Steve Witham writes:

...

Giving the government savvy advice, telling them they should do whatever will promote, say, competition or open forums...what effects will these have? They may provide justifications, expertise and targeting info for interventions, for instance. New ways to get involved...

Mike Godwin replies:

The government is already tempted to get involved, all the time. We can't make the government go away by resolving that it would be nice if they weren't around. Best to work from where we are, not where we'd like to be.

Sure, I agree. It's just, will the process-that-be have a tendency to be encouraged to intervention in general, by positive-sounding things in what you say.

...

I can't think of one positive thing (as opposed to the negative thing, disengagement) government can contribute to the goals of EFF.

On being true police, see below.

Government is not the only potential source of harm--private industry can be plenty harmful.

Private business can be nasty, slow and unhelpful, but short of physical sabotage and threats, they can't do nearly the kind of harm and prevention of alternatives that government does.

...

...the most centralized organization in the world as the decentralist's tool or ally doesn't seem workable to me. The means clashes against the ends.

I don't see how. One actually can use a weapon to keep the peace, for example.

Yes, you're right. I wasn't thinking about that because I assumed there's a minimum of physical crime in the communications industry. But now that I think about it, there's one thing State governments could limit: local governments' interference (franchises) in communications. But other than real basic policing like that, the means clash with the ends. Government is okay at nabbing true bad guys, not at trying to steer people in good directions.

...

Telling a bull that he should make whatever positive contributions he can to the china shop...is worse than just not mentioning that there are none.

I think you're reasoning from your conclusions here, not toward them.

Well, sure, I'm talking from my view of how things are. Mostly I'm just saying that the *need* for positive government involvement is dubious while the *danger* is obvious in the current state of things, and if you aren't always saying that, then your well-informed comments and laudible goal statements can be misconstrued more easily, because in certain circles, radical deregulation is not assumed. That's my not-so-humble-but-trying (IMNSHBTO?) point in a nutshell. Your participation without this particular sternness, may, as one side-effect, encourage and assist where we all won't be happy it did--and maybe it'll fail to push through the single most helpful idea. I know, it's not your particular hobbyhorse. It's just what I'm afraid will happen.

What's more, government ain't the only bull in this shop.

Although the FCC is smaller than AT&T, there's nothing in private industry with the momentum, power and difficulty of correcting that our layers of government have. Business without the power of government behind it (which status-quo businesses do have right now) faces much more immediate corrective pressure than government. Even combinations of big nasty companies are less of a problem. Throw me in that briar patch, puh-*leeze*, it's better than this one. -fnerd@smds.com quote me -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvtoxiQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2toust1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hanC0R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----