Scott Reents Holds Forth 127
Query
by Modern_Celt
Considering the speed of internet communication is this going to make it even more difficult for those in the Western states to care about the election? After all, most of the networks already predict a winner LONG before the poles out west close.
Scott Reents: Internet or no Internet, your individual vote is mathematically meaningless in determining the outcome of an election anyway, and exit polls already exist to remind you of this fact.
Still, the speed of the Internet is an important factor in our overall participation in politics. For example, MoveOn was able to organize and channel millions of people opposed to Clinton's impeachment in a matter of weeks. Normally, organizations can't mobilize their membership around pending legislation or regulations, because the window of opportunity before they are enacted is too small. This makes a truly grassroots organization an impossibility without the Internet, because there must always be organizational management to serve as proxies to (hopefully) represent their members interests.
How does the medium change the message?by Squirrel Killer
I think most of us have a pretty good understanding of the ways in which the Internet affects the method of political communications. Instead of phone banking and lit drops, you can use e-mail lists and Web sites, to cite just two examples.
However, the more interesting question, in my mind, is how the Internet, as a medium, affects the message. How do you view political content changing as a response to the new methods available? Will political content move more to the extremes, since politicians can target more effectively, or will it move more mainstream, since more people are brought into the political arena.
Beyond the message, how will the internet affect political outcomes? Are there any potential policy options that become possible with the new methods available?
Scott: Will the Internet affect the "message" of political communication? Absolutely.
The medium is the message, which is to say that the characteristics of the Internet imply that certain messages work and certain messages do not work. The fact that there is so much choice on the Internet means that messages that are pure rhetoric and are not informative do not work; users can and will click elsewhere. The fact that hyperlinking is so common means that messages that don't link to supporting material are assumed to be hiding something. The fact that online publishing is so inexpensive means that users won't accept superficial explanations of positions and values.
Politicians CAN continue to make Web sites that are nothing more than glorified brochures, but who will visit them? Right now, I think that people visit them for the novelty, and because they don't really know what to expect, but that will not last if they continue to treat their users like fools.
Now, you raise an interesting point about the impact of politicians being able to "target" more effectively. To talk to most Internet marketers/campaigners these days, you'd think that "targeted" communication was the essence of the Internet, and was the highest form of interactivite communication. Wrong. Targeted communication is not of the Internet. It is of direct mail. It's a method used to improve response rates (like, from 3% to 4%, a 33% improvement!), to save money on postage, to hit the right hot buttons, blah, blah, blah. And it's not interactive; the communication is essentially as one way as broadcast television -- just more accurate.
Which is to say that I agree with your suggestion that targeting results in more extreme messages and a more stratified electorate, and I think that's dangerous.
It's also the way that the Internet politics space will move if left to develop by itself. In the last 12 months, sites like Grassroots.com ("Your political action network"), Voter.com ("Delivering democracy to your desktop"), Speakout.com ("Speak Out. Be Heard."), Vote.com ("Your vote will always be sent where it counts"), have all started with the premise of being able to aggregate site users and then sell targeted access (via e-mail, banner ads, etc.) to political campaigns, a prospect that I think is unhealthy for democracy.
That's why I wrote the essay -- to describe the way that political campaigns SHOULD be using the Internet for communication, and to try to set a higher standard for what people expect online. I don't think that an Internet of primarily targeted political messages is an inevitability, but it certainly is a possibility.
Will candidates ever really do this?by El Volio
Interesting article. As a fairly neutral U.S. citizen, it occurs to me that, to many, the ideas expressed here are applied versions of general democratic ideals. Most voters would like to see more information about what candidates actually are proposing, and many want objective comparisons from unbiased sources.
But that's not politics. Never has been, and probably never will be.
So here's the question: Do you think that candidate sites are ever actually likely to provide objective data? Or do you think there will ever be a truly unbiased, trusted source (perhaps like the way the media should be) where specific information about tax cut proposals and so forth will be located?
Scott: You've exposed the dirty little secret of my essay, which is that I expect that 90% (at least) of politicians currently running would ignore my advice, should they read and understand it. So you're right in once sense; there are very few candidate sites today that remotely do what I prescribe, and most political advisers would consider such steps suicide because they violate the most important rule in their book: don't give up control.
But I don't think that means that it won't happen, any more than the fact that Microsoft hasn't supported open software means that open software isn't happening. My argument is simply that the traditional mode of campaigning doesn't work very well on the Internet, and so those that continue in the traditional mode will have to do so somewhere other than the Internet. And as important as this medium is becoming, that is a more and more unsustainable strategy.
And there are examples of candidates who are doing the right things. Ventura took some baby steps in the right direction with his e-mail lists. This Congressional candidate in Idaho is doing a very good job of running a citizen-centric campaign on the Internet, and so far succeeding. I'm sure there are others, though they are still few and far between. You will see more and more of them, and if you don't, you should consider starting your own. There are also 6,700 unofficial candidate sites put up by individuals that could potentially do things that the candidate would never allow his official site to do.
Let me also clarify one point, which is that I'm not suggesting that candidates build sites that are purely unbiased presentations of information. No, there is clearly still a role for opinion and leadership and values, but the best sites will present these in the context of information that people are looking for.
Candidates would be smart to try to emerge as reliable framers of issues -- the ones that attempt to set the scope of the problem, identify relevant evidence, outline competing values, etc. This is one of the most powerful positions to be in, but you can only do this if respect opposing viewpoints and treat them fairly. Frames are never the Congressional and state level, that people will be able to demonstrably say that the Internet had a measurable impact on the outcome of elections.
More importantly, the 2000 elections are key because they will begin to set the standard for political communication on the Internet. Millions of dollars is being invested in building online political resources -- campaign-oriented, commercial, nonprofit, government, etc. -- and the way that that is invested will have a tremendous impact over the way the political Internet develops over the next 20 years.
Will it be a commercial Yahoo model of aggregating lots of users and then auctioning off access to them to the highest bidders? Will it be a broadcast model, trying to attract as many eyeballs without giving up any real control? Or will it be a civic model, empowering citizens to take a more meaningful role in the running of the government?
If it is the latter, I believe that it could have far-reaching impacts on many facets of politics, from the two-party system to the role of soft money and PACs to the types of legislation that gets enacted.
detailed contentby geekpress
One reason, in my opinion, that politicians don't provide detailed content on their Web sites about policy proposals is the concern that what they say will come back to bite them, a la "No New Taxes." Concrete policy proposals can be used against them once in office, for it is easier to measure someone's actions against written statements than soundbytes and speeches.
So, given this strong incentive to keep proposals vague, what other incentives can we offer politicians to pony up the details of their plans for us?
Scott: You're absolutely right, that politicians are wary of detailed proposals coming back to bite them, although I'd say "no new taxes," was missing some of the elements of a detailed proposal (like, detail).
Getting politicians to offer more detail requires that citizens have a way of demanding more. Imagine if there were a forum open to all candidates who agreed to abide by the rules of the forum -- citizens ask the questions, are allowed follow-up questions, and candidates can answer or not, but the entire forum is aware of what you answer and don't. Well, no candidates would come, because candidates insist on control over the information they have to give up. What if, however, the forum contained 10%, 20%, or even 50% of the likely voters. I bet you'd see a lot more interest. There would be the credible threat that at least one candidate (particularly the one who was trailing in the polls) would show up, and then all candidates would be forced to show up. I propose that that forum can be built on the Internet, and I bet some of you are smart enough to come up with a way to figure out which questions to ask.
Politicians are opportunistic; they will do what they need to do to win. So, the answer to getting them to pony up more information is to make it a necessary component of winning.
The truth is, there is a subtle collusion between politicians and traditional media. Traditional media want to make money from politicians showing up on their talk shows, buying ads, granting interviews, participating in debates, and they don't care deeply about making these things particularly meaningful. Thus, politicians hold the upper hand -- as long as they can deliver entertainment (ala sound bytes, debate one-liners, etc.) -- they do not have to give up any real control. Politicians give media what they want; media gives politicians what they want.
Is Internet driving a societal shift?by Noel
In your essay you say, "the expectations of people on the Internet are different and more demanding than citizens' expectations in general."
Are these higher expectations a result of being on the Internet, or does Internet access self-select people that have higher expectations?
Will the influx of people onto the Internet raise the expectations of the general populace, or will it dilute the expectations of the Internet community?
Scott: It's a little bit of both. However, I believe that higher expectations is more a result of the medium than of the particular people who have chosen to use the medium. I'm not saying that the Internet improves people -- makes them more critical, more involved, more interested in learning, better judges of argument -- but I am saying that on the Internet a message transplanted from "traditional media" doesn't look right to most Internet users.
In my research into Internet behavior, I've found that there is about am 18-month period of acclimitazation online, after which people are much more likely to do more "sophisticated" activities (e.g., personalizing information, registering, purchasing, changing default start-up pages, etc.), and this observation holds true as much for the people who first went online in 1996 as it does for the people who just went online last year.
This suggests to me that people's expectations and use of the medium is not set when they come online, but rather evolves over time. I believe that this increased sophistication comes with an increasing degree of impatience: people understand what types of sites work and what type don't, and they leave sites that don't.
Why are libertarians better represented on the net?by Russ Nelson
So why do Internet political polls always generate results which are more skewed towards the libertarian philosophy? Is it because they don't "count" and so people feel more free to vote how they feel? Or is it because people who are drawn to the net value freedom more than security?
Scott: Most Internet polls do a very poor job of being scientific, so I would be very wary of concluding that Harry Browne's apparent popularity among Internet users is real. The most important factor, in my opinion, is that non-mainstream parties like the Libertarians do better in Internet polls because these marginilized groups feel a greater desire to participate in these polls, as a way of generating awareness for their movements.
Still, there is certainly a more libertarian ethic on the Internet, and in the same way that I think that people become more sophisticated with time, I think that people begin to value the freedom of the Internet with time. In my experience, the strongest advocates of regulating speech on the Internet are those who have the least amount of experience with it. However, if you look at party affiliations, voting behavior, etc. of Internet users, it's what you'd expect from a group of people with above average education and income (Pew Research has done some nice, though a bit dated research on the subject).
Realistically, does the net matter?by neowintermute
Can we realistically say that the Internet is making a difference in the political process? Can a basically unknown candidate like Ralph Nader get a resonable number of votes thanks to just his web site? Or are people really just going to the Web sites of the candidates they hear about on television? In the closed capitalist mind space we inhabit, big monetary interests determine the range of possibilities people think are viable.
