[governance] tyranny of majority (was Re: Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism)

[Jefsey]

Gentlemen,

it seems that all this are dreams in the air.
xxxxcracies are about government of several people. Here we consider 
the mutual governance of machines. I personnally do not give a damn 
about what you may think, vote, decide, etc. as long as my machine 
can use the catenet (i.e. the shared digital local resources that 
make the global network) the way I wish.

The only thing that can happen to me is that you gather together in a 
"global community" (cf. RFC 6852) making your machines not to respect 
the RFCs and trying bloking mine. OK. That is your problem if I 
technically circumvent you - soemthing I and you have no doubt the 
Libre community can easily do.

Next, you can decide to lobby the lawmaking process and send me cops 
to prevent me from using my machine along the RFCs. This is exactly 
what some of you are doing, who bet that the best cops for the job 
are the american ones.

Here the response is (for those who care about the US weapons of mass 
destruction) :
- either to technically outsmart the american lawmakers (again as per 
RFC 6852, through non RFC standardization people will use) and 
disregard its cops, TPP, TAFTA, etc.
- or to make the odds so uncertain for the US that the US executive 
branch delays its transition to ICANN/DAVOS.

I am afraid everything else is either international blahblahblah or 
local US election preparation.
Thank you to tell me where I am wrong ?

jfc

At 11:36 29/04/2015, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:15:35 +0200
>Jean-Christophe Nothias <jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This tyranny of majority is an intriguing item.
>
>In governance systems which have majority voting but not the other
>essential elements of the modern understanding of democracy, it will
>sometimes happen that tyrannical, i.e. human rights violating, decision
>proposals are supported by a majority of votes, and therefore
>considered adopted. A famous example was the state-sanctioned murder of
>Socrates in ancient Athens.
>
>In democratic governance systems of course in such a situation there is
>the possibility to get the outcome of the vote overturned by a court
>decision on the basis that it is a human rights violation.
>
>In democratic governance systems therefore tyranny of majority does not
>occur.
>
>Greetings,
>Norbert
>
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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


-------------- 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