Hi David 'xcuse the top post but what a well reasoned argument.
You get my vote ;) Thanks Clive On (24/05/04 20:50), Katipo wrote: > David P James wrote: > >On Sun 23 May 2004 18:56, Katipo wrote: > > > > > >>David P James wrote: > >> > >> > >>>On Sat 22 May 2004 14:07, John L Fjellstad wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>David P James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>> > >>>>Not everybody has the same buying power. A few pennies might not > >>>>be much for someone living in the Western World, but it might mean > >>>>a meal for someone from Somalia or Vietnam. Should email be > >>>>limited to those who can afford it? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>If someone is living such a hand-to-mouth existence it's highly > >>>unlikely they'll even have access to the internet. > >>> > >>> > >>Incorrect. > >>There are projects in India and Extremadura,Spain for example, that > >>qualify for exactly that definition. > >> > >> > > > >No they don't. Those people are poor, no doubt about it, but they don't > >fit in the same category as the previous example of Somalia or to a > >lesser degree Vietnam either. > > > > > I'm afraid you are sadly misinformed. > You need to live in India to appreciate what you just said. > Begging is a profession there. > Fathers mutilate their children so that they can bring in more money. > They cut off their legs, so that they skate around on trolleys. > A friend knew of a boy that had his arm oxy welded to the side of his > body, bringing about scar tissue inches thick, to create the kind of > reaction that would bring in a few pennies/day. > > A social experiment was arranged whereby a computer was mounted into a > wall, with internet access, to see what these people would make of it. > Some had mastered it within a day, including email. They have made it a > permanent project now. And you want to charge them money for it? > > I have many friends from Vietnam, some have gone back to initiate > business ventures. > They have asked if I would like to go there to live, and invest (You > have to be Asian to understand an invitation like that). > These people want me to share in the rebuilding of their country. > > I have a number of personal acquaintances from Somalia. > One is the eldest son of the ex-prime minister. > > I know the situations with respect to both Vietnam and Somalia. > I wonder if you see the common factor with them? > I say again, you are sadly misinformed. > > > > > > >>If you introduce any aspect of the internet as a commodity available > >>for a price, you also introduce the concept of the price rise. > >> > >> > > > >And that's a problem because...? > > > > > This is inane. > I'm sorry. I simply cannot believe you are an economist. > > (1)Pricing brings a requirement for control. > (2)Control limits accessibility. > (3)Given the time factor, open access ceases to exist. > > You're a one man army determined to bring about your 'Tragedy of the > Commons.' > > > > > > >>>No system is ever going to be completely accessible to the > >>>destitute, > >>> > >>> > >>So let's make sure they stay where they belong? > >> > >> > > > >Take that back - right now. Take it back. I neither said nor implied any > >such thing. > > > No, in the terminologies you employ, you accept the situation and > thereby condone it. > > >What I wrote was a statement of what I believe to be a > >fact, not a desireable outcome. > > > It is a fact. > Something can be done about it. > All it takes is a change in mental attitude. > These people are not merely to be written off as 'Collateral Damage.' > They are one of the many costs not incorporated into economic theory. > > >The reasons for that is a whole other > >issue, but it's safe to conclude that free email access isn't going to > >solve their destitution (because if it would, it would already have > >happened or at least be underway). > > > > > Communication is the beginning of every solution. > It *is* under way, e.g:- > > http://www.globalcn.org/es/article.ntd?id=178&sort=1.11 > > http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/innovation/pdf/award/extremadura.pdf > > The implementation of open source software, along with internet access > and associated email, is creating the basis for an economic (in the > comprehensively true sense of the word) revolution in Extremadura. > > > > > > > >>>and I doubt that the current system serves them at all anyway (if > >>>anything, if they have access at all, they're likely to find > >>>themselves on the same ISP as a spammer and consequently blocked by > >>>other ISPs and users using RBLs). The current state of email is > >>>another example proving the economic concept known as "The Tragedy > >>>of the Commons". > >>> > >>> > >>The concept of 'The Tragedy of the Commons', was first expounded by a > >>biologist describing reasonably accurately, what happens at, say, the > >>bacterial level, and then adopted as a false universal principle, and > >>applied to the broad spectrum. > >> > >> > > > >Where did you come up with the idea that it was based on what happens at > >the bacteria level? About the only accurate fact there is that it was > >developed by a microbiologist and ecologist, although