According to a recent IBM/Altavista study, even on the net the big money sites like Yahoo "basically control the flow of information". So can we really think that the net is going to suddenly bring us democracy despite the nondemocratic nature of our entire economy/political system?
Scott: I wouldn't go so far as to say that our economic-political system is nondemocratic. I'd be the first to say that there are aspects that don't work as well as we'd like, but these are easily outweighed by the institutions and processes that are democratic.
Still, the degree to which information is controlled by corporate interests is disturbing. Ralph Nader is unlikely to get many votes just because of his Web site, and he's someone with actually quite a bit of promotional muscle behind him. One of the main reasons is that the traditional method of finding information on the Net, the search engine, tends to reinforce the hierarchies of offline power structures
To me, this says that the Net will not matter if left to develop in its "natural" commercial fashion. Because this is an election year, there is a unique opportunity for efforts that define the political Internet outside of this commercial environment. Millions are for the first time looking for political information and interaction, which means that it's not nearly as difficult (ie, expensive) as it has been/will be to get a site that captures a fair amount of this traffic. And if done correctly, ie, in a citizen-centric fashion, such a site should be able to use this jump-start to create a community that endures and matters. Anyway, that's the bet I've taken in leaving my .com job (and stock options) to start the Democracy Project.
I'm sure most of you are cognizant of the power -- commercial, political, spiritual, whatever -- that slashdot has. In pitching the Democracy Project to foundations and other "civicly-minded" folks, I almost always point to slashdot as an example of the potential power of the Internet.
Slashdot gives the average person the ability to address a forum of hundreds of thousands of people. I contend that that is unique in the history of the world, and that development is revolutionary in the way that Gutenberg's printing press was revolutionary.
What about a Slashdot for politics? Is there a space for something like this? Absolutely. In fact there is probably room for many Slashdots for politics. In its own way, Slashdot is arguably already a Slashdot for politics, with the discussions about Columbine, digital copyright, CDA, etc. Now, I know that the idea of Slashdot as a political forum is a controversial one, so I'm not saying that Slashdot should be more political. I'm just saying that the model has already shown that the Internet has the potential to effect meaningful change on the way our political system works.
notedby jbarnett
It has been noted that Al Gore is popular among geeks for many reaons, for example he invented the Internet, runs Linux on his Web site and hides cool little things in his HTML source. What do you think other Presidential candidates have to do or are doing to "compete" with Al Gore for the Geek vote?
Bill Clinton raised a lot of votes by "reaching out" to the Youth of America, do you think Al Gore will continue to "reach out" to the Geeks of America in the same aspect as Clinton did a few years back?
In your personal opinon who is the more 31337 hAx0r: Gore or Bush? And Finally the question everyone is dying to know the answer to: If pited against each other in a roman style caged deathmatch, who would win, Gore or Bush?
Scott: I certainly hope that geeks will base their voting decisions on more than what operating system a candidate's Web site is running. In all likelihood, Al Gore had nothing to do with that decision, and the fact that his Webmaster hides cool things in his HTML will not have any impact on what Gore might or might not do as president. These things are almost entirely symbolic, which isn't surprising since the majority of discourse among the presidential candidates is symbolic rather than substantive.
Of course, Al Gore will "reach out" to the youth of America, but the question is, will he do it in a way that matters or will it be mostly about posting pictures of Al in front of a computer on his Web site? Bush, too. I see them in a dead heat for last in truly reaching out to the YOA.
Now, as for the roman-style caged deathmatch, do you mean Catharginian or Syracusean rules?
'Ender's Game'by ZetaPotential
A system very similar to what you advocate has been described in some detail in Orson Scott Card's book Ender's Game. In that book, Card describes online bulletin boards where people "share information, organize and build consensus around issues," to quote your essay. A central part of this book is that two genius pre-teens write intelligent posts and counterposts in a way that manipulates public opinion on crucial political issues, for their own advancement.
So, my question is this: If someday the majority of people formulate their political opinions based on what they read in forums similar to Slashdot, will it be possible for individuals or organizations to manipulate the "public discourse" in such a way that advances their own agendas? If so, what type of steps would you advocate to reduce this type of "political trolling"?
Scott: A friend showed me Ender's Game, and I agree that what I'm advocating has a lot in common with that vision of political discourse. Clearly, there are some very difficult questions about how you preserve the sanctity of an online "townhall," and I'd be lying if I said I knew all the answers, but I do have some thoughts.
One thing they didn't do in Ender's Game was to verify that each participant on the boards was unique. There should have been a way to verify that people were unique individuals in such a way that still allowed them their right to anonymity. This would have kept Peter and Valentine from using fake identities to serve as foils and practice posters. This kind of anonymous authentication would be an important feature of an online townhall.
Ultimately, however, the real threat they posed is was a result of their geniuses and proclivity to manipulate. There will always be demogogues, and keeping them from masquerading won't keep them from manipulating. Caveat emptor.
There are lots of other vulnerabilities in an online townhall, but I think the most dangerous is the power that the "management" has to use the rules of the townhall to serve their own interests. Absolute vodka, er power, corrupts absolutely, as they say. There need to be safeguards to ensure that the people who set the rules are ultimately accountable to the people who use the site. For example, at the Democracy Project we are designing our site to have as little management involvement as possible. There are certain management powers that exist on Slashdot (e.g., bitchslapping) that we don't think belong in an online townhall. We have also organized ourselves legally in such a way that we will allow registrants on our site (after it has critical mass) to remove the management in a vote of no-confidence. We don't expect this to be a regular event, but it's a safeguard that provides a last resort of accountability.
Candidates and their recordsby Remus Shepherd
You talk about what the political parties should do to improve their Web sites, but don't mention what people outside political circles can accomplish. The Web sites you list in your article do *not* have what everyone says they want: An unbiased checklist of issues referenced to the candidates and their voting record.
Forget the political parties for a moment, as I don't believe they'll ever report unbiased information. That leaves us, the people.
Do you think there is room for a grassroots organization to collect the voting histories of candidates and publicize their records? If so, why doesn't such an organization already exist? Could such an organization thrive, or would it be besieged by political candidates who don't want their true voting histories known?
Scott: First, there are already sites that collect and report the candidate's records. I recommend USA Democracy, Project Vote-Smart, and THOMAS as excellent sources of info on candidate positions, voting records, and public statements.
But your broader question is important, because I think that as valuable as these and other political information sites are, they leave a gap that could (should) be filled by a grassroots effort.
The unbiased checklist of positions is a good, but incomplete way to make voting decisions. It's unlikely to include references to the most current, relevant issues. It overly reduces the complexity of how legislators make voting decisions (the best policy makers are generally not dogmatic and are good compromisers). And the list of issues is defined and arbitrary, which makes you wonder who got to decide which issues to include on the list.
So, the gap to me is the open, online townhall, an alternative source of information and political deliberation, an example of which we've described at our Web site, and are currently developing. This would allow everyone the opportunity to offer their own checklists, or point to others who have developed checklists that they agree with. But in addition, it would allow discussion of the most current events, and more importantly, the competing values that underlie policy proposals, neither of which will ever be adequately addressed by a position checklist.
Can such an organization thrive? I believe so. Grassroots organizations draw their strength from their membership, and so are not dependent on the approval of candidates in order to exist. So long as such an organization could provide a valuable service to its membership, it could endure. In fact, I'd say that such an organization would HAVE to be grassroots, because it must be independent of the political players in order to be effective. Lack of grassroots support is one of the reasons why it's unlikely that USA Democracy, Vote-Smart, THOMAS, and the commercial sites discussed above will realize the full vision of the Citizen-centric Internet.
Thanks all. If you want to be alerted when we launch our site, sign up here
Scott
Re:What about flame? (Score:1)
What is unfortunate is when politicians turn to the same trolling techniques. In the minor closing of some federal government offices in December 1995, that week and a half, two weeks or so were completely unbearable by every worker if you believe the media and Democrats. Not a one of them had any money saved up, every Social Security employee, etc was starving for two weeks, and a large majority were expected to die. All the meanwhile, Mr. Newt was blamed for their deaths, retched poverty, starving our precious schoolchildren, killing elderly. Later, Mrs Clinton goes on the Today show the day after Monica was uncovered (by Matt Drudge, go Internet!), to say it is completely false and brought on by "a vast right-wing conspiracy to get my husband." She still uses that phrase today, despite that it is now so obvious the events did occur and weren't invented by Republicans.
Fast forward to today, it is still going on. After Lazio took over in the New York Senate campaign, she calls him a Gingrich-era Republican and not pro-choice enough. It's frankly a moot point, only some 8-11% of the general population vote based on abortion. With every freakin issue it's the same stupid rhetoric, "risky scheme." Education? Bush's plan is a risky scheme. The budget/a tiny tax break? It's a risky scheme. Not only can these people not think of a different way to phrase it, they have to go to the furthest extreme, modify Social Security in any way, it will kill every old person. Give a measily 0.1% tax break to people making under $40,000? It will kill every poor person on welfare.
There can be no real discussion of any issue with Democrats today. They give no alternate solutions, no reasons something will not work, nothing. It is either side with them, or you are killing everyone. Until these trolls get out of the Democrat party, I just do not understand a single one of them getting elected. This is by far more critical an issue, and I can see people becoming apathetic to politics/voting because of it.
This pattern will be broke eventually only by someone who has some concrete ideas on various issues. Voting for something has worked very well when tried, 1980, 1994.
Re:Voting meaningless? (Score:1)
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Re:Internet speech and political speech (Score:1)
roundly ripped to shreds by someone with a better sense of argument then you. It's a learning
experience, and the Internet is the only place I've found this learning experience to be available."
This is why I've been a
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Re:Of manipulation... (Score:1)
No need for that - it was just an offhanded smartass comment. You can take the Karma Whore off of Slashdot, but you can't take the Slashdot out of the Karma Whore (or something like that).
;-)
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Re:Of manipulation... (Score:1)
when nobody trusts their representatives, representative democracy can't work."
Oh, but it can, that's what the military, tear gas, intelligence organizations, high taxation, UTICA, CDMA, nukes, police, media monopolies, and closed source are for. To ensure the continued hegemony.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
unbiased/ (Score:1)
Repeat.
There is no such thing as unbiased discussion of political issues.
It just does not exist. In fact, it is more of a fallacy than the tooth fairy or santa clause. Anybody who tells you any different is trying to sell you something.
