Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: [issues] News from Johannesburg (2)
Does that mean you would support the kinds of _temporary_ multilateral economic
groupings that the US has been party to at various times in the last 250 years
on and off? (02)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Maloney" <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:17 PM
Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: [issues] News from Johannesburg (2) (04)
> Thanks for your message.
> I was quite surprised to your reaction to dissent. Is dissent un-unrev?
> I know dissent is not un-American.
> BTW, are you a statist? An apparatchik?
> Look, meta-govt, bureaucracies and empire squashes innovation,
> collaboration, community, computing and communications. It is not worth
> the keystrokes to explain...
> According to Marshall McLuhan, for yet another example, decentralism is
> essential to electronic technology just as centralism was critical for
> mechanical technology specialization and military industrialization.
> It can't be made any simpler. The electric world could be "open, dynamic
> and interdependent" unless you close it down with rigid, mechanistic,
> self-serving economic bureaucracies like the EU, NAFTA, WTO and the
> rest. Their bogus charter and mission will not serve the 21st century.
> At the time, Napoleon's empire and idea of a 'continental system' was
> already a disaster costing millions of lives. Its vulture roost is now
> Brussels. It will prove a lot harder, costly and more painful to
> dismantle that it was to create.
> Quiet frankly, the electronic 'unrev' society is more akin to an
> agrarian society and has little requirement to be served by phony,
> corrupt and unelected supra-govt.
> It's back to the future, baby.
> The arrogant UN is the biggest offender of them all because of its
> tendency of deep centralization, elitism, numbing bureaucracy,
> counterfeit 'global views' and profound indifference to the body
> politic. Like every rising empire, they strive to engineer the
> individual out of the equation.
> Have a look at "War and Peace in the Global Village," by Professor
> McLuhan, and Max H. Boisot's "Knowledge Assets," for more background.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Chris Dent
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:54 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: [issues] News from Johannesburg (2)
> I've been hesitant to join in this thread. In part because it appears to
> be a waste and in part because as far as I can tell you are a paranoid,
> nationalistic, states-rights fruitcake with whom I'm embarassed to be
> associated. However because I'm not sure you aren't playing some twisted
> game and in the interest of collaborative discussion instead of giving
> you a *plonk* I have 2 questions and a
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, John Maloney wrote:
> > Meta-government defeats local and personal responsibility and
> > consequence. Same is true of innovation, collaboration, community,
> > computing and communications.
> 1) I can't parse the second sentence here. What is it that is true of
> those things you list?
> 2) In my view the uni- or bi-lateralism that you appear to support in
> international policy is antithetical to the philosophical underpinnings
> of collaboration. How do you reconcile that with your own apparently
> very strong interest in Engelbart's style of collaboration or at least
> collaboration in general?
> That style finds its philosophical foundations in the same places as
> people who like to think of the world as an open, dynamic and
> interdependent system where the rapacious self-interest and boundary
> creation that you appear to advocate is unsustainable.
> Check out the first few chapters of this book for the philosophy:
> Bardini, T. (2000). Bootstrapping: Douglas Englebart Coevolution, and
> the Origins of Personal Computing. Stanford, California:
> University Press.
> or for some of my own comments on such things:
> The request:
> If it's in your purview, can you take me off the kmcluster mailings? I'm
> not interested in supporting that organization by inflating its mailing
> list. Nor do I wish to receive announcements for events I'm unable to
> Chris Dent <email@example.com>
> "If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are
> opportunities to change things, that hope is possible, then hope may be
> justified, and a better world may be built. That's your choice."