From: rclarke@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: Why freedom of information must be garenteed!!! (long)
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:04:30 -0300
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Aug27.161407.4987@afs.com>, jon@afs.com (Jonathan Hendry) writes:
> Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
> 
> Anyone with a computer can access the net. 
This net, yes.  But what about Compuserve or the net that controls the stock
echange.
> 
> The net is the free-est (free in terms of liberty, not money) information  
> source in existence. Nobody tells me what to write or not write. 
> 
> In your scenario, if the net were brought down, the only outlets for mass  
> dissemination of information would be TV, Radio, and the print media. These  
> venues are REALLY controlled by the rich. Just try calling up CNN and telling  
> them you want to run a commercial.
I never said that the net should be brought down permenently, just long enough
to shake up the rich.
> 
> Through what other medium can a person express his views around the globe at  
> such a low cost?
That's true on only a small persentage of the nets and these nets are being
slowly priatised.
> 
> Taking the net away would be a drastic mistake. Also, you are wrong about your  
> assumptions of who has net access. I have seen postings from people in the  
> former Soviet Union and Africa. You forget that many people on the net are  
> getting their feeds from colleges and universities. They may be dirt-poor with  
> a free-ride scholarship.
Again the Internet is an exception but it also does not have a huge amount of
finacial pull.
> 
> Also, you don't take into account the most likely format of a universal  
> network. It will probably be a government-owned and subsidized network like the  
> one we have now, but with ethernet wiring in the home.
Why?  If some one finally clued in and developed a monoply of the net bussines
think of the money they could make.  The government in my country (Canada) and
the US is trying to privatised fedral projects not fund them.
> 
> The problem is not control, but distribution. The only things keeping poor  
> people from the net are their nation's economy and infrastructure, their (lack  
> of?)education, and their lack of knowledge of the existence and benefits of the  
> net. Lee Iacocca and Ross Perot isn't losing sleep worrying that poor people in  
> Haiti might start posting to the Net.
I'm not saying that every one should have input on the net.  I don't even think
very many people would want it.  I'm saying that in the future the rich will
proably use an electronic infastructure to control the general public.  But,
as it is today, they will probably have no knowlage of it's workings and let
the experts deal with it.  If someone were to find a hole in the programing,
and knock down the net temporarily then people would be able organize a 
resistence.  Some have said that the poor would be hurt by this dropping
of the net because they wouldn't have help from police, etc.  Well, ask
the working class blacks of LA how much help they want from the police.
> 
> You also forget that there are very rich people who would only become richer if  
> everyone on earth had a computer. I think Bill Gates would sell Windows for $1  
I never said everyone should have a computer.  Most probably wouldn't want one.
> if they could get everyone on the planet to have one. That's still five billion  
> dollars, guaranteed. And if everyone had a computer, and had net access, then  
> distribution and media would be essentially free.
> 
> I think the poor people in the world have more important things to worry about,  
> like where their next meal is coming from, or how they are going to get their  
> sick children to the doctor who is thirty miles away and there's no car. They  
If the net is still up and running the rich will make sure that they will never
get to the doctor because a sick working class is a more controlable working
class.
> won't miss the fact that they aren't getting their daily dose of  
> alt.buddha.short.fat.guy.
> 
> Pulling everyone's access to the net (in a larger aspect than this net) just  
> because some people can't have it is positively asinine, and would accomplish  
> nothing, except the  instantaneous crumbling of the world's economies. It's  
> like you're saying that Americans shouldn't drive cars because the millions of  
> Chinese people have to ride bicycles. Yet, those millions of Chinese people  
> ride bikes while millions of Africans walk. Should the Chinese people lose  
> their bikes, too? And of course, there are millions who cannot walk...
If you brought everyone down to the lowest comon denominator, then took the 
surplus and gave everyone a equal share they would in general would be a 
happier place.  Yes, there wouldn't be very many people with a car for each day
of the week but at least no one would be starving.  It has been proven many 
times that they is enough food, space, and energy for everyone in the world so
why should some go with out?
> 
> Millons of people cannot afford to go to college. Does this mean no one should? 
No it means the rich should pay there share of the taxes and then everyone could
go.
> 
> Should the world be universally brought to the lowest common denominator?
> Believe what you want, but I think not. I also think your whole premises is  
> flawed. Some information is more valuable with wide distribution. Some is  
> valuable only with limited distribution. Some is downright dangerous to have  
> widely distributed.
> Also, you say:
> 	
> 	"If information is free then no one will be able to horde
> 	 resorces and no one will go hungy"
> 
> Information is good, but it's not money.
Well, I have been thinking this over and I agree that this isn't a very good 
point but it has been repeated so many times in things that I read that I 
didn't see that there is an error in my reasoning.  I'm working on this one.
> 
> Try this: go down to McDonalds. Walk up to the counter and order some food.  
> When the woman asks for money, say
> " Pi equals 3.1419"
No but go to the same woman and tell her that there is oil in a certain 
unclaimed spot and then see what happens.
> See what happens.
> I may know how to make a hamburger. I may know where to get the ingredients.
> But somewhere, there is going to be a guy saying:
> "That'll be $3.17. You want fries with that?"
> 
> --
> Jonathan Hendry  Anderson Financial Systems
> jon@afs.com  (Nextmail Welcome!) or hendryjw@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu
--
Ethan Clarke
Rclakre@AC.DAL.CA