From: rclarke@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: Why freedom of information must be garenteed!!! [sic]
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:23:17 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Aug26.145617.24767@news.acns.nwu.edu>, myboy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Lewis Murtaugh) writes:
> I'm not correcting this guys spelling mistakes....
> In article <1992Aug26.004804.7140@ac.dal.ca> rclarke@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>Hello,
>>I was discussing politics with my family this summer and I though an agument
>>that I thought could sum up why the freedom of information must be garenteed.
>>I warn you that I have a large solialist slant and so if you're a right wing
>>facist you probable won't agree with me.
>>
>>Freedom of information must be garenteed as information controls resorces (human,
>>natural, etc.) and so if information is alowed to be privitised then resorces
>>are being privatised.  If information is not free then large corporations will
>>be able to claim all information as there own and so they will be claiming all
>>resorces as there own, leaving nothing for the rest of us.  If information is
>>free then no one will be able to horde resorces and no one will go hungy (insert
>>your favate human unjustice here <--  ) as they will accses(sp?) to the things
>>nessary for life.
> 
> Information, and the freedom thereof, has little to do with the hoarding of
> resources, at least not in the way you think.  Corporations, of one type or
> another, have been hoarding information for ages -- its called capitalism. 
> What you're describing (the siezing of resources by the corporations) has 
> already occurred, and has gone on for years without the help of computers. 
> Knowledge won't set you free if someone else has the money and the guns on
> their side.
If the corporations don't have the information of where the steel ore is then
they won't have that resorces and won't the guns --> money.

> 
>>I belive that cyberpunk is tring to show the would (as well as make a few $$) 
> 						     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> some socialist you are!		
I don't get this?  I don't say I'm a cyberpunk author.  Cyberpunk is part
of the sci-fi genre that was almost desined for the sole purpose of making
money (I know, I know.  There is always exceptions to the rule but, hey).
> 
>>what will happen when capitalism gets out of hand and the upper class elite
>>will end up ruling (yes, I know, they do all ready).
>>
>>
>>On another note.
>>I was talking about hacking (cracking, whatever) this sommer and I have decided.
>>That there is a great weak spot in the current ecconmic system that may bring
>>the rich to there neas (sp?).  Computers are mostly used by the rich.  In North
>>America they are the middle class but on a would scale, even working class
>>North Americans are rich comparied to the starving people in Somalia (or any other
>>third would country).  In the future computers will probably be networked into
>>one large entity (it's nowhere near that stage now) and will be run by the rich.
> 
> You know what they say about when you assume....
What's this?  We're on one right now!
> 
>>But the rich will also be dependant on the computers to maintain there postion
>>of power.  The poor will probably be prety much excluded from the net (except
>>for a few cyber cowboys).
> 
> Wake up!!!!  This is sci-fi you're talking about, not reality!  It takes a lot
> of money to be a computer user, and that's money poor people don't have.  If
> you took a survbey of Internet users, you'd probably find that their avergage
> household income puts them in the top 5% of the population in America, and if
> you average in the Somalians, probably in the top 0.5% worldwide.
That's exactly what I said!  You may be refering to the cyber coboys thing.  I
think that they are ensentually like the crackers of today stealing money
from the systems they use so they don't need to be rich just smart!
> 
>>  The net will probably not affect the poor very much
>>  So if someone were to find a hole in the net then bring it down you would
>>knock the support out from under the rich and they would be off balence (though
>>I admit that it wouldn't be for long) and the poor might have a chance to fight
>>back.  The sutting down of the net would be nessary because if the rich were
>>still able to use the net they would be able distroy (sp?) any uprising that
>>occured.  
> 
> SURE the net won't affect the poor much.  Where do the rich get their money,
> in the aggregate sense?  From the poor, of course, from selling them food and
> TVs and other goods.  Why would the rich want a global net?  To facilitate
> their making money -- i.e to make the selling of goods to the poor more
> cost-effective.  So if you crash the net, it will be impossible to sell stuff
> to the poor.  Hence, global famine, collapse of governments worldwide, etc. 
If you organize before the crash to replace the system of government after
the net is down then people won't stave.  People are already starving under
 this system!  I am wondering though, do you support the status quoe just 
because a few rich people would run out of BMWs?
> Not too many people are going to want a revolution if they can't feed their
> families.
As I said before.  People are already starving, what else do they have to lose?

> --
> Charles Murtaugh
Yes, I know I can't spell
Rclarke@AC.DAL.CA
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk