William,
> As a consumer you are a part of a market, you make certain choices.
> These choices include which TLD to register under, which internet
> provider to use, etc.
>
> None of what has been discussed on this thread had any relation to
> privacy policies with regard to unsolicited advertisements.
>
I think Mark is trying to say that the Net is not *only a
market(enhancing) device in the same way as he is not *only a
consumer. It may be that the choices he has available to make are
provided by (and curtailed by) markets, in the same way that his
terminology and references have been conditioned by marketing-
enhancers -- and all of this not only 'has any relation' but is
absolutely central to privacy policy, and net administration.
Isnt it ironic that your own use of the language (for instance,
lumping Ronda's arguments for a common good in with 'failed
socialism') is clearly *not the result of your deliberate exercise of
'market choice' in languages, but merely echoes a widespread
*collective pattern of capitalistic speech? But I accept that you are
convinced you have 'adopted' it -- that is the word, isnt it? -- and
thus fail to see that your rhetorical dogma, in castigating Mark's
individualism as somehow contrary to free-market principles,
contradicts itself.
If you could grasp that fact, you might then notice first, that your
vaunted markets are dominated by corporations which are not
individualistic at all, but just as centrally-directed as the 'socialism'
which 'failed' (will we say 'WXW failed' when you die at 80?); and
second, that they survive only because they are embedded in a
social matrix of ideas -- can you say 'common sense'? -- which
defends individual competence (what 'your' language calls
competition). But I rest easily, assured that you wont notice any
such thing (because you have been adopted by that famous
couple, Divide and Conquer (no, not in the Garden, but the Field of
Levelplaying if my free translation of Kurukshetra isnt too far off ;-)),
and only speak their language of Absolutism. Thus there's no need
to go on to explain the _dialectic of materialism_ and how
'collectivism' and 'individualism' are two conceptual poles between
which *all human systems have ever organized themselves.
No, there's no point in so abusing this list (where most people have
already got over that *relativistic point), until you demonstrate that
you can think for yourself. The persuasive evidence of that (insofar
as there is any market for evidence at all) will be when you give up
the pontifical role ("The people who use the internet are a "market"
) and speak for yourself.
Try it - you'll like it!
kerry
P.S. I apologize for my lack of profundity. I really wish I could say
things like 'The Law is not your mommy or daddy" every time I post.