This is due to the inherent nature of politics. Any issue is going to reflect the interest of some people, but not others. There are very few issues that we can all agree on - seriously. If it was put to a world-vote on whether all nuclear bombs should be detonated simultanously to wipe out all life on earth, just for the entertaining light show it would make, I guarantee that you will not get a unanimous "no" vote. Yes, less than probably one in 500 million would seriously vote yes on such an issue, but if everyone voted, it would not be unanimous.
And if everyone got a chance to discuss the issue, you'd get over 6 billion emotionally charged, biased in self-interest reasons why it would be a bad idea.
The whole point of discussion of an issue is to bend others to your side. "Education"? Education is propaganda. This is why money talks. This is why, while the internet has a potential to help things, I think, in the long run, when commercial interests have grabbed all the bandwidth and mindshare, they'll have all the influence. Similar to the way things are today. Grassroots shmassroots. It just ain't gonna happen. Signal/noise is a commodity.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Re:That's what they want you to think (Score:1)
And wait for the folks with the biggest gun to seize control.
Even if no one votes for the possible dictator, there is no guarantee they won't gain power. Remember that you are in a revolution. This probobly means that the old power structure is effectively gone. The people running the elections are already in control. You can bet your ass that they will set up the elections to win, or throw the results out if they lose.
All not voting would get you is the satisfaction of saying "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for this asshole."
Re:Enders' Game (Score:1)
Re:Not voting is a misdirected method (Score:1)
I'm a bit unclear about the distinciton you're making here between private property and personal possessions --- clearly a toothbrush is a personal possession, and a house is private property; but what about a computer?
Both a house and a computer are personal possessions. The difference between personal and private is this:
Personal is based on using what you own. You use the house you live in, you use your computer, etc.
Private is based on *not* using what you own. When people "own" ten houses, do they use them? No, you can't possibly use more than one house at a time, so those other nine houses become "private" property. A person "owns" them only because a peice of paper backed up by the violence of the government says that they own them.
Most people even in the US don't have much property that is they either leave to rot, or
pay people to use. That class of people is very small.
The idea of Capitalism is: Tool to the capitalist, computer to the capitalist, tractor to the capitalist, etc.
Communism is: Tool to the state, computer to the state, tractor to the state, etc.
Anarchism is: Tool to the worker, computer to the hacker, tractor to the farmer, etc.
That's how anarchists view the difference between private and personal property.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Re:What about flame? (Score:1)
>forum. It's not that unusual for certain chaps to
>refer to the President as a rapist, or to the NRA
>as a Nazi organization, or to other posters as
>morons; while most folks there are more
>levelheaded, the ease of insult lures others to
>hurl such at will.
Vicious insults in a public anonymous forum? As a Slashdot regular, I'm shocked that such a thing can exist.
That's what they want you to think (Score:1)
Then why do politicians spend so many millions of dollars and so much personal energy trying to get your vote? If your vote didn't matter, they wouldn't bother campaigning.
The more of us don't vote, the more our adversaries will stay in power. For one, the reason the religious right has such power in the US is because their voting turnout is something like twice the national average.
Voting isn't all you can do, and it shouldn't be. But it's one thing, and it can be an important tool when combined with other methods.
Re:Not voting is a misdirected method (Score:1)
That's not at all what I said, there's no reason to start the insults. Read my post again. I agree there are many other ways to effect change; I'm just saying that voting is one of them, and shouldn't be discarded. It can work in concert with other methods. I also agree that it's not enough to merely vote and sit back complacently.
Re:Not voting is a misdirected method (Score:1)
Well, actually, it is called many things.
As appealing as the principles of anarchy may be, I cannot help but believe that they are far too idealistic. Here's why:
By definition, forcing someone to play by a certain set of rules, or to choose between a fixed set of options, is a form of coercion, a direct contradiction of anarchistic beliefs, yes?
So the problem in front of you, and which you cannot solve, is this: how can you always persuade someone through non-coercive means (e.g., convincing them through logical argument) that they should themselves not use coercive means? The answer to that question, of course, is that you can't. Not always. The only situation in which you can guarantee that coercive means will never be used for anything is when the idea of coercion never enters the mind(s) of any of the members of the society in question. For if it is possible for any of the members to get that idea, eventually one or more of them will attempt to carry it through to fruition. But it is human nature to at least think of using some form of coercion to achieve one's ends.
Hence, it will always be the case that some members of human society will attempt to use coercion to achieve their ends, and hence a true anarchistic society cannot exist, as nice as it might be. There must always be some form of coercion in a human society, if only to enforce a rule that says "thou shalt not coerce another to do thy bidding".
--
You forgot business (Score:1)
ICQ#2584116
baby steps, baby steps ... (Score:1)
Many posters have already noted that the Internet as much potential for abuse as traditional publishing and broadcast media (though certainly the threat of cross-ownership is less). Others have asked if the 'Net has any importance the political mainstream -- after all, Jesse Ventura, once hailed as the "JFK of the Internet," was elected due to a slate of very good television ads and several important debate showings, not because of his e-mail lists. All in all, the Slashdot community seems to have a cautious view of the 'Net as a political "solution."
The most important fixes we can make to the system all exist offline (though, yes, the 'Net can be a powerful grassroots enabler), and few of them are truly revolutionary. Some examples:
Agitate for voter registration at the ballot box. Recent history shows that the states most flexible in their voting registration policies -- such as Minnesota! -- are also most likely to have higher and more spirited voter turnout.
Change the way Presidential debates are planned. The debate dates and formats are essentially chosen by the candidates, not the networks, and certainly not by the voters. Fix the number of debates (four or five would be a solid, and historically justifiable, choice), allow follow-up questions by the reporters (so the candidates can't present misleading assertions as pure fact), and let the TV networks choose moderators at their discretion. Ideally, we could go back to the "kitchen-table" debates CBS tried in the '60s, but that's as unlikely as James Dobson endorsing Hillary Clinton.
Change the primary schedule. The jousting between the states for primary primacy has created a situation in which candidates are forced to apply a massive amount of money in each state in a very brief period of time. The result? The candidates with the most money to blow in that time period get the most exposure and, consequently, the most votes.
Three simple ideas, all heavily debated in the literature, that haven't been addressed in a coordinated manner. Now, imagine if we could turn the energy of the Slashdot community to real-world political reformation....
Re:Not voting is a misdirected method (Score:1)
Private is based on *not* using what you own.
Isn't that to a certain extent an artificial distinction? Example: assume I am single and live in a house which, under the current legal system, I own. I'm seriously injured in a car crash and hospitalized for two months; do I lose the ownership of my house while i'm in the hospital, because i'm not using it? Or (perhaps more realistic) what if i'm in a work situation that requires me to split my time 50/50 between two cities on the opposite side of the country, and I have a house in both cities?
In an anarchist system, who enforces the distinction between personal and private? If i'm buying a house from you, because you're moving to another city, how do you know if i'm going to use it (in which case it's personal) and not rent it out?
A person "owns" them only because a peice of paper backed up by the violence of the government says that they own them.
I suppose that's one way to view it. On the other hand, usually they "own" the property because they made an agreement with someone else who owned it (say the first person was using it, to simplify) to exchange [x] for the ownership of the property; to invalidate that agreement would require violence of another sort, wouldn't it?
Re:The sites referenced are *not* useful. (Score:1)
How about advertisers?
Would you trust a political reporting/analysis site which was funded by advertising to tell you the truth at all times, and not allow the interests of their advertisers to obscure the information they were reporting on or analysing?
Maybe i'm more cynical than I should be, but I certainly wouldn't extend that kind of trust
Re:The sites referenced are *not* useful. (Score:1)
Sure --- but the amount of time it would take someone to compile this sort of information, going back to legislative records from as much as *30 years ago*, is immense; and who is going to pay for it?
(I'm not saying what you're looking for wouldn't be cool, just that it's unrealistic to expect it
Re:Not voting is a misdirected method (Score:1)
it's a side topic, but i'm really not convinced that small-scale drug use is any worse than small-scale alcohol use (but then again, I live in a community where it's overwhelmingly common
A big part of anarchist organizing nowadays is not attempting to forcibly smash the state, but instead creating social groups (such as Anarchist Soccer with the hopes of getting people the hell out of their houses and into groups where people can talk.
Clearly a good thing even if it has zero effect on people's politics
the more society becomes privatized, and the more people are separated from eachother, the easier it is to control people.
That makes a fair amount of sense: without the ability to compare your experiences to those of others, you have no way of knowing whether your experiences are normal or not; and so it is easier for outside forces to influence what you believe about your life *without you even knowing about it*. Lack of comparison leads to lack of perspective --- and fear leads to lack of compassion.
Well, then you might want to volunteer at the Internet Service Collective, or the Electricity Co-op, so that people don't have such a crappy impression of your work ethic
ok, that works *as long as i care*; but what keeps me from stealing what I want? (Note: I don't think there will be very many people who do this --- but neither do I think there will be *nobody*; the system has to be able to deal with the one-in-a-million exception as well as the normal case. this is sort of like the problem with death penalty absolutists: maybe the best thing to do with charles manson *is* to kill him, even if the death penalty *in general* isn't a good solution).
People get bored pretty quick with doing nothing.
True enough. And, arguably, part of the problem with our current economic system is that it doesn't *allow* people to get bored enough to go figure out what it is that they really care about, and where their creativity would come out and they could produce something new and exciting and beautiful.
he idea of "freeloaders" is usually a scapegoat for people who's skills aren't "economically viable" or who are old or sick or disabled, or live in a place with high unemployment and very few jobs
Or marketing people.
A community would have to make a commitment to non-violence. If anybody breaks that commitment, then the community has a right to defend the victim
This is probably a semantic argument, but: how is that different from the community constituting a government?
Food for thought, anyways.
Indeed.
Re:Of manipulation... (Score:1)
Oh, but it can, that's what the military, tear gas, intelligence organizations, high taxation, UTICA, CDMA, nukes, police, media monopolies, and closed source are for. To ensure the continued hegemony.
I guess this depends on who, or what, you consider to have hegemony. The interesting thing, though, is that almost all of those have valid reasons for existence which have nothing to do with repressing the citizenry, and little to do with the degeneration of representative democracy (and some of them, like "high taxation", don't even exist, at least not here --- US taxation rates are by far the lowest in the industrialized world).
In any event: no government can last indefinitely once it loses the support of its people --- force eventually stops working (as the Soviets found out). Misleading the people into supporting the government is a more effective tactic --- but, at least in this country, it's not *the government* doing that, but the companies which dominate the economy, and they are doing it(I suspect) largely without intent.
