[governance] Google's officer with detention order in brasil

[parminder]

On Monday 01 October 2012 08:29 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Parminder,
>
> In my opinion your responses and statements continue to take the form 
> of crude leftist propaganda rather than real dialogue. But I 
> understand that you, like most propagandists, get a lot of mileage out 
> of simply repeating the same message over and over agas/in until 
> people grow weary of responding. So I will make some perfunctory 
> efforts to respond just to demonstrate that most of us are not 
> intimidated by aggressive repetition of invalid arguments.
>

Milton, you can do with some amount of deflation of your oversized ego 
before others  do it for you, and try to speak to people rather than 
down to them. If you cant hold a political dialogue, you always have the 
right to opt out. But you dont have to get so angry just because you 
have no answers to simple direct questions like;

    why opting out of 'dumb' Brazilian laws and judges is such a good
    idea and not opting out of dumb US laws and judges;

    or what is the next step for ICANN system's internationalisation, or
    for the democratisation of the kind of Internet policies that OECD's
    CICCP makes, in the networked transnational system that you seem to
    propose, and insist that everyone must read about it (only) in your
    book .


Well, you can call repeating these simple and most important global IG 
questions as propaganda as a device to avoid answering them, but to me, 
and many others here, these remain central to the our discussion(s).
>
>  snip.
>
> MM: Then you are simply ignorant, and need to do your reading.
>
> snip
>

> You are really quite comical.
>

As I said, beware, Prof!

parminder

(PS: Will respond to substantive parts of your email separately.)

> At least the communists and socialists of the 1920s were dealing with 
> life-and-death issues in regard to their critique of business. If you 
> are going to wage an international war against the depredations of big 
> business, you had better come up with something more substantive than 
> Google's terms of use applied to people getting free service, or its 
> resistance to silly and obstructive local laws regarding video 
> takedowns. And we all know that if Google took down videos 
> arbitrarily, you would be criticizing them for that, as well. It's 
> very clear where your simple-minded politics are coming from.
>
>
> On the other hand, I do understand that in the new neoliberal global 
> world order, their is this new political direction of richer classes 
> in most countries (especially, but not only, developing countries) to 
> seek to opt out of the democratic order they are 'subject to' in 
> favour of a new post-democratic global order whose political capital 
> lies in the US, because whether they like it or not, any new system 
> still needs some kind of political coercive authority, for instance to 
> make those early dawn knocks to catch people doing things as dangerous 
> as sharing video files.
>
> Again, there is no coherent political or legal argument here, there is 
> simply 1970s-vintage foaming at the mouth against "US imperialism". 
> Should the world ever be unfortunate enough to put you and your ideas 
> in a position of power and responsibility, you will soon learn - as 
> did all the 'anti-imperialist' socialist dictatorships and economic 
> failures in the developing world of the 1970s - that simply being 
> against the US does not produce anything of value for subject 
> populations. You have to have a substantive agenda.
>
>
> you have said that US laws and judges are good and should continue to 
> overlord over the ICANN (for whatever 'minimalist' areas that you lay 
> down).
>
> Another crude distortion. We have had a debate about California 
> nonprofit incorporation law. ICANN has to incorporate somewhere, and I 
> have said that in terms of public accountability, which you claim to 
> support, that California law is as good as any, and that it is BETTER 
> than international organization laws, which immunize organizations 
> from all kinds of things. You are basically claiming that a treaty can 
> be devised that is better, but no such treaty exists! And given the 
> realities of inter-state political bargaining, there is very little 
> likelihood that the outcome of a treaty process would be better. You 
> have lost this argument,  obviously, so your only recourse is to 
> return to your anti-US mantra and claim that I support US as "overlord."
>
> I think most people can see through this.
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121010/c02a5fd6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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