RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Vote now - all those in favor

[Phil King <yofelipe@excite.com>]

Who owns the internet?  Cindy, The internet is not a thing to be owned, it
is a dynamic society that is difficult even to define, as by the time a
definition of the ongoing interaction of participants is formulated, it's
outdated, almost. In my humble opinion
Phil King

On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 02:22:53 -0800, Cindy Merry wrote:

>  (Cindy Merry writes):  Ok, Brett now we're talking.  I have taken the
>  liberty to remove most of the prior conversation and focus on these snips
>  from your last message.
>  
>  <snip>
>  
>  (Brett said):   I simply did (and still do) not really understand it all.
>          <and snip>
>  (Brett continues):  If Joanna accepts this, then, I change my vote, from
>  no, to yes, on the question .... with the reservation that I believe that
>  the DNSO should not include any constituencies; that each person should
>  have an equal say, devoid of factions, as I believe that
>  the existence of such factions defeats any democratic processes, and, the
>  existence of such factions, without any apparent restriction on the
number
>  of such factions to which a person may belong, and, therefore, how many
>  votes a person may have, is anti-democratic, and, creates a system of
>  representation, based on, and, proportional to, wealth.
>  
>  (Cindy Merry says):  Yes each person should have an equal say.  Yes being
>  allowed to be a voting member within multiple factions creates an
>  unbalance.  (However when I am a member of many organizations or a
>  shareholder in a corporation I get to vote on those policies that are
than
>  lobbied for and then as an individual I get to vote for the guy who is
>  carrying forward those policies my corporation or organization has
lobbied
>  for...etc.)
>  
>  Now let's take the hard part.  Let's try this example and see if it makes
>  sense.
>  XYZ Corporation cannot vote for its employees.  They have a huge interest
>  of course in policies that govern their business and they contribute huge
>  amounts of money to different politicians who may represent them and
their
>  viewpoints in legislation.  They can lobby people to vote for those
>  politicians.  Brilliant marketers get to create wonderful spin campaigns
to
>  convince the voter why XYZ Corporation's view and their politicians are
the
>  best.  Within all of this XYZ Corporation and their politicians never
>  clearly explain what it is they are really doing.  Meantime
>  Anti-Organization doesn't like XYZ Corporation's goals and wants to
change
>  the world (to fit their viewpoint).  So they do all of the above based on
>  how much money they have.
>  
>  So in my thoughts this scenario spins and spins around to come back to
>  money.  It really didn't matter that the system was a 'one person-one
vote'
>  process.  In the end 'wealth' counted again.
>  
>  Although I believe that most people want to do good, I think they don't
>  spend lots of time thinking about and researching every issue.  So
>  sometimes XYZ Corporation gets their way and sometimes Anti-Organization
>  gets their way depending on who has the most in your face message.  And
>  sending that in your face message takes money.  Sometimes the message
>  doesn't even have to be true - just emotional enough and spun enough to
>  sway the voter.
>  
>  So I'd like these folks in here, from whatever background they come from,
>  whatever hidden desires they have, to reach higher than simply applying
the
>  same structures that have been applied in other attempts to create
>  self-governing types of organizations (governments, corporations,
chambers,
>  etc).  I know that we still have to contend with the very nature of being
>  human to overcome our natural drive for winning...and making money.  But
>  perhaps the challenge becomes to find some type of balance between true
>  democracy and reasoned 'counselors' who guide in an unbiased process.
>  
>  The Internet is the freshest, most unique, most cost-effective, most
timely
>  method ever found for people to communicate.  Why should we allow someone
>  to control the flow of information?  Why should money be the end all of
the
>  process?  Perhaps we need to decide if the Internet is a business or a
>  tool?
>  
>  PS:  Can anyone tell me who owns the Internet?
>  
>  Thanks,  Cindy
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  --
>  This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
>  Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>  ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
>  Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>  


Yo, Felipe (I, Phillip)
Phil King
Butte America
(The Richest Hill On Earth)





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/


--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html