Still, the point remains that the popular legitimacy of the government of the United States is decreasing --- and that's disconcerting, as unless it is corrected in some fashion, we will end up either with (a) a government which is irrelevant and a society which effectively approaches anarcho-capitalism; (b) a repressive government desperate to remain in power; (c) a violent, and at times nasty, revolution. None of those are particularly *pleasant* outcomes
Re:Not voting is a misdirected method (Score:1)
Sure
The difference is that there probably will be a social understanding (under anarchism, violence enforced laws are replaced by social understandings about acceptable behaviour)
I can sort of see that, with two caveats:
(1) this assumes that I know enough of the people around me that this social understanding would actually have force. In *contemporary* society, that often isn't true --- I don't, for example, know my neighbors, nor have particular interest in knowing them; I don't see that changing in the near future.
(2) how does anarcho-socialism deal with the 'free rider' problem? (Boiled down to the essence, this is asking how you get your lazy/cheap housemate to buy toilet paper; more generally, it's a question about how you prevent people from profiting off of the efforts of others. Socialism doesn't have a good answer to this, and neither does capitalism [although it's more masked in capitalism, as the free riders *appear* to be productive]; does anarcho-socialism?)
In an anarchist system, who enforces your ability to charge rent?
Presumably I could use force to eject the person not paying rent, right? Unless they could use force to prevent me from doing so, or there were some *effective social sanction* against my doing so
This is the center of the problem I have believing in anarchism -- I don't understand what, in the absence of a government monopoly on force, would prevent individuals from using force. I suppose you could depend on everyone agreeing not to use force --- but then the entire community is vulnerable to anyone who violates that agreement, and the incentive for individuals to violate it is going to be fairly high
Re:That's what they want you to think (Score:1)
maybe this says less about the merits of "democracy" than it does about the failures of government?
Absolutely. Yet, at the same time --- having *no* government isn't really a feasible solution, at least until you find someway to convince people like the thugs running around in Sierra Leone chopping off people's hands for refusing to give them money that they don't have not to do such things.
Democracy, flawed as it is, is better than the alternative. The thing that scares me is that a lot of the people I hear railing about the evils of our system haven't *considered* what the alternatives are.
Re:true democracy(?) (Score:1)
a democracy is a republic:
2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.
Democracies can be direct or indirect. The epa is not a democracy, and neither is any gov't agency. They are bureaucracies.
Re:unbiased/ (Score:1)
There is no such thing as unbiased discussion of political issues.
Yes, but imagine the evening news if they couldn't politicize everything. No global warming stories, no adjectives, no excitement.... hrm.. I think I like that idea..
It's like the joke: politics(n): from poly meaning many, and tics meaning biting incects
Re:The truth about electoral politics... (Score:1)
A representative republic is a form of democracy. I know of no place where this "democracy" thing happens in full force. If you know of one, let me know.
Re:The truth about electoral politics... (Score:1)
So there are no COUNTRIES running under this style? I see a company, a few anarchys (which by definition are randomly democratic) and a rebellious order. While they are currently active democracies (thank you for the info, I shall study them further) they do not have the same scale as a parliment or a senate or a bund. They are collectives for the most part. Though in the case of the spanish mondragon concern, they seem to be very effective in their space.
the ACLU leads political activism technology (Score:1)
you pick the topic you agree with, optionally customize the form letter, type in some address info, and they figure out who to fax it to and do the rest. this is my current favorite form of activism.
- don't like ECHELON? [aclu.org]
- think filtering software legislation sucks? [aclu.org]
- opposed to secret computer searches, or censoring certain types of information from the 'Net? [aclu.org]
clearly, the ACLU is all over topics of interest toCarefull there, Independent is a party. (Score:1)
Just a note since I was also registered Independent until an informed registrar asked me if I really meant that I wanted to be a member of the party created by George Wallace in his presidential bid. Whoops! What I really wanted, is to be registered as "No Party".
This may or may not be the case with you, or in your state, but it's worth checking.
Re:The truth about electoral politics... (Score:1)
It has always seemed to me that anarchy would be self defeating, all that would be accomplished by it would be the breaking up of government into hundreds or thousands of petty tyrant pseudo-states which are run by the 'in posse', in short a return to feudalism. Humans are opportunists - someone will always rise to fill any power vacuum. And there are always those gullible, or greedy enough to follow.
Also, one must reckon with the "tyranny of the majority". Lets say we abolish representational democracy, and let each person participate in government. What body prevents this 'democracy' from enacting laws which abolish the rights of individuals who think/behave differently? It would be completely democratic if 80% of the populous decided to ban bubble gum chewing. But that doesn't make it "right". The existing political system uses the courts to try and help balance this out, and I'll be the last to say it works perfectly. But I can't help but think I would be very afraid in a society which WAS actually ruled by "the people".
Obasan
If a tree falls in the forest, and kills a mime, does anyone care?
Re:The truth about electoral politics... (Score:1)
There is such thing as a natural heirarchy, that would exist even within an anarchist society (although some would argue otherwise), but the difference is that, apart from their charisma, these "leaders" would not have the advantage of violence to back up their decisions the way they do today.
But as far as I can tell, this is not true. Anyone who has ever been bullied knows better. Bullies need no system to legitimize their actions, the fact that their bigger/stronger/are heavily armed/etc is more than enough. Anarchy would not be anarchy for very long - individuals like these would rapidly assert control over domains, form clans/gangs which re-established a power hierarchy, and the average person is back to being yoked by petty tyrants.
What do you think some of the militant militias would do if the US government ceased to exist? Would they say, "Ho, hum, I guess we can all get along now." I rather doubt it. More likely they would dance a little jig, then take over their local town and shoot whoever it was that had opinions they didn't like. And most of said town would probably join them, because that's the power these kinds of groups have. Given a choice of join or die, most people will join, then justify their position by convincing themselves that the group is right.
Isn't it the least bit curious that there doesn't seem to be anywhere on the planet in a state of anarchy for any significant period of time? There is certainly compelling evidence that human group dynamics and social structure are hierarchical. Don't get me wrong, the idea of not having a government, of everyone respecting each other's perspectives and ideas is a nice dream. I just don't see it happening. As the saying goes, lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Western democracies need reforms, of that I have no doubt, but they have a great deal to speak for them, as well. Before toppling a system that works reasonably well (and it does, people cite the brutality in the USA, or the plight of the homeless or the crime rate etc. etc. but these people need to experience what things are like in some non-democratic states...)
In any case... I have read some of the FAQ, but not all of it. So I will read through it at some point, and I'll investigate the CNT as well. Thanks for the info.
Obasan
If a tree falls in the forest, and kills a mime, does anyone care?
Re:Athenian democracy (Score:1)
How times have changed, eh!!
Re:Would Rob Malda do this? (Score:1)
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Re:Of manipulation... (Score:1)
The emotional content of modern political campaigns will hopefully be dulled somewhat as people continue to use the net to make their political decisions. First, I make the assumption that the public as a whole gets most of its political information from television. Television is an emotive medium, short on depth and long on knee-jerk reactions, "sound bites", and momentary focus. The net allows for more depth to enter into our political discussions. There is no linking on TV. The nature of the net is such that there is an abundance of available information. (To use an analogy: TV is left-brained [emotional], the net is right-brained[logical].) I believe (and fervently hope) that this logical nature of the net this will decrease the ability for emotional manipulation that has been so prevalent since the 60's.
As far as the educated congressman is concerned, I think you would be surprised to find out the average education level of our elected leaders. It is actually quite high, much higher than the population as a whole. And while they are as a whole corrupted by their need for cash, the system that steers the educated elite towards public servitude seems to work.
- Rev.Re:Political solution ... (Score:1)
Re:The truth about electoral politics... (Score:1)
As far as the Electoral College goes, just because a body was given a power does not mean that it will ever be exercised, or has ever been exercised. The EC is a functional figurehead, an excuse to give party supporters something cool to put on their letterhead. Try to name the last time that the EC actually overturned a popular vote for President. Considering that less than 1% of electors have ever misrepresented their community, the Electoral College is one of the least important problems facing the US government.
And as Winston Churchill once said, "the electoral college system is probably the worst possible method of choosing a president-except for all the others."
Re:Not voting is a misdirected method (Score:1)
Anarchism is: Tool to the worker, computer to the hacker, tractor to the farmer, etc
I'm no study of political theory, but this is certainly not what anarchy means to me! Does not anarchy support the idea of no government?
So anarchists have faith in human nature, eh? You believe that if there is no government, and no governing law, that the farmer is going to keep his tractor? What if the farmer down the road owns a bunch more land and has a gun? Can't he just take the first farmer's tractor? Heck, can't he enslave that farmer- and his family?
Sorry I don't have time to go through you FAQ's, I really am interested to know if my take on anarchy is incorrect. But the Anarchists I knew in College...boy...talk about trouble-makers. These cats not only disrespected authority (perhaps rightfully), but pretty much disrespected humanity in general.
AlGore2000.com is on Linux, so.... (Score:1)
"called for protecting pristine roadless areas in our National Forests - including Alaska?s Tongass National Forest"
"George W. Bush?s Gift To Working Parents: Work Longer, Get Less In Retirement"
Re:Political solution ... (Score:1)
Re:Political solution ... (Score:1)
The US is NOT a Democracy for a very good reason (Score:1)
Re:Voting meaningless? (Score:1)
I guess I really just feel that cynicism shouldn't be taken to an extreme, even in jest or reducto-ad-absurdium arguments. When read without a good amount of thought, it can be more harmful than good.
Good to see that you are reading these posts, however. That's one of the nicest things I've found about Slashdot's interviews. ...and otherwise, I find your arguments lucid and quite convincing.
For the record....
Re:What about flame? (Score:1)
Alternately, pop by the NYT "Election 2000" forum. It's not that unusual for certain chaps to refer to the President as a rapist, or to the NRA as a Nazi organization, or to other posters as morons; while most folks there are more levelheaded, the ease of insult lures others to hurl such at will.
The campaigns generally AREN'T distributing, say, detailed policy papers, with a few exceptions IIRC -- it's too easy to get nailed for contradicting a promise. They DO use the WWW to try to coordinate events, mobilize people and raise funds, however.
But you'll likely mostly see simply faster, more furious flames...
multiple sources of information (Score:1)
Indeed. Even on the net, most people still tend to rely on a few sources of information. Those sources of information will remain controlled by a few individuals or corporations. It used to be the newspapers, then the tv stations and now it's the web sites. We get complacent and turn to Slashdot for news but what happens when net censorship [geocities.com] becomes something no longer interesting enough to cover and gets rejected as a story? We need to get our news from multiple sites and view our politics from multiple perspectives as well.
