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

Wed Apr 29 14:51:00 EDT 2015

Dear Jefsey,

Thanks for your thoughtful and provocative (positive understatement) comment:

As you ask a tough question (who feels in the mood to tell you that you are wrong), I still see two issues in your rebuttal of this debate. 

Whatever you do with your computer, you are still part a world that is trying to avoid wars by peaceful means (national laws, international laws and treaties). Nuclear weapons might be part of that peace process but I leave this to the specialists.

More to my first point: your assumption is "...as long as my machine can use the catenet the way I wish". Well this is something that quite does not the fit the ordinary citizen. Moreover it suggests a world of individualities that could one way or another live by themselves, as far they do not interact with others. OK I do play around a bit, but still your starting line seems a bit individualistic when thinking of collective and public interest. And therefore the reasoning might fall short of the real issue which is not only about one accessing and using the catenet as he wishes. The challenges we face go beyond that point.

If the compass is "freedom to connect to the catenet", then maybe it is better to be a pro US as they do love to give us Freedom here, Freedom there. They love it so much because it resonates with Free-market, with as very limited regulation (competition, distortion, abuse...) So if this is all about freedom, and if we do not find any reason to care about others, then we do not need any such e-listing.

Second point: what Barry says makes a lot of sense when coming to legitimacy, or enfranchised stake-holders. This sense of chaos among the "stake-holders", these who-ever that Jankélévitch would make fun of, is a way to negate the collective burden. It flattens everything and everyone in its due rights. Take the MS definition as per Larry Strickling (thanks to Carolina for fowarding this to the list). It might not endanger you wether you play in the system, or outside the system. But it might be an issue for many others without all of your abilities.

Strickling: "What do we mean by the multistakeholder model?  One expert defines the multistakeholder model as different interest groups coming together on an equal footing to “identify problems, define solutions, and agree on roles and responsibilities for policy development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.[1]” 

Whatever RFC we talk about, we have an issue here. 

Where I tend to follow you is about the fact that the solution will ultimately come from techies, to bypass all this domination, when the degree of dominance will be recognized as a toxic wonder killing societal fabric, democratic debate, encouraging all abuses... Open roots and other ideas are interesting and challenging to the current tech-order. Das Order! On that I believe your first option is the right one, the second one being just a big pantomine.

I still believe that politics (and our old fashion democratic principles) need to fully step in this MS mess.

It might sounds like two principles or concept opposing each other, when they are not. Think of integration and decentralization. They can accommodate and uphold each other. Surely we will go through more blahblah.- before anything can happen, or before a group large enough will become the obvious alternative to this stupidity. 

Debating is part of any democratic process.

Trying to build on what you, Barry and others are saying.

JC

Le 29 avr. 2015 à 15:05, Jefsey a écrit :

> 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
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150429/112bb935/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