that is associated with any new technology should be better analyzed by the few who care about the future rather than those who just worship the future to ensure that the decisions which are made by this almighty 'market' (again, I distinguish this from either the 'people' or the 'consumers')
Er...just how did you draw that distinction? I seem to have missed it. I suppose that by believing the free marketplace best satisfies peoples' and consumers' needs (not perfectly, just best) that I am a worshiper here. So be it, but see if you can explain the difference between non-marketplace decisionmaking and bureaucrat decisionmaking for me.
The distinction that I'm making is that the 'market' is governed by both consumers and producers. As such, what the market will bear can and sometimes does diverge from what consumers want. Taking a really silly example, let's say you want a blue car, but the auto industry decided that blue cars constituted too few of their sales to justify the purchase of blue paint. However, they did this study in Malibu, where everyone wanted a red car, because some statistician felt that was the perfect demographic for their line of cars. He was wrong. Now middle America, who loves blue cars, can't get any. They have to settle for red cars as the next best thing. Next year the market will probably readjust and blue cars will again be available, but for the year the bulk of consumers had little say in market decisions. Producers can and will also 'dump' undesirable products on the market as we have all seen before. Sometimes consumers complain, sometimes they just groan and bear it. But the fact of the matter is that the 'market' is comprised of two main elements: 'consumers' and 'producers' and the market climate is not solely determined by consumers' needs. Bureaucratic (government) decision making is no better. Keep in mind, however, that capitalist organizations (producers) are themselves bureaucratic institutions. Therefore, bureaucracy plays a central role in the free (sic) market. A balance between the power of the public and private sector generally best represents the peoples' and consumers' needs. How the market diverges from the polit is clear. The market is only concerned with consumers, and this leaves out the poor, who are undeniably part of the polity. In fact, if you take just the technology market, that market is primarily producer-to-producer (business-to-business) and the traditional consumer (an individual or family) is a relatively recent addition to this market. Interbusiness concerns still drive this market.
'rammed down their throats'. Sometimes people forget that technologists and their venture capitalist backers aren't the best representative sample of the world's population, nor are they a reliable source of objective information about the correlation between the 'market' and the 'polit'.
They aren't the best, they are simply more reliable than Hillary Clinton and co. are.
There are two ways to go on this. It's important to realize that while government officials are professional politicans with all the moral and ethical compromise that this entails, they are also ultimately responsible to their constituency. The role of government is different than the role of business, and I for one would not be willing to give up democratic government (ragardless of its hypocracies and flaws) in favor of a business bureaucracy as our national ruling hegemony. Businesses, especially ones governed by unmitigated capitalists, are responsible only to profit. The social darwinist perspective of most capitalists is such that this profit can come at any cost, and things will 'work themselves out' according to natural (sic) social selection. This is a morally and ethically dangerous viewpoint to have. The polity is supposed to be able to count on their government to be their voice of power against the transgressions of more powerful individuals at the top of the capitalist power structure. This is not usually the case, as government officials rely on these powerbrokers for their jobs and kickbacks, but at least in the United States the people have theoretical constitutional recourses against serious infringements of their rights. While centralized government has serious problems, weakening the federal protection of the bill of rights would serve only to increase the ability of the powerful to abuse the polity (and create chaos since 50 different sets of state laws would provide an amazing web of loopholes for would-be tyrants). Our government is supposed to be kept in check by the people, and I believe that is what people like the Cypherpunks are and should be doing. However, don't go running to Laissez Faire capitalists as your comrades in arms in the struggle to keep powerful institutions out of your personal lives, because you'll be more than just disappointed if you help private sector powerbrokers whittle away the protective powers of the public sector. Morally I'm more Anarchist than Centrist, but I'm also willing to face reality.
Agreed. The most forthright possible debate comes on cypherpunks IMO. The least forthright comes from the government/media complex. Crypto- anarchists aren't proposing utopia, just improvement -- which is a much easier standard to meet considering what we have. I am sure there will be problems and frauds, just as there were Ford Pintos. Note that the Pinto phenomenon was possible in spite of pervasive and growing govt. regulation, yet the response: Even more regulation. Hmmmmm. JMR
There needs to be a balance between too much regulation, and too little. The public sector has a system of checks and balances which doesn't always work, but is institutionalized and respected. The private sector, however, is not so accountable and their only checks and balances are the laws that we the people are obligated to insist be enforced. Morality and justice break down easily in the face of bribes and hush-money, but with an institutionalized system of justice there is at least a modicum of accountability which is necessary for a society(ies) which is far too immature for true Anarchism. Keep in mind the role that capitalists played along side the government in Nazi Germany, (unchecked) power corrupts - regardless of whether you're in the public sector or the private sector. (Yes, capitalism was technically regulated in Nazi Germany, but that is not the point.) I am as unwilling to support Laissez Faire capitalism as I am to support an intrusive and restrictive government. ttl Stephan ------------------------------------------------------------------- This signature has been kidnapped by space aliens. If you find it you can call (415) 703-8748. I work for Studio Archetype, and they don't find any of this funny.