Re:Of manipulation... (Score:1)
americans will have no end of energy to spend following their political interests online, and there is no limit to the amount of complexity an online forum can present.
remember two years ago when it was assumed most americans wouldn't use search engines, but aol instead? do you honestly believe that if americans could vote themselves a tax break online that they would say 'oh it's too complex'. don't bet against it.
Re:Unique in history? (Score:1)
Scale is a critical component of any medium. I can imagine a 16th century monk arguing that Gutenberg's press was nothing new; it's basically just like transcribing by hand, only a little faster.
I realized that this claim would sound outrageous, mostly because comparisons to Gutenberg are made far too frequently. But I stand by it nonetheless.
Scott
Re:Voting meaningless? (Score:1)
I was just reacting to the irrationality of the argument that votes matter less on the West coast because the election is already "determined."
Scott
Re:The truth about electoral politics... (Score:1)
We hear constantly that the USA is a "democracy", as though everything that occurs in this society is due to the will of the people. This is completely false, and any basic knowledge of history and political science will prove this point.
Our state is an Electoral Republic.
The distinction between "democracy" and "republic" is not as clear cut as you might think. The word democracy is of Greek origin, and originally referred to the government of Athens. The word "republic" is of latin origin, and originally referred to the government of Rome. Neither was a "democracy" in the sense you mean of a government where all citizens directly vote on laws. Each was representative; the only difference was that Athens chose its representatives by lottery and Rome based on elections from geographic regions.
I believe that James Madison was the first to introduce the distinction between democracy and republic, and that only because the concept of "democracy" was so controversial that he didn't want that particular word associated with the US Constitution.
In any event, the US is a democratic, because there are formal institutions and processes that make the government accountable to the people at large. Of course it's not an "ideal" democracy, and the government is not perfectly accountable to the people. But, I don't think that makes it incorrect to describe our government as democratic, nor pointless to describe how we might take small steps toward the ideal.
Scott
Tell me more (Score:1)
Scott
scott@democracyproject.org
Re:Not voting is a misdirected method (Score:1)
So are you saying that the only power for change comes from within the system? This seems like a rather .. ignorant (?) statement to me. There are many people who don't vote, yet still work to change the system. These people don't ask for change (or "demand" change) through their vote, they force change through their actions.
Yes, Building Freedom [buildfreedom.com] is a lot more difficult & involving than simply going to the polls and voting, but at least you're not relying on someone else to give you the power to make decisions that is rightfully yours.
Re:Pentium III id (Score:1)
Re:Political solution ... (Score:1)
Read this thread [slashdot.org].
Re:Unique in history? (Score:1)
My guess is that you belive moderation effectively determines the "valuable ones".
If you're wading through the zeros, like I am, there are still hundreds of posts. At this level, it's no more unique than what can be found at Deja or RemarQ.
Unique in history? (Score:1)
Slashdot gives the average person the ability to address a forum of hundreds of thousands of people. I contend that that is unique in the history of the world, and that development is revolutionary in the way that Gutenberg's printing press was revolutionary.
What's so damn unique about /.? It may be a wonderful thing, but it's basically a web-based newsgroup with moderation by users and advertising. To compare it with the Gutenberg's press is simply flattery.
Re:The sites referenced are *not* useful. (Score:1)
who is going to pay for it?
How about advertisers?
Re:Individual votes DO matter, albeit nonlinearly (Score:1)
In this country, the way this system works, the only votes that matter are those of the electoral college. My history profs would smack me for not remembering details, but there is at least one instance in history where the electoral vote and the public vote differed. Which canidate do you think won?
I'm a 21st century digital boy.
I don't know how to read, but I got a lot of toys.
Re:Political solution ... (Score:1)
Lincoln: Elected in 1860
Garfield: Elected in 1880
McKinley: Elected in 1900
Kennedy: Elected in 1960
Reagan: Elected in 1980
Looks like we're about due... *grin*
(Note for the humor-impaired: Yes, I left out Jackson, both Roosevelts, and Truman. More info can be found here [uni-rostock.de].)
--Fesh
On Democracy in general: (Score:1)
When you're thinking democratically, the information superhighway closes the gap on the issue of the cyber-patriot. This is why a Senior VP at my company recently announced that governmental focus can hardly help but to leverage a converging war on democracy vs. the current agenda of the US. Having the zero bug count that is democracy, it follows that republic-based governments realign the core of life. On a going-forward basis, we can propose that democracy will be here forever, but will it? Democracy/government synergy creates a big hit, you're thinking all of the time about implementing each and every facet of it worldwide. The US is making forward progress towards a standard titan by implementing an agenda that is both world-wide and value-added.
Pros and Cons (Score:2)
Um.... why? Convince me
Well since I didn't post the original comment I'll say that I'm neutral on the idea of a "no-confidence" voting option for Andover (read: Slashdot) management. It did intrigue me enough to post my thoughts on it.
Pros:
These days are over. Slashdot *is* the establishment now, since it's backed by big money (VA Linux) and has a huge editorial staff with a huge following on the net. Malda's (and others') viewpoints aren't nearly as innocent now because, like it or not, Slashdot is as much a part of politicking in the internet age as, say, Microsoft (probably more so). So, with power comes responsibility. A no-confidence voting option would make sure you guys would stay honest.
Why am I so critical of this? Because I feel it's abuse of power to simply spout off one's mouth without first thinking "Hey maybe this is due to something other than malice". That brings me back to point one.
Cons:
Those are my thoughts. Have fun with them!
Re:The truth about electoral politics... (Score:2)
People have far too little time to be informed on all of the issues they would be asked to vote on. Too many people would vote on issues they know nothing about and we'd end up with a huge mess. Perhaps it would work for certain issues, but for the most part we'd end up with either chaos, or tyranny of the majority on highly politicized moral issues.
Re:The sites referenced are *not* useful. (Score:2)
If I put up a website that attracted thousands of hits per day, I could dictate my terms to advertisers a lot easier than they could influence me. I'd basically tell them they could have a banner on the page, subject to my approval, which would get a certain average number of views per day. Take it or leave it, there are plenty of companies out there that want to advertise.
Re:Of manipulation... (Score:2)
Why did so and so vote against the school funding bill? Is he against education? well no, you see there was this bond issue, and if you look on page six, at the amortization, it would mean that the value that holders would be taxed at would make it a losing proposition, and nobody would buy the bonds, and we'd get less funding than the current system, and people in this region would pay more property taxes, blah blah, and the people who drafted the bill are being lobbyed by real-estate developers (this statement must come with proof - in an ideal world), who want property values to come down so they can put in a shopping mall. . . etc. See what I mean?
FUD reigns because we're all inherently lazy - who has time to read an 800-page discourse on the economic impact of user-fees on highway construction, when some of the data is backed up by sketchy research, or impacts emotionally charged issues like employment, education, abortion, gun control (man, if you want to see skewed statistics and messed-up studies, check into gun-control legislation)? We can't all get up to our shoulders in these issues. Okay, enough elitist crap - let's be egalitarian about it. Say Joe Sixpack CAN understand it. Does he have TIME to go over all of that information? For EVERY issue? Does anybody EXCEPT a full-time politician, with a staff of economic advisers, bean-counters, and researchers? This is what we pay them for. Even the politicians who actuall VOTE on issues aren't fully informed about most of them. It's a big fuckin job. That's the whole point of a representative government, as opposed to a truly democratic government.
Yes, these issues ought to be transparent, and the internet is a great tool to save people the effort of having to go to city-hall, and look up records and statistics, to back up what a politician is saying, etc. stuff like that, but it's not going to be a cure for the sheer volume of information that's involved in these decisions, nor will it be a cure for biased presentation.
Ultimately, when a community discusses issues, the majority opinion will hold sway, as it does here on Slashdot. There are an awful lot of Microsoft haters here. If this were AOL, would you see the same level of Microsoft bashing as we do here on slashdot, right or wrong? So are slashdotters inherently smarter than AOL-ers? perhaps
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Re:Not voting is a misdirected method (Score:2)
Sure
Understandable. I'd say the best example of anarchist communities within our society are a) anarchist squats, b) camping trips, or c) open source software. Now, the problem is that all of these and more may capture the basic essence of anarchism, but they still keep with them the baggage of our society (drug use, anti-social behaviour, etc). But they come a lot closer than, say, the military.
(1) this assumes that I know enough of the people around me that this social understanding would actually have force. In *contemporary* society, that often isn't true --- I don't, for example, know my neighbors, nor have particular interest in knowing them; I don't see that changing in the near future.
A *huge* problem with society as it is: People just don't care about their neighbors. Honestly, I don't blame them. I'm currently living in a bourgois suburb of Chicago that I absolutely loathe. I have no reason to talk to my neighbors, nor would I want to.
A big part of anarchist organizing nowadays is not attempting to forcibly smash the state, but instead creating social groups (such as Anarchist Soccer [infoshop.org] with the hopes of getting people the hell out of their houses and into groups where people can talk.
Chumbawumba [chumba.com] (yeah, their music sucks, but they're pretty cool anarchists, and they write well) wrote a great essay about how, the more society becomes privatized, and the more people are separated from eachother, the easier it is to control people. That's why churches are outlawed in a lot of South American dictatorships, not because of a hatred of religion, but because when people gather together, they start spreading ideas. Which is why the Internet is so damn dangerous.
(2) how does anarcho-socialism deal with the 'free rider' problem? (Boiled down to the essence, this is asking how you get your lazy/cheap housemate to buy toilet paper; more generally, it's a question about how you prevent people from profiting off of the efforts of others. Socialism doesn't have a good answer to this, and neither does capitalism [although it's more masked in capitalism, as the free riders *appear* to be productive]; does anarcho-socialism?)
If people, very simply, do not want to work *at all* (remember, work under anarchism is a very social affair, and definitely not the ridiculous grudgery that it is under capitalism and socialism), then the community at large is under no obligation to provide for him/her anything. Chances are, most communities would provide basic needs (clothing, food, housing), but you want Internet access? Electricity? Access to any other resource that the community helps provide? Well, then you might want to volunteer at the Internet Service Collective, or the Electricity Co-op, so that people don't have such a crappy impression of your work ethic.
Honestly, I doubt that very many people would go *their whole lives* without working. People get bored pretty quick with doing nothing. The idea of "freeloaders" is usually a scapegoat for people who's skills aren't "economically viable" or who are old or sick or disabled, or live in a place with high unemployment and very few jobs. Everybody can provide *something* to society.
