From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Adopt a BBS
Keywords: more democratize democratic democracy
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:41:19 GMT
Reply-To: bud@mtek.com
Distribution: na
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.

bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman) writes:

>bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:

>>bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman) writes:

>>>     Adopt a BBS
>>>     ===========

>>>disseminated, we are talking about an elitist, undemocratic 
>>>distribution system.

>>We are talking about an elitist, unequally distributed system that
>>is *voluntarily* supported by the people who distribute it.

>One of the definitions of democracy which I have is as follows:
>  "the common people, especially when constituting the 
>   source of political authority."
>As you have agreed (above) that the system *is* elitist, it follows
>that it is not democratic.

Oh, goodie -- someone who takes all this net.stuff seriously. :-)

There is nothing particularly wrong with the definition you are using,
except that it overlooks the minor condition that all such common
people must first be *citizens* in order to participate in such demo-
cratic process. Certainly, this precondition is, itself, "elitist",
since admission to citizenship is neither automatic nor immediate except
for those favored few who happen to be born into it. It otherwise requires
outsiders to successfully jump through various specific hoops in order to
obtain what the others got for free. "Democracy" also precludes in no way
the sinister presence of an "elite" who enjoy economic (or other) favors
not enjoyed by others, even though those others they may be "citizens".
This is because democracy and unequal participation in prosperity appear
contradictory only in the minds of those who think Fidel & friends have
hit on the right basic idea -- equal bankruptcy for all.

Certainly, the Athenians (who had a bit to do with the whole democratic
notion) never fell prey to the idea that anyone who showed up at the
city gates thereby obtained entitlement to all the goodies offered by
that society. But every *citizen* could -- and usually did -- vote. Was
Athens, then, a democracy? And did it not also have an "elite", with
its wealthy and its poor? Some Athenian citizens also held slaves -- who,
if from rich households, were said to be far better educated and sustained
than were "entitled" citizens who were not wealthy. And probably more
informed for purposes of casting a vote. Was Athens not, still, a "real"
democracy?

As a citizen of the U.S., does it appear reasonable to you that the
Congress should place itself in the discriminatory position of routinely
exempting itself from every piece of legislation passed into law that
is touted as a furtherance of "democracