I respectfully submit to you: 1. Ralph does not represent me or my own views. 2. His 1960's views of the industrial society view of government, a nation and corporations do not, imho, apply to the internet or information society. 3. Number 1 and 2 are worth mentioning again :) I do agree with you that in general most people are concerned with their own day-to-day lives and cannot or don't care to understand how decisions made in Europe or in Washington, DC regarding the internet do, or could, affect themselves or those they know. I don't know how to solve this problem, but my own observation is the media is quite capable of whipping people into a frenzy (perhaps as a distraction to the daily chore of worrying about whether there is enough or not there is enough jelly in the pantry). I certainly don't believe an 'egalitarian elitist' (is there such a thing?) like Ralph can solve our problems. Observations: - in the case of standards and practices, corporations will charge through and push standards and practices which enable the growth of their revenues. In their perception they are filling the voids standards bodies and legislative bodies leave open. Shame on standards bodies for taking so long to approve protocols, and creating the kind of research and peer review environment which rivals even mathematics research (which involves years.) Shame on legislative bodies who do not try to fully understand our new society and rush to pass laws which are awkward and unworkable. Corporations innovate and want to move forward; waiting years for peer review is not realistic for many standards (I'm referring especially to layer 4 protocols and above in the case of the ip stack). Imagine if Napster had waited for the RIAA to come around to a new way of music distribution...or waited for the IETF to come up with a peer-reviewed method of peer-to-peer file sharing. In many ways Napster acted like a corporation (albeit with a different motivation). - corporations and lobbying groups represent not a single entity (the corporation), but a group of people who are employed by the company and the shareholders of the company. Perhaps this is the .1% of the people you are referring to. Few things motivate people as much as money does. Oh, and free music is also apparently a great motivator. - for the rest of us not necessarily motivated by money the key method of influence is participation. Participation through corporations (change from within is sometimes not difficult to achieve); participation as a significant contributer to a movement or project (linux for example); or participation by creating a new kind of application which drives change. Anyway i'm frightened that people who are supposed to get it (dyson, nader, etc.) and don't are making the decisions. At least with a corporation you can buy shares, go to a shareholder meeting and speak your mind. How do you reverse poor judgement in an individual? pz btw I certainly don't think I get it any more than anyone else...I've just not heard anyone who has presented a world view that makes sense from top to bottom (maybe there is no comprehensive world view). -----Original Message----- From: owner-cypherpunks@Algebra.COM [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@Algebra.COM]On Behalf Of Tom Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 6:44 AM To: Phillip H. Zakas Cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net Subject: Re: Nader wants global U.N. Net-regulation body; Nader photos "Phillip H. Zakas" wrote:

Not to worry. Ralph is only momentarily distracted. Just wait for the

new

administration to start chopping down thousand-year-old forests (and squishing some photogenic "poster animal" in the process).

as a matter of fact, he DOES have a point. consumers have become the weaker part of the market food chain because they are not organized and because they ARE sheep. they'll cry murder every time you steal something from them, but never actually do something, and the few who do are too isolated to be even noticed. corporations, on the other hand, have been far more intelligent. from MPAA/RIAA straight to WTO they understood that lobby groups can increase their influence greatly and turn the playing field to their advantage. it's only fair to reply in kind and organize the consumers. or rather: the 0.1% of them who give a damn.