Presumably I could use force to eject the person not paying rent, right? Unless they could use force to prevent me from doing so, or there were some *effective social sanction* against my doing so
A community would have to make a commitment to non-violence. If anybody breaks that commitment, then the community has a right to defend the victim. Self-defense would be the only kind of "violence" that would be tolerated.
This is why anarchists are so often viewed as being violent. Many of the stereotypical anarchists-of-yore were part of a small movement called "propaganda-by-the-deed" that sought to use assassinations and bombings to extract revenge on people in power who had committed heinous acts of violence against the working class. The idea was to use these actions to spark revolution.
Most anarchists today see "propaganda by the deed" as a dismal failure, and definitely don't seek to resurrect the movement. Although nobody really feels particularly *sorry* for the industrialists who had hundreds of workers attacked and killed, and because of this were targetted by anarchists.
This is the center of the problem I have believing in anarchism -- I don't understand what, in the absence of a government monopoly on force, would prevent individuals from using force. I suppose you could depend on everyone agreeing not to use force --- but then the entire community is vulnerable to anyone who violates that agreement, and the incentive for individuals to violate it is going to be fairly high
If a community of 5000 people agree to not use force, and 10 of those people break the agreement, would it be hard for the remaining 4990 people to step in? Remember, the majority of people do *not* like violence, and usually are never involved with anything more than a fistfight or two.
Food for thought, anyways.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Re:Not voting is a misdirected method (Score:2)
Wow, cool: an interesting political debate on slashdot!
Nah, some of these slashdotters need to think outside the box once in a while.
Isn't that to a certain extent an artificial distinction? Example: assume I am single and live in a house which, under the current legal system, I own. I'm seriously injured in a car crash and hospitalized for two months; do I lose the ownership of my house while i'm in the hospital, because i'm not using it? Or (perhaps more realistic) what if i'm in a work situation that requires me to split my time 50/50 between two cities on the opposite side of the country, and I have a house in both cities?
Well, one thing that you're inadvertently doing is applying anarchist principles to a non-anarchist society. The whole idea of "work" is radically different under anarchism, but that's a whole other debate.
Whenever you try and apply anarchist principles to a decidedly unanarchist society, you get some really strange contradictions. This is why free software sparks so many debates, since it is based on anarcho-communist principles (communal ownership of production, rulerless organization, etc.), yet it exists within a capitalist society.
I'll try to address the question as best I can. If you're not going to be occupying the house for a long period of time, there is nothing stopping people from just moving in (especially if there is a severe housing shortage). The difference is that there probably will be a social understanding (under anarchism, violence enforced laws are replaced by social understandings about acceptable behaviour) that you shouldn't just move into somebody's house if circumstances have forced them out, but they will be moving back in.
In an anarchist system, who enforces the distinction between personal and private? If i'm buying a house from you, because you're moving to another city, how do you know if i'm going to use it (in which case it's personal) and not rent it out?
In an anarchist system, who enforces your ability to charge rent? Remember, the idea of anarchism isn't based on "who enforces what", but "what would happen if nothing was enforced?" The distinction between private property and personal property only exist because government helps make that distinction (which is why state socialism is such a dismal failure, because it doesn't fully understand the relationship between the state and capitalism).
I suppose that's one way to view it. On the other hand, usually they "own" the property because they made an agreement with someone else who owned it (say the first person was using it, to simplify) to exchange [x] for the ownership of the property; to invalidate that agreement would require violence of another sort, wouldn't it?
If there are four empty farmhouses, I can "buy" them from somebody who "owns" them, and that's fine, I can brag all I want about how I own four farmhouses. I can even rent them out, but what happens when the people who live in them refuse to pay rent? Who backs up the contract? What if somebody who needs a place to stay moves into the empty farmhouse? Who forces them out? Without violence, and by extension, without government, there is no such distinction. The only property that can exist is personal property.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Re:That's what they want you to think (Score:2)
Then why do politicians spend so many millions of dollars and so much personal energy trying to get your vote? If your vote didn't matter, they wouldn't bother campaigning.
It doesn't matter to us, but of course it matters to the people who want to get elected!
Voting isn't all you can do, and it shouldn't be. But it's one thing, and it can be an important tool when combined with other methods.
As long as people don't just vote, sit back, and think they've changed the world, voting is fine. But for the most part, voting for leaders, especially since all the crap that has come out of it, usually sucks. For instance, what about Hitler, or the Bolsheviks being voted into power? How many dictators have been voted into power in South America because of deceptive campaigns?
If we were in the middle of a revolution, I would *very* strongly suggest that people not vote.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Re:Not voting is a misdirected method (Score:2)
I'm no study of political theory, but this is certainly not what anarchy means to me! Does not anarchy support the idea of no government?
Right, governments are replaced with directly democratic, egalitarian communities. Laws are replaced with social understandings. Police and military are abolished.
So anarchists have faith in human nature, eh?
Not necessarily. Check out this quote:
It is the belief that power corrupts, and that people become irresponsible in their exercise of it, that forms the basis for much of their [anarchists] criticism of political authority and centralised power. Power must be dispersed they say, not so much because everyone is always good, but because when power is concentrated some people tend to become extremely evil.
John Clark, The Anarchist Moment
You believe that if there is no government, and no governing law, that the farmer is going to keep his tractor? What if the farmer down the road owns a bunch more land and has a gun? Can't he just take the first farmer's tractor? Heck, can't he enslave that farmer- and his family?
Violence == Force;
Force == Coercion;
Coercion.new->heiriarchy;
Heirarchy != Anarchy.
When people use violence in order to increase their wealth, why that's called Capitalism, my friend.
Sorry I don't have time to go through you FAQ's, I really am interested to know if my take on anarchy is incorrect.
Definitely incorrect. Remember that anarchist thought goes back to the 1700's, and in many cases the Greek and Roman times (although I forget the name of the philosopher from that era). A lot of people have recommended anarchism for a long time.
I would highly recommend going through the FAQ. It's really a fantastic resource.
Somebody who wants to destroy government and replace it with a society based on equality and freedom is an anarchist. Somebody who just wants to destroy government, with no idea what to do afterwards is just a nut.
But the Anarchists I knew in College...boy...talk about trouble-makers. These cats not only disrespected authority (perhaps rightfully), but pretty much disrespected humanity in general.
A person can call themselves a "Christian", and yet be completely ignorant of what being a Christian means, no? Same with being an anarchist, anybody can call themselves an anarchist, and a lot of people do, but there is a minority who has no clue what it means. Usually, they're the drunk punk-rocker fashion anarchists who have never heard of Kropotkin.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Re:That's what they want you to think (Score:2)
I think your point is that the candidates are indistinguishable. What that means is that we need to find or create new candidates. Don't be afraid to vote for "third-party" candidates-- even if they lose, your vote affects future elections. If enough people vote the way you do, then at the least you become a voting block that the big candidates court.
As long as people don't just vote, sit back, and think they've changed the world, voting is fine. But for the most part, voting for leaders, especially since all the crap that has come out of it, usually sucks. For instance, what about Hitler, or the Bolsheviks being voted into power? How many dictators have been voted into power in South America because of deceptive campaigns?
I think it's misplaced to blame these on democracy. Do you think it would have been better if those people hadn't been voted in? You're almost promoting the dictators with this argument. True, the bad guys successfully manipulated the voting process, but if not for that I think they would have found another way to get in power (like, with guns and torture).
Speaking of which, part of what makes those dictators so bad is that they remove the democratic process. If FAIR elections were regularly held, there wouldn't be nearly as much brutality.
I think it was Winston Churchill who said "Democracy is the worst form of government around, except for all the other forms of government." OK, a benevolent dictatorship has merits, but that's awfully tricky to guarantee and perpetuate.
Not voting is a misdirected method (Score:2)
So if you disagree with capitalism, are you going to throw away all your money?
A lot of people feel the way you do, but it's the wrong way to go about it. You're throwing away what power the system gives you. You can use that power to change the system itself, if you disagree with it. Find someone you want in office, or create legislation you want passed, and use the ballot box to do it. Your lack of vote is interpreted by politicians as apathy. If you don't want that, then distinguish yourself from apathy somehow, maybe by voting for a non-Republicrat candidate, or something else creative.
Of manipulation... (Score:2)
But it does underscore a very serious problem that even the Greeks had - it is very obvious that for democracy to succeed that the elected officials need to be educated to a level where they do not embarass the issues, themselves, or their constituents. I disrecall the exact quote, but I believe Plato said something about this when talking about rhetoric. Probably the first moral relativists (and unfortunately I also forget the name of the group!) they decided that any position could be made valid with enough work, and as such it didn't particularily matter what your position was so long as you could argue it well.
And how very true that statement is, because most people (I would say 75%) respond to emotion - that is how they judge and perceive things. If someone is emotional about something, it must mean it is something important.. or so goes the train of thought. This can often lead to people charging into the sea like lemmings because a charismatic individual led them. How do you "fix" that?
I arrived at the conclusion awhile back that democracy is a failed system - it can never work in a large group. Small groups amongst peers sharing similar goals, YES. But not in a large group. The reason is because a few people will control and manipulate the masses by appealing to their emotions instead of their brains. Ask a man who he voted for and he'll probably tell you.. ask him why and vagueness is all. Unfortunately, I have no better system to offer - communism failed, facism failed, anarchy definately failed, feudalism failed, monarchy failed, and benevolent dictators are all but impossible to find. Left with that, I decided awhile ago that if I ever feel the need to participate in politics, I would appeal to people's hearts instead of their brains.. it's more likely to succeed.
Re:The truth about electoral politics... (Score:2)
Re:Prohibition is an example of forced change (Score:2)
A short take on the social history of the period is this: Industrial Revolution causes massive shift from rural/craftman/self-sufficient society to urban/factory/consumer society. People living in rural and small-town America lose their means of independence. They turn to alcohol, and alcohol abuse becomes a scourge of formerly stable communities as the young and able-bodied leave for the cities. Alcohol abuse also arises in the cities. The only people left to maintain the social fabric are the women, who mobilize to fight all the problems caused by the transition: poverty, orphanages, debtors, child labor, alcohol abuse, prosititution (the suffragettes more often defend the prostitutes and attack the system) and fight for unionization, suffrage, and prohibition. People also fight against immigration and for protectionism.
We've made it through the transition from pre- and post-industrial society, and thus have difficulty seeing how Prohibition could even have been possible. But it's a natural result of industrialization.