he pointed out > >that conceptually it had existed for a long time. > > > > > It is not a concept. > At the microbiological level it is a reality. A bacterial colony on an > orange will only expand to the size where it is killed off by its own > effluent. > My point is that in being more highly evolved, human beings are capable > of discerning where the point of suicide lies. This is where the > 'Tragedy' scenario fails. When a shared dependency upon a particular set > of environmental circumstances exists, it has been established in the > past that we are capable of curbing destructive activity by way of > common consensus. This is Nietzsches' definition of justice ('A > Genealogy of Morals'). This is how the commons works. > > Just because we distance and insulate ourselves from that set of > environmental circumstances, doesn't mean that we have separated > ourselves from the situation. As E.F. Schumacher, one of the few > economists born with any intelligence said, "If man ever finds himself > in the position of winning his battle with nature, he will automatically > find himself on the losing side." > > This is germane. The environment here is the web. An aspect of the > commons is being wastefully overused and abused. We need to speak up, > yes. We even need to deliver an ultimatum. We have the right, it is our > commons too. We do not need to charge them money for the privilege of > continuing to abuse our shared environment, to continue to encroach upon > it, to the point where they possess it, and the commons no longer > exists. Your tragedy is a reality then, yes, but only because of > complacency and a preoccupation with placing band aids on tumours. > > > > > > >>>Any > >>>valuable 'free' resource (I say 'free' in the sense of free to the > >>>user) will be overused, in some cases to the point of exhaustion or > >>>depletion. > >>> > >>> > >>Rubbish. This is 'The Tragedy of the Commons'. > >>This idea has been disproven any number of times. > >> > >> > > > >Really? many species of whales, fish, elephants/rhinos for ivory, > >erosion of pasture and farmland, depletion of forests, waterways filled > >with pollution, roads congested with traffic, etc etc. All of it Common > >or treated as such, all of it driven to > >depletion/exhaustion/extinction. > > > > > All of it was *supposed* to be a commons. And at at least one stage, it > was. Dominant interests displaced the mechanism of the commons so that > the vast majority of the common administrators had no vote in > proceedings. Corporate greed, ably assisted by misinformed and corrupt > political entities, misappropriated the commons from the majority of its > rightful community owners, allowing only one factor of the community to > usurp the common ground. This is not a failure of the commons, how can > it be? The environment of the commons was not permitted to operate, it > answers more to the definition of grand larceny on a national and > international scale. All rationalised at the time, by economics. > > > > > > >>Economics begins with the concepts of 'rivalrous' and non-rivalrous' > >>resources in the commons. > >> > >> > > > >Uh, no it doesn't. > > > > > In this context it is. We are O.T. enough. Let's not introduce an > expansion into the entire evolution of economic theory. > > > > > > >>Please elucidate, just for example, how a > >>'non-rivalrous' resource is overused to the point of depletion or > >>exhaustion. How is an idea depleted in the sharing of it? > >> > >> > > > >Ok, I'll give you credit there - a non-rivalrous resource is one not > >subject to scarcity, so it would have been more precise of me to say > >"Any valuable and scarce 'free' resource will be overused, in some > >cases to the point of exhaustion or depletion." > > > > > > > >>There will > >>be just as much of this email left over after you have finished > >>reading it, as when you began. No matter that you merely delete it to > >>rid yourself of the inconvenience of the views expounded. > >> > >> > > > >What are you trying to say here? What has this got to do with anything > >else? > > > >The resource in question here is an individual's inbox. > > > No, I'm afraid the resource here is the open accessibilty of the web. > Placing mechanisms of control within the network, instead of maintaining > it in a simple state, and retaining the technology at the 'edge' of the > net, and therefore in the possession of the enduser, compromises the > freedom and the creative innovation that belongs to *all* of us. Not > _just_ corporate interests. > Any control concept that the large 'anti-communities' wish to introduce, > will be double-edged, and the back edge will be the sharpest. Yahoo, > AOL, and MSN are only interested in maintaining their captive > audience/market. With the introduction of any control mechanism, they > will seize the opportunity to employ it to expand and exclude. This will > be a tragedy, but only if through short-sightedness we leap to > inaccurate conclusion. And they are ever observant for opportunity. We > have the right to maintain possession of our own. > Regards, > > David. -- http://www.clivemenzies.co.uk strategies for business -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
