[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good

[Riaz K Tayob]

Michael,

Is it possible to deconstruct some of the scientific (scientifism) in 
the arguments presented by MM? This is important as it quite a popular 
view in the US. Not to be conflictual, but there is a rationale that 
drives this view.

For instance what I find unscientific is that a particularly type of 
libertarianism (no expert on US, but from afar, happy to be corrected) 
starts off from the Hobbesian state as Leviathan monster. It is 
axiomatic, or a priori. It values individualism (over the collective), 
and sees govt action as interfering with that freedom. The free exchange 
in the market is the realm of freedom, and the state should stay out of 
it. The Nozik etc arguments do justice to libertarian conceptions than 
do, what shall I say, the flamboyant claims made on the school's behalf 
that are anti-government.

In some South countries it was fashionable to prefer socio-economic over 
civil and political rights, distinguishing us from 'liberals'. In 
context, these were justified - particularly as an organizing principle. 
But with an aggressive state one quickly realised that both were 
important. With many countries following the rich country examples in 
"standards" for secrecy, terrorism, counter-terrorism lowering civil and 
political rights everywhere, I do hope for more liberals of the type 
that say, "I disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to 
say it". To some it may seem anti-American to criticize the PATRIOT Act 
but much is well founded and not necessarily anti-US, and contestable in 
too many instances on simple libertarian grounds . I would be more 
skeptical of their position on socio-economic rights, however. As is 
evident in this thread. Govt seems to have a a role to play (even 
passing laws to leave the internet market alone would indicate that it 
is primarily a political construction) unless a strong case is made 
against it.

But the differences are important as we can disagree on first 
principles, and the rest is merely symptomatic. But these principles 
need more explanation, but perhaps differently from what we have had.

Riaz


On 2013/04/17 06:29 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> Apart from all the completely gratuitous ad hominem's -- "pursuing a 
> political agenda", "honest debate", "you and others who so fervently 
> blah blah…", "sane people blah blah" and the rather silly attempt to 
> hijack a discussion by insisting that his position is "scientific" and 
> thus anyone else's is presumably what… superstition? I see little 
> interest or value in pursuing this discussion… That kind of stuff may 
> fly in academic environments where grad students and junior colleagues 
> have no choice but to listen and nod and go on but is really beyond 
> the pale in the real world except those who get their policy 
> discussions via Faux News etc.etc.
>
> M
>
> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L 
> Mueller
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:39 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good
>
> *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
>
> And in that context I pointed to the discussion around these related 
> issues by Inge Kaul and Joseph Steiglitz in the UNDP Human Development 
> Index supported effort to re-awaken/redefine issues concerning "public 
> goods" and take them out of the dessicated hands/minds of the 
> professional classical (read ideologically Friedmanian) 
> economists/public policy geeks/academics. And to recreate these 
> notions as a tool to support those looking to protect the public 
> interest from the onslaught of those who would destroy thist at the 
> altar of universalized Hobbesian privatized interests.
>
> *//*
>
> */[Milton L Mueller] Right. So from my perspective you are just flatly 
> admitting that you are pursuing a political agenda and there is no 
> real scientific basis for your claim. /*
>
> *//*
>
> */I’ve got an idea: why don’t we have an _honest_ fact-based debate 
> about the role of the public sector in the Internet’s development and 
> use? Instead of arbitrarily attaching a label “public good” to it and 
> trying to derive pre-ordained policies from that, why don’t you just 
> come out and say, “I think there should be more governmental control, 
> subsidization and regulation of the Internet”? Make an honest case for 
> how that will change things for the better?/*
>
> *//*
>
> */If we have such an honest debate, the first thing that you and 
> others who believe so fervently in public sector-led development will 
> have to face is that privatization and liberalization of 
> telecommunications is what led to widespread diffusion of telecom 
> infrastructure, and that the attendant deregulation and free trade in 
> information and telecom services led to the rapid diffusion and 
> development of the internet. And conversely, that 70 years of 
> state-owned monopolies – telecoms as public good –stunted development 
> and led to penetration rates of 10% of less and waiting periods of 
> sometimes 6 years simply to get a telephone line. And it is still 
> countries with the least liberalization who have the least-developed, 
> least accessible internet sectors. /*
>
> *//*
>
> */I know that the unparalleled success of neoliberal policies must 
> drive anti-neoliberals crazy. But, there it is: undeniable fact, 
> played out in country after country, year after year, for 20 years. I 
> am so sorry that reality did not conform to your beliefs. I really am. 
> You have my deepest sympathy. Those “dessicated” market processes 
> actually produced more public good, more public benefit, than your 
> telecom socialism. Ouch. That must hurt. Deal with it. /*
>
> *//*
>
> */Typically, sane people adjust their beliefs to reality. They do not 
> try to re-label reality so that it conforms to their ideology. /*
>
> *//*
>
> And to my mind if there is a suitable candidate for the type of 
> redifinition in which they are/were engaged "the Internet" is surely 
> one, and rather than defining the Internet in such a way as to obviate 
> the possibility of it being understood as a global public good, 
> perhaps better to understand how the definiition of the Internet 
> should be recognized as one that at a minimum accommodates such notions.
>
> *//*
>
> */[Milton L Mueller] An accurate, reality-grounded definition of the 
> internet can easily accommodate notions of non-proprietary spaces, 
> commons, common pool governance, as well as private, competitive 
> market-driven spaces. The whole point, which I have tried to make in 
> papers such as this 
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102 is that the 
> Internet arrived at a very powerful, creative balance of private, 
> competitive and open, public spaces. It wasn’t planned, it just 
> happened, because it worked. /*
>
> *//*
>
> */Before you mess with that equation, I’d ask you to at least seek to 
> understand it. Show some respect for economic and political science, 
> actually READ Ostrom and don’t just chant the words “commons,” and 
> “public good,” understand how economic structures and incentives 
> affect what happens. Pay attention to the private, competitive, market 
> side of the equation, show it some respect, apply labels and concepts 
> critically, testing whether they actually conform to reality. /*
>
> *//*
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130417/382935ea/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