Interestingly, this transition is occuring in India, which has many dry states (where social, political, and religious policies are closely tied). Prohibition is largely a grassroots effort. For a good (though intensely anti-internationalization/industrialization) perspective on this and other grassroots attempts to moderate the effects of the internationalization of India, read Jeremy Seabrook's Notes from Another India [amazon.com].
Re:Individual votes DO matter, albeit nonlinearly (Score:2)
Yes and no. You do, after all, get to vote for the members of the electoral college. Besides which, the electoral college only elects *the president and vice-president*; in practice, their power is more circumscribed than people realize.
Besides which, in many states, you can vote *directly on laws themselves* --- most notably in California, where there are typically 30 or so per election, but also in other states as well.
Re:Not voting is a misdirected method (Score:2)
I'm a bit unclear about the distinciton you're making here between private property and personal possessions --- clearly a toothbrush is a personal possession, and a house is private property; but what about a computer?
Besides, what you are saying isn't true; more than half the people *in the United States* own a house (or are married to someone who does).
Voting for leaders is worthless. Why waste the time?
Even if that were true, many states have referenda or initiative systems in which the voters vote *on laws*. Yeah, the vote is often heavily influenced by misleading advertising paid for by powerful special interest groups --- but we're still voting directly on laws, and it's not that unusual for the voters to spit in the face of the interest groups, as it were. (California has many examples of this, one of the most recent being the legalization of use of medical marijuana, over the objections of almost every mainstream politician in the state).
Re:Of manipulation... (Score:2)
This is arguably one of the problems with direct democracy, and why representative democracy is a good thing: most issues decided by legislatures are immensely complicated, and expecting everyone to devote the time and energy to understanding them is absurd. Yet, at the same time, when nobody trusts their representatives, representative democracy can't work.
It's probably the most significant problem in modern political science: expecting people to devote the effort needed to make direct democracy work on a large scale is like expecting to discover alien life tomorrow, but lack of trust in representatives is undermining the legitimacy of the current system.
*sigh*
A Political Slashdot (Score:2)
I'm on it. I've already registered the name Polidot.com (wanted Polydot.com, but it was taken.)
While I respect the /. tarball, I won't be using it. I have some ideas on how to make moderation more efficient that are discongruent with the /. model.
Polidot.com will not be interested in collecting information about users and then selling it to advertisers. I'm more interested in implementing an interesting "collaborative filtering" model than making a lot of money. However, I do have some interesting ideas about funding the site.
(And to answer the obvious question -- yes, the model will be open-sourced.)
Re:Political solution ... (Score:2)
I just did a little research on presidents elected on 0 (mod 10) years, on whitehouse.gov. Isn't the internet wonderful?
Elected in 1840, William Harry Harrison was the first president to die in office, of pneumonia, just months after taking office.
Lincoln was shot and killed in his second term, although his first election was 1860.
James Garfield, elected in 1880:
"James Garfield was the second president shot in office. Doctors tried to find the bullet with a metal detector invented by Alexander Graham Bell.
But the device failed because Garfield was placed on a bed with metal springs, and no one thought to move him. He died on September 19, 1881." (whitehouse.gov)
McKinley was shot and killed in his second term... the second election was in 1900.
Warren Harding, elected in 1920, died of a heart attack while in office.
FDR's third(!) election was 1940, he died in his fourth term of a cerebral hemorrage.
JFK elected in 1960. Shot and killed in 1963.
Reagan was shot but not killed in 1981, elected in 1980.
Re:The truth about electoral politics... (Score:2)
That is true. What people want to believe is that the system is reformable. They want to believe that if they just cared enough and tried enough and participated enough their voice can be heard and the system can be changed. Unfortunately, whether intentionally or not, this country's system is VERY resistent to change. It is very good at allowing people to THINK they are affecting change. But some systems just CANNOT be reformed. It needs a bottom up reanalysis and reconstruction. There is too much harmful cruft built up in this government.
Unfortunately, not participating is exactly what needs to be done to ensure the system never changes. It might be true that change in the system cannot come from within itself, but perhaps by participating in the current system, one can elect those who can make radical changes. Change needs to be "bootstrapped" internally first.
Re:Would Rob Malda do this? (Score:2)
Re:The truth about electoral politics... (Score:2)
Thus making my vote and political work just slightly more powerful.
Yay cynical people! More power to them (and thus to me)!
Roberts e-Rules. (Score:2)
In this society, we live with the paradox that we believe that every individual should be capable of making the decisions that affect their lives, yet people get lazy and allow others to do that for them. We all depend on the press rather than to read the congressional record. We generally would rather watch CNN than CSPAN. We want abstraction and direct participation at the same time. At some point when we decide that the system is broken, we desire direct participation. The ballot initiative process in California is an example of small interest groups crafting their own legislative vebriage instead of relying on politicians to do so in the state legislature. Term limits are another expression of the peoples desire to get fresh bodies into the process of decisionmaking.
But what does a professional politician do that is so complex? Nothing really, except that there are a plethora of very complicated procedures involved in the deliberative process. We recognize this in formal systems such as Robert's Rules of Order. This is where the 'right honorable gentleman may be recognized' and 'i yeild the floor if...' and a half million other rote phrases come from. (usually followed by the pounding of a gavel). A great deal of this formality is critical in establishing a consistent framework for deciding weighty and complex matters. But equally, it obfuscates processes and allows people to evade responsibility and accountability. The entire great problem is that by limiting the number of direct participants in this deliberative process, you effectively limit the number of braincells dedicated to the task of decisionmaking. Most importantly you introduce the necessity of abstraction, the process through which dissonance and manipulation results inevitably in misrepresentation of facts, and all that jazz we have come to know as 'spin'.
So what if all the web based conferences collaborated on a common core which allowed karma collection, cross-posting, and voting? What if we build software to track reputations? What if you couldn't vote on any matter of substance until you demonstrated competence on all the core issues? What if, though you might want to vote based on abstractions of issues, all of the relevent facts and testimony were immediately at your fingertips. What if the daunting complexity and arcane formalities of all our legislative processes were embodied into a web interface, manifestly open for all eyes and ears?
I call this area computer mediated deliberation. At bottom it is a system designed to facilitate decision making between individuals and groups through document management, voting systems, chat, conferencing and other forms of webified communication.
The fundamental premise of such a system is that it is capable of disintermediating legislative bodies and opening up processes which now occur at times and locations too obscure for citizen review. Duties like grand jury service, city council audience or even second guessing the OJ trial are things for which Americans show a deep and continuing interest. Why don't we take these processes out from under big brick and mortar domed buildings and put them into the sunlight of the net for all to see and participate?
It opens and reinforces democratic processes. And instead of pointing fingers at 'the Beltway', we can be there. 24/7.
I have begun putting together ideas for a system which is quite involved, yet builds on things we all recognize in conferencing systems such as this one, motet, caucus and webcrossing. As soon as I get my own domain hosted etc. I will attempt to start an open source project.
Re:Of manipulation... (Score:2)
Yes, Joe Sixpack can do it because Joe Sixpack is bigger than all the politicians and their advisors put together. For each and every advisor there will be several Joe Sixpacks interested in answers.
You see, I am Joe Sixpack. No, I won't pay a whole lot of attention to the issues that I don't feel strongly about. But my parents, children, brothers, sisters, and extended family will cover the rest--we've got a pretty big family.
Having a many-to-many conversation will make it so we can get answers about our issues instead of us being provided a one-size-fits-all outlook on issues from the politicians.
numb
Re:Of manipulation... (Score:2)
I agree, but I do think it's fixable...or at least possible to change that 75% to something a little more reasonable. I think people will end up better informed if the politicians can be dragged into a forum where they have to answer for themselves--or be deemed to be hiding something.
It's not that emotion will cease to play a role--we're (mostly) human, and that's just the way we work. It's just that people will have more to go on--more information to balance out the emotions that are being played on. This could also lead to a backlash when politicians try playing on peoples' emotions. Their more informed supporters will be offended. It will be a lot harder for politicians to speak out of both sides of their mouths when they'll have to answer for both things in the same forum.
Another thing is that there will be a lot of obvious FUD from supporters. But in my experience FUD doesn't stand up well in an open discussion. FUD will be something that people in the forum will grow better at recognizing if they can't recognize it already. It's a lot harder to recognize FUD when you never get a chance to here rebuttals backed up with facts.
This is definately a worthy project. And I think it just might work if we can get some politicians to the table.
numb
Politics Is Corrupt (Score:2)
Social identity originates in kin groups called tribes and is manipulated in cosmopolitan groups called civilizations.
The major terrestrial challenge facing humanity is not how it can more efficiently lubricate politics via technology, but how it can more honestly address the conflicts of interests between kin groups.
Re:related sites (Score:2)
Morris's site doesn't let users say anything. It gives you a carefully (mis?)worded poll. Then it automatically sends a form letter to the reps and president. So what do they learn? Only a boolean response to a manipulative question. Usually without any further information which would help them respond.
There are better sites than that. Even one paragraph telling how strongly you feel about something, or explaining under what conditions you would support something are meaningful. One thing the Internet will do is let people describe exactly how they feel, not what pigeonholes they fit into.
TV is driven by sound bites and images. The Web is driven by paragraphs and links. While I'm sure Morris thinks he's a big pioneer, I'd love to compare his site's traffic to Slashdot, where users can say exactly what they mean, rather than which pool they want to jump into. And remember that his audience is 250 million americans, while /. aims at only a small segment of it.
Re:related sites (Score:2)
The site lets voters speak their minds and then automatically email it to their reps and the president. This once inundated the servers at the White House, which set up a filter to limit the # of emails coming from vote.com. I guess Morris didn't mind pissing off his former employer, and the administration isn't really interested in listening to the views of regular citizens.
"What I cannot create, I do not understand."
related sites (Score:2)
http://www.tecsoc.org/govpol/govpol.htm [tecsoc.org]
A. Keiper [mailto]
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society [tecsoc.org]
Washington, D.C.
I don't know... (Score:2)
I don't know about this; "traditional media" may have its drawbacks, but I have a lot more trust in something that I'd read in the paper than something I'd read on some guys website. This holds true for all forms of traditional media in my opinion; ever since the internet boom a lot of people have been raving about the avenues that self-publishing opens up. I can tell you what the main result is; a low signal and high noise.
What about flame? (Score:2)
I have noticed that many candidates (I've mostly seen parts of presidential campaigns) flame each other. They might show pictures of how bad a certain area looked when Clinton was governor, or they might take a small part of an opponent's program out of proportion and use it to show how extreme that candidate is in a certain way.
