Re: Why does the state still stand:

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 12:34 PM 5/15/96 +0000, Jean-Francois Avon wrote:
>On 15 May 96 at 0:45, Ed Carp wrote:
>
>> The problem, however, is twofold - (1) the government will
>> play mind games on the rest of the population to make you look like
>> a terrorist, or whatever turns the populace against you,
>
>Well, first of all, we should find how much of the population
>*really* believe in what govt says.  There is a difference between
>the politically correct opinion that Joe & Jane Public give to a
>poll interviewer and what they really think.
>
>Second, you suppose that Joe & Jane Public really like and approve what 
>they understand from what the medias say.

I think that Ed Carp recognizes that these caveats were somewhat valid based 
on a pre-Internet era, when control of news and information was relatively 
centralized in newspapers and TV networks.  Then, you were told what to 
think (although it wasn't quite phrased this way) and few people got an 
alternative story.   But as you correctly point out, it is getting harder to 
pull the wool over the eyes of the public when they can get alternative 
information. 

>And finally third, this system does not work according to the will
>of a majority.  It wouldn't take too many peoples who believe that the
>medias and their perceived lack of integrity is widely responsible
>for the way the world goes right now, to have a substantial prize put
>on the head of the medias.

>Therefore, any journalist with two+ working neurons will realize
>that sticking to the most objective facts available would be the best
>way to build a great reputation while sticking to govt propaganda
>would be a great way to attract a prize on his head. 


I don't think anybody in the media is going to have the guts to stick with 
the government as it sinks into the depths, torpedoed by its own 
technological inventions.  The big names can just resign and keep their 
wealth; the small fish have no long-term credibility or hope to achieve the 
levels of their predecessors.


>So, to see how AP will make the system evolve, you have to assess
>the communication capabilities of govt vs the individual.  This is
>central to AP and the nature of actual govts.  This is *why* the
>internet is *so* dangerous to any govts that seek to either retain or
>increase their power, even if it actually touches only but a tiny 
>portion of world population.
>
>For the first time in the history of humanity, we have a peer to
>peer communication capability and an individual-to-world broadcasting
>capability that is not controllable in practice by any other entity
>(such as law, high finance, etc)
>
>
>The explains fully why the various govts what to find a way to 
>enforce internet laws, breakable crypto schemes and non-anonymous 
>protocols.

I expect that few government workers have any idea how dangerous the net is 
going to be to them in the next few years.  The various proposals we've been 
seeing, such as Clipper and others, are probably the product of a very few 
strategists who began worrying in the early 1990's about the fate of 
centralized government systems.  It will be interesting, someday, to talk to 
these people who monitor us, and ask them when they thought their position 
was hopeless.


>JFA
>PLEASE NOTE: THIS POST DOES NOT MEAN THAT I ENDORSE MR. BELL'S
>SYSTEM.  MY RATIONNAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT IT'S INTERNAL MECHANICS
>AND IT'S INTRINSIC LOGICS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I LIKE NOR ENDORSE
>THE SYSTEM. I SIMPLY CONCLUDED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREVENT
>THE SYSTEM FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED.  IMO, IT IS UNAVOIDABLE.

I understand your...uh...caution.  But as scary as it may be to "us," it's 
going to be even more terrifying to those it is likely to eliminate.  Sort 
of the difference between two parachute jumps:  With and without a parachute!


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com