>From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net>
>
>On Monday, March 27, 2000 7:28 PM Michael S. Lorrey retroman@turbont.net
>wrote:
> > > I define a "fascist" as one who advocates a system of government
>marked
>by
> > > centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic
> > > controls,
>
>How would economic equality be brought about and maintained? (I'm not
>advocating this -- only trying to see how Zero will answer this.)
I'm not sure why you're asking this question or what it has to do with this
thread. But since you asked, here goes: First off, I never called for
immediate "economic equality." But if you want my guess as to how it will
eventually come about, I think that once we all have access to nano-enabled
near-anything boxes, you will ipso facto have substantial "economic
equality" since anybody will be able to make near-anything at almost no
cost.
>I have problems with ubiquitous surveillance too. Transparency might look
>like a solution to all sorts of problems, but... I do think that in the
>short run, any moves in that direction, will only benefit the elites and in
>the long run, if it doesn't, it will make the majority nearly omnipotent.
>Inescapable majority rule is not my idea of social paradise. It's
>basically
>what Bruce Sterling would call an "enforcement technology."
Well that, of course, is the call to arms to make sure that the "elites" are
not the sole (or even primary) beneficiaries of transparency. I don't
follow how you equate transparency with an "omnipotent" majority.
Regardless of the existence of transparency freedom will always depend upon
an open society with sufficient checks and balances to insure that one
person or group does not have the ability to take control to the
disadvantage of another individual or group. The way I see it transparency
helps to further this goal, not to inhibit it, particularly where
transparency if two-way and power equivolent.
>I think what we might say is Zero supports many planks which would lead to
>a
>totalitarian society -- rather than that it/she/he is a totalitarian per
>se.
>This, sadly, is what too many people support.
This is the usual knee-jerk reaction. But if you stop and think about it,
power equivolent ubiquitous transparency can not possibly lead to a
totalitarian society. To the contrary it will help to assure that
totalitarianism is never able to take hold.
-Zero
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
--Thomas Jefferson
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:41 MDT