How does the /. community think the Internet will affect this?
And what about candidate and party representation? With the US having a two-party political system for all practical purposes, does anyone have a feeling that the net as a new political channel will make it easier for other parties and candidates than the "major" ones to get measureable representation?
I hope for some interesting answers...
Re:The truth about electoral politics... (Score:2)
Yes, we are supposed to be a Repuublic, and not a Democracy, as many politicians would have you believe. Thank God. If we were a Democracy, under majority rule, think of where we would be as a nation now. Women and Blacks would still have no rights, because the Majority of voters would never have allowed it. Popular != Right.
The problem with our current system, is the same problem that would exist in any democracy. The majority of voters are not led by informed decisions, but rather by marketing. The ongoing corruption of the Right to Bear Arms is proof enough of that. That apathy is the problem with the system is the one point I could not agree with you more on.
As for our founding fathers, although a few of them did in fact want a plutocracy, and a few others a monarchy (those being the only systems they understood, having lived in such a state their whole lives), enough of them were of sound mind to realize the folly in that. Thomas Jefferson for one was fully against it, and is well known for having written, "The Declaration of Independance" [indiana.edu]. (Read the whole thing, not just the famous paragraph)
For a bunch of wealthy men out to protect their money and power, they sure made some stupid moves when they decided to take on all of England, which resulted in having their homes razed to the ground, their possesions confiscated, and their families killed, all in the name of Freedom and Equality for all men.
-Tommy
P.S Interesting side note, Thomas Jefferson was a huge Open Source advocate. Read this letter, "No patents on ideas" [let.rug.nl].
Re:Not voting is a misdirected method (Score:2)
Force == Coercion;
Coercion.new->heiriarchy;
Heirarchy != Anarchy.
I think that's the whole point of why anarchy is a doomed philosophy.
Hypothetical: You are establishing an anarchist state. I live in it. I have 10 houses and a farm, and like it that way. If you try to move in, you will be shot by me or a member of my familily. You can't have anarchy as long as I am around with this attitude, and you can't get rid of me without violence, which invalidates your anarchist philosophy.
You can't coexist with me very well, either, because I will out-produce your society, making us even richer compared to you: The people on my compound must work hard for our keep; while some people in your community will simply live in available houses and eat available food, with no incentive to struggle. Soon, the more outgoing members of your society will notice how we are living in better conditions due to our relative prosperity, and decide to "sell out".
Check and mate.
Re:The truth about electoral politics... (Score:2)
Um... gross stereotypes aside, are you implying that urban black folk don't vote!? I would be willing to bet than "OG thug" is more likely to vote then the typical /. geek these days, which is why Gore and Bradley debated at the Apollo instead of on a forum like Slashdot.
Re:Not voting is a misdirected method (Score:2)
No, what I'm saying is capitalism is viable because it rewards productivity, and anarchism is not because it does not.
Fascism did not enter into the discussion, unless you consider all ownership of property to be "fascist", in which case I guess there is little point in continuing the debate.
Re:Not voting is a misdirected method (Score:2)
That summarized my point far better than anything I said previously. Anarchy does not work when applied to lazy people, but there are lazy people in the world, and any anarchist community is bound to attract them.
By way of demonstration, a lot of Linux users do complain without offering to help out. They flame in the newsgroups of scream at Red Hat support, but have no intention of even reading the source, let alone improving it.
Political solution ... (Score:3)
I realize this wouldn't stop anything, but it would allow my to see some stupid people get shot in the head.
Bad Mojo [rps.net]
The sites referenced are *not* useful. (Score:3)
USA Democracy [usademocracy.com] lists bills in the current session of Congress and how legislators voted on each bill. They don't appear to have old records, so you can't look 8 years in the past to see if a candidate's vote has been consistent. They allow you to vote on bills and compare your vote to your representatives' vote...but you cannot compare your representatives to their election opponents, nor can you look at presidential candidates or politicians in another district. Nice setup, but nearly worthless to me.
THOMAS [loc.gov] is similar to USA Democracy but with an archive, so you can look at past votes. Still, it gives information only on federal officeholders, and you have to look through the bill history to collate information about a candidate. Yuck.
Project Vote-Smart [vote-smart.org] is a bit closer to what I'd like to see: It lists candidates, not just incumbents, although it only has voting record for federal incumbents. Thus, there are no records at all for George W. Bush (no info on state bills and positions) and the latest records for Al Gore are from 1992 when he was a senator. A dribble of info on this site, nothing more.
I want information on a candidate from *before* he became a senator. I want information on what he claims to support cross-referenced to how he's actually voted. I want to see the state legislature voting records...what the hell has George W. Bush been doing in Texas? And I want to compare candidates side-by-side on the same page.
I am a registered independant, and I am shopping for a vote. The candidates are products to me -- I want the same kind of shopping experience I get when comparing hardware on a retailer's site. Full info and directly comparable data, nothing less will do.
I hope Scott's Democracy Project has what I'm looking for. Oh, well, if it doesn't, I can always compete with him by putting up my own site in 2004.
Re:The truth about electoral politics... (Score:3)
These two are mutually exclusive -- the more "pervasive" the vote (i.e. the fewer areas in which an individual can blow off the majority and do what he wants) the less room is left for any form of dissent.
/.
Voting meaningless? (Score:3)
While I understand the idea behind this comment, I take some offense to its implied message. Yes... individual votes don't matter a hell of a lot in this world. Yeah, that idea is reenforced. Informed votes who are overtaken by the malaise of "I shouldn't bother voting," end up becoming members of the saddest group in existance: people who could have made a chance but didn't.
I don't pretend to think that my vote is really that important, but I know that people like me - reasonably well-educated people - are quite likely to be driven off by the apparent futility of the electoral process. I force myself to vote because I know that my individual vote might not mean much, but the aggregate of my demographic's vote does. ...and if my demographic is apathetic, then people like me will be underrepresented.
You present a cynical view of the political process. Don't make it worse by reenforcing that particular perception.
I think he hit the nail right on the head (Score:3)
Now, the problem I see with putting everything out on the table, is that if you do, you get rid of all the fun of watching your favorite politicos (Gore, Bush, et al) change their positions on every issue in five minute intervals, because we've finally nailed them to the wall on where they stand.
Would Rob Malda do this? (Score:3)
That's a very interesting idea. Has anybody presented it to Andover.net?
(No offense to Malda and crew, I think they do a great job. But it's still an interesting idea.)
The truth about electoral politics... (Score:4)
We hear constantly that the USA is a "democracy", as though everything that occurs in this society is due to the will of the people. This is completely false, and any basic knowledge of history and political science will prove this point.
Our state is an Electoral Republic. We choose, every so many years who will rule for the next term. In the case of the president, our vote can be completely overwritten by the Electoral College. Therefore, a Green Party candidate has no opportunity to win the presidency unless the Electoral College has a large contingency of Green Party members.
Average citizens have almost never had the opportunity to perform the actions necessary for a true democracy. Actions such as proposing legislation and voting directly on issues are left up to those who are elected, in the hopes that they will represent those who elected them. Unfortunately, as anybody who has studied centralized political systems will readily admit, they are very easily corrupted by wealth and power.
My contention is that this is how the "founding fathers" intended the process. We cannot forget that those who signed the Declaration of Independance and crafted the Constitution were not landless farmers, or slaves, or even independant merchants. They were wealthy aristocrats who came from well-endowed families. Thus, it was in their best interest to craft a political process that would serve the needs of themselves and those like them. Their goal was a "plutocracy" and they have certainly achieved one of the greatest plutocracies in history.
But intentions aside, there are many flaws with calling the U.S. a "democracy," since it ignores the fact that even the false electoral democracy exists only on the governmental level. The vote, whether in the false electoral sense, or the true and direct sense, does not exist when a citizen enters institutions such as their place of employment, or even public institutions such as public schools. "Democracy" is something that is distant, unattached, and meaningless, and yet it is immortalized in the rhetoric of the political parties.
True democracy cannot exist unless it is a) localized, with each community receiving the autonomy to make the decisions that affect their livelihood, b) pervasive, so that the vote is carried into every part of society, whether organization, production, education, etc., c) participatory, such that nobody is excluded from proposing ideas, modifications, or a repeal of what already exists, d) egalitarian, where no person is given greater weight over anothers, e) tolerant of dissent and disagreement, both of which are necessary for a healthy society, and f) when representatives are necessary, those representatives can be immediately recalled and replaced if they do not represent the will of those they represent.
The internet will not further the "democracy" that we currently have. It may open great possibilities for true democracy, but the electoral sham that we have to deal with cannot be reformed. It can only be destroyed and replaced.
I will not be voting in the next election, nor in any election after that. I refuse to give my name to a system which can so easily be diverted and corrupted. Does this imply that I am apolitical? Far from it. But in a system which insists that individuals cannot make a difference, I will use everything in my power to do so. If this means breaking their laws, so be it. There are ills that need to be cured, and apathy is the only criminal element in dealing with those ills.
Frequently Asked Questions [infoshop.org]
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Internet speech and political speech (Score:4)
I think that the Internet does all of those things. Once a person leaves school, unless that person becomes a professional writer, he or she will probably never have the opportunity or desire to write a critical essay again. Since I started posting to BITNET groups, mailing lists, and now internet sites like Slashdot, I've posted hundreds of messages here and on other groups, and enjoyed countless interesting postings, while wading through thousands of postings containing logical fallacies. [intrepidsoftware.com] Reents says that,
Try this. If you've never seen the list, go to the link above and study all of the different kinds of logical fallacies and errors. Next time you hear a political speech, by any candidate, pick out all of the fallacies. You'll be amazed by how many you'll find. Political speech, as it is practiced through the mass media, is not the art of producing rational, coherent arguments. Political speech, as practiced through the mass media, is about creating a vague, content-free comforting image. That doesn't translate well to the internet. On the internet, if someone uses those sorts of arguments on a newsgroup, their arguments are quickly ripped to shreds by followup posts and are discredited
No one is immune to it. One of my recent posts had a really poorly thought out transition into an unrelated topic. Someone called me on it, and he was right. I've called other people on things like that. There's nothing that makes you want to be a better writer then having your posting roundly ripped to shreds by someone with a better sense of argument then you. It's a learning experience, and the Internet is the only place I've found this learning experience to be available. When you write a class essay, only the teacher and you read your work. Only the internet provides a large enough audience for a non-professional writer to be truly humiliated in front of his or her peers
On the internet, either your ideas are sound, or they are not. If you are writing like an idiot, people will tell you.