From: blanc <blancw@cnw.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 01:25:16 -0800 (PST)
To: "'cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: RE: Fighting the cybercensor
Message-ID: <01BC0B28.3F64CFA0@king1-28.cnw.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Toto and Jim Choate were having a little disagreement about the rights of 
nations to maintain the boundaries of ignorance around their "citizenry", 
and Jim said that no one outside a nation's boundaries should feel moved to 
interfere with the program:

> 'We' shouldn't, it is their own country and it is up to their populace to
> stop it. Do you really want Singapore or China having a say in how we run
> our web? I certainly don't, and won't support any move to force any
> particular view on them.
............................................................


Normally, I would agree that people who choose to live within a certain 
locale and choose the kind of government that they will live with and the 
kind of policies that they will accept as impositions upon their lives, 
should be allowed to "enjoy the fruits of their labors".

But on further examination of the situation in 'foreign' countries, these 
things must be realized:

.  Individuals do not agree with each other 100%

.  Individuals living within the boundaries of a nation will not agree with 
each other 100% about the kind of government they should have

.  Many of the individuals living within the boundaries of *any* nation do 
not have 100% control over which policies, or the quality of them, they 
will have to live under

.  It is not uncommon for "leaders" of nations to take advantage of their 
position to benefit more from the contributions of their citizenry than 
vice versa (the citizenry benefitting from their leadership)

.  It is not uncommon for there to be proportionately more people in favor 
of living in a state of dependence than not;  and it is not uncommon for 
those who favor dependence to favor proposals which seem to put them on the 
receiving end of "benefits" (versus being contributors); and it is not 
uncommon for these "benefits" to be derived at the expense of such virtues 
as freedom and liberty

.  Many individuals reside within a nation not because they favor its po  
litics, but because they feel more comfortable among their own kind than 
with strangers elsewhere - for example, Chinese who have lived in China all 
their lives (and whose ancestral roots are there) will wish to stay there 
and do what they can within the boundaries of that nation, rather than for 
instance moving to Canada, when the going gets rough.

Given these things, nevertheless it is true that the internet , among other 
events in our "modern" world, is opening up avenues towards advantages and 
benefits hitherto difficult to comeby.   As many of you are aware, many 
people are beginning to identify with a global network of friends and 
co-workers according to their particular (or peculiar) interests, rather 
than with the "Old Order".   It is becoming moot what nationality or what 
government or what company one works for - the loyalties of the past are 
being tested and re-configured in the minds of those who now do business 
and communicate and share things and develop friendships, acquaintances, 
and empathies, on the net.

So to speak of "having a say" on how Singapore or China or any other 
nation-state runs "our web" or vice versa "us" having a say on how they run 
"their web" is becoming irrelevant.   Economics will be determining how the 
web is run, and by whom.     The identity of those who use it will be not 
"those who are citizens of Singapore", but:  "my friend who lives in 
Singapore and is having a hard time accessing a file that I wanted him/her 
to have".   Affiliations will be seen differently by those who connect in 
cyberspace, and if certain of one's cyberspace friends are having problems 
- if, say, a Hitler were to suddenly rise up in their midst - then the 
netizens could send their emergency alert out to anyone and everyone on the 
net about a problem brewing which perhaps someone could help them deal 
with, according to their ability to do so.

It is true that individuals still live within the physical boundaries of 
"nations" which have formed in the past, and they still hold the concepts 
of these boundaries in their minds and they still identify closely with 
these, and they still vote problems upon themselves.   But it is becoming 
an anachronism, and it is becoming inaccurate to speak of "what 
Singaporians want for the internet".    This phrase would describe many of 
those who live in Singapore, but not all of them.   It is more accurate to 
speak of what  "individuals who use the internet" want, of what 
 "individuals who want to communicate" want, of what  "individuals who want 
to connect with others" want.

The identifications of self as a citizen who must be identified with the 
vote of a majority, and consequently suffer the perception of oneself as 
someone who "voted to accept restrictions of the net, therefore should not 
be helped against it", is becoming irrelevant.   When a distress call goes 
out from someone anywhere on the planet, the assistance and relief may come 
from anyone anywhere who chooses to rally others and provide assistance.

It is not the traditional "we" against "them", and it is not the "citizens 
of the US" helping those who "voted themselves a Hitler into power" or 
"voted themselves into restrictions against free speech".   It is "those of 
us who appreciate the liberty in communications technology" against "those 
who would take it away".

    ..
Blanc