nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) (11/30/88)
I am very puzzled by the attitude of some posters on the subject of who controls the network. Surely Uncle Sam is held more accountable (to the American public) than any other US institution? After all the government has to go to the polls on a regular basis and renew its mandate from the people. Whilst I share some of the doubts expressed about giving power to the likes of Ed Meese and Dan Quayle, I respect the fact that they were democratically elected to represent the American people. You get what you elect! In a democratic society you have to accept the wishes of the majority. If you want changes you must vote for them. If the policies you want are not on the political agenda of the candidates you must put them there. If need be stand as a candidate yourself. If you feel that your fellow citizens are gullible enough to buy any policy which is wrapped up in expensive wrapping paper then I suggest that you look long and hard at the education system that results in this. I, personally, have grave doubts about some of the politicians and policies of my country but I would rather trust them, as elected representatives who will have to account for their actions at the next election, than GEC, ICI, BP, etc. over whom I have no direct control whatsoever. In fact, the only control which I have over such large corporations is effected THROUGH the government. What's more, in the case of large multinationals I not only have to rely on MY government but also on YOURS (wherever you are from). Now, who are these mythical users who are going to run and control the network if Uncle Sam doesn't? Are they not the IBMs, AT&Ts, etc.? You surely don't suppose that (assuming the American public are stupid enough to elect a government with a totalitarian disposition, which I doubt) these companies will not collaborate with the government if it means big bucks. There is, and never will be, any room for altruism in a competitive environment. It just doesn't pay! If I were an American voter, rather than give up on Uncle Sam, I would look to see how I could make the government more answerable to people and less answerable to dollar bills. I am surprised that so many posters seem happy to live in a country where they have no faith whatsoever in their government. I further suggest that you have a duty to the international community to ensure that your government truly reflects the hopes and aspirations of your particular section of it. So, if you think it doesn't, get off your bum and do something about it PDQ! Nick Taylor Department of Computer Science JANET : NICK@UK.AC.HW.CS Heriot-Watt University ARPANET : NICK@CS.HW.AC.UK 79 Grassmarket /\ / o __ /_ UUCP : ...!UKC!CS.HW.AC.UK!NICK Edinburgh EH1 2HJ / \ / / / /__) Tel : +44 31 225 6465 Ext. 491 United Kingdom / \/ (_ (___ / \ Fax : +44 31 449 5153
vespa@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Adam Alexander Margulies) (12/02/88)
In article <2062@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk> nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) writes: >I am very puzzled by the attitude of some posters on the subject of who >controls the network. Surely Uncle Sam is held more accountable (to the >American public) than any other US institution? After all the government >has to go to the polls on a regular basis and renew its mandate from the >people. Whilst I share some of the doubts expressed about giving power >to the likes of Ed Meese and Dan Quayle, I RESPECT THE FACT THAT THEY WERE >DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED TO REPRESENT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. You get what you > . . . [my emphasis] I do not believe that what we saw this election ( or any other American election) was a democratic process at work. There are two parties in this country, Brand X and Brand Y. They both are selling slightly different social policies but the end result is the same. The wealthy have their interests represented, other Americans do not. The military-industrial complex gets its pound of flesh. In Indiana both Dukakis and Bush failed to register in time for the election, yet they were on the ballot. In Missouri the libertarian candidate, Ron Paul, registered late and received no such leniency. I said, type it NOW, Adam! || ||Adam Margulies | \ ||_ /| ||ARPA: vespa@ssyx.ucsc.edu | ||\`o_O' || | || ( ) ||UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucscc!ssyx!vespa | ----------------------------||--mU-m-||WEIRD:vespa%ssyx.ucsc.edu@RELAY.CS.NET | |DISCLAIMER: ||ATT: (408)429-8868 | | These are NOT my opinions. They are my dog's. |
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (12/05/88)
In article <2062@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk>, nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) once
again drags out the tired old canard that our only choices (in this case,
on computer network provision), are Big Brother and Big Business.
I submit that the needs of computerdom would better be served by
small firms, competing and/or cooperating as dictated by their interests.
Actually, most "megafirms" only get to be megafirms thru help from
political powerwielders. The only way even such a megafirm can achieve a
sustained monopolistic -- or even a sustained oligopolistic -- position
is through such political intervention.
There are cities where telephone service is competitive, and cities
where electricity provision is competitive. You'd best believe that
prices are lower and service better in such cities. The concept of
"a natural monopoly" is simply inaccurate.
Jeff Daiell
P. S. In a later posting, an Adam Margulies talks about the dis-
crepancies between the way the two tax-subsidized parties are treated
and the way "third" parties are treated. The example he used was
the Democans and Republicrats missing the deadline in Indiana, and
being placed on the ballot, anyway, whereas the Libertarians missed
the deadline in Missouri and were barred from the ballot. What makes
this example all the more galling is that the deadline for "third parties"
in Missouri is 75 days earlier than that for the two government-
sponsored parties ... and a Federal appeals court ruled for Missouri,
despite a Supreme Court ruling against early deadlines for third
parties!
P. P. S. On the idea of influencing via political action the
way a governmental compnet would be operated ... many cities
and counties operate transit lines. When was the
last time an incumbent was defeated because the buses
or subways were late, dirty, missed runs, etc? What
are the chances an officeholder would be in
electoral jeopardy because the compnet had lapses,
or was subject to unauthorized monitoring, or the like?
With market provision, providers would do a good job, or
have no job to do.
--
"Justice, like lightning, should ever appear
To some men hope, to other mean fear."
-- Jefferson Pierce