifying.  I reacted to what still seems a relatively clear
statement on your part, when  you wrote: "I would by default oppose a global
body of IG run by gov representatives which is *either suggested by
Brazilian gov or influenced by it in any way." (emphasis added)  *It seems
you mean to add the word "exclusively" in there somewhere.*

*You are correct, multistakeholderism has been discussed at length.  Your
motivations for supporting that are quite understandable, but I would only
say this:*

The solution to the corruptions of democracy is not to move away from
democracy *(i.e. to multistakeholderism, where democratic governmental
representation is diminished).  Perhaps there are some anecdotal examples of
multi-stakeholder entities being more sensitive to fundamental rights
compared to governments, but I can see no really good reasons *why they
should be* better. *

This strikes me as switching horses out of disgust or frustration, using
another horse with some shiny bells and whistles, but yet nothing
fundamentally that indicates the new horse is built to give loyal service. *At
least with politicians the people can kick them out of office.*

*Have a nice weekend, Ivar.

Paul Lehto, J.D.


On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 20:51, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann <
> ivarhartmann at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would by default oppose a global body of IG run by gov representatives
>> which is either suggested by Brazilian gov or influenced by it in any way.
>> Just as an example, Brazilian law prohibited people from making jokes
>> about politicians running for office during election periods. This was in
>> force up until a year ago until the Supreme Court (not Congress, mind you)
>> decided to put an end to it.
>>
>
> In the public sector (government), at least a Supreme Court, as in the
> Brazilian example above, can correct a policy.
>
> But, in the private sector there will be no such correction, *ever, and
> they too have "no joking" rules.*
>
> Using employment as an example, private sector bosses often have rules of
> "no joking about the boss or the boss's interests or you will be fired".  In
> every country I know of, such private sector "no joking" rules are
> enforceable law.  Not only that, but there isn't even a reasonable chance
> that the power of the private sector boss to prohibit satire and joking will
> be open for *debate* anytime soon, much less that the ban on private sector
> joking would change.  But *in Brazil's government, the no joking policy
> changed, *thanks to the Brazilian Supreme C*ourt.**
>
> Even internet providers terms of service will have non-disparagement
> clauses and the like.  So, if you are effective enough ridiculing something
> important to the private sector internet provider, you can have your
> connectivity terminated.  If your anti-telcom humor is ineffective or no one
> listens, I grant that you may have an illusion of "freedom" and you might
> not be terminated.  (That's just the freedom to be irrelevant, not the
> freedom to joke about or satirize the telcom.)
>
> To oppose all government involvement is not only completely
> anti-democratic, but in the case of the "freedom to joke" it is like going
> out of the frying pan and into the fire.
>
> *--
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> P.O. Box 1
> Ishpeming, MI  49849
> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> 906-204-4026 (cell)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110918/96688d18/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