RE: personal manifesto (comments appreciated)

[Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>]

Extended Commentary:

1)	While the most likely possibility is that the Net
will simply mirror current society, a Net of this [mirror] structure 
would fail
to realize its potential as an agent of social change.
COMMENT:
That is, supposing that the net was designed to be an "agent for social 
change".  I have not read where it was designed to exist for that 
specific purpose.  A social effect which is not intentioned is simply a 
by-product of the fact that many people have found an avenue or tool 
useful for the satisfaction of their own particular purposes.  Since 
communication itself is a medium for the accomplishment of most 
purposes which involve others; it is not exceptional, therefore, that 
the net should have become such a popular tool, it being so easy to use 
compared to the other means available.  The important thing which I see 
about the net is not that it serves "social purposes", but that it 
helps individuals to achieve their *own* purposes.  This sounds like 
only a difference in wording, but the  difference is in what is judged 
as a 'good' purpose, or which end of the telescope you are using to 
view the situation:  why is the end of having a collective 'good' 
better than the activity of simply achieving one's own ideal (of 
goodness, happiness, propriety, etc.).  What is so unsubstantial about 
the uncounted individual that only a large number of them can be 
considered worthy of consideration.

3)	Current arguments for regulation of cryptography by government
agencies depend on the argument [that] they are maintaining their current
abilities in the brave new world of cyberspace.  I argue that even if
this were the case, we have a responsibility to do more than simply
maintain the status quo.  . . . .
COMMENT:
What responsibility?  (Irresponsible Unit wants to know)
If the government centralizes responsibility, there will be none for 
the rest of us to comprehend.

4)	It is the responsibility of the information haves to spread their
knowledge to the information have-nots.  .........
Knowledge which is not of a personal nature should be freely accessible.
COMMENT:
The library is full of information which many people do not take 
advantage of, and it's "free".  Many wise people have written much that 
they wished to share with others, yet many 'havenots' do not avail 
themselves of it (at least, not the ones who seem to need it).
1)  how much intellectual support does everyone need, anyway;
2)  access to information does not replace having the incentive to 
appreciate it or the ability to understand it;
3)  where does all this information come from, anyway?  How did it 
become "information"; what was it before it was converted into an 
abstract form (carbon-based or electronic)?  If it is moral to have 
information, and immoral *not* to have it, then many people are guilty 
of criminal negligence for not using their faculties of observation & 
thought in regard of all the data which exists all around them in an 
immediately accessible form.

6)	...  People cannot
participate in a democratic society if they are not educated to a minimal
level required for functioning in that society.  This is the crux of our
societal problems, as well as the crux of possible problems with the Net.
COMMENT:
They should all understand the purpose of "society".  Is it to be 
social, or to be free to be themselves, or what.  If the purpose is 
more clearly stated and understood (and communicated to its members) 
then they each can decide whether, or how much, they wish to 
participate in its "goals".  Societies are complex mixtures of people 
with all sorts of motives.  At least on the net, it is easy to leave 
when your motives are in conflict, especially if your subscription is up.

7)	... one human has an enormous
capacity to injure and exploit another human.  We must decide which
ability we wish to empower, and judge which we actually do.
COMMENT:
If everyone were equally able to injure & exploit others, people would 
become sensitive to what kind of effect they intended to achieve (upon 
others), and become more acutely attuned to the possible consequences.  
But if everyone was much more respectable & honorable than they 
presently are, there would be fewer reasons to attempt to bring harm to 
them; admiration itself would serve to prevent thoughts of evil deeds 
against those whose qualities one valued.  You could as easily say that 
those who wish to be treated kindly should cultivate noble qualities 
and character, so that others will not be easily inspired to hit them 
over the head.

8)	. . . My hope is that this restructuring will create a better
society than the one I know.
COMMENT:
It would be possible to make society better, if people were not always 
changing their mind, developing new ideas, learning new things about 
themselves and the world, attempting to adjust to changing 
circumstances, and generally getting in each other's way as they 
accomplish all of these things.  Pehaps if there were more space 
between people (like on the net), where they could engage in these 
activities without easily affecting others, this in itself could 
"improve" "society".  But they always seem to want to grow up in each 
other's company, instead of doing their homework in private.

9)	My beliefs are [hopelessly] utopian.
.  This faith must not be confused with [certainty].
.  We must be satisfied with [approximations].

.   I have faith in democratic principles to  [shape society] . . . .
.   It is impossible to  [predict the shape]  of the society . . .

.  A few risks are of the  [tyranny of the majority], ......
.  The will of the people is   [impossible to define], .....
COMMENT:
I re-arranged your paragraphs to associate the meanings which I saw in 
them, and they do appear to be in conflict.

10)	All actions have moral implications.  Ignoring these implications
is irresponsible and, yes... immoral.
COMMENT:
	          Se la vie'.  Therefore what.

Final comment:  "Society" is in the quality of the contact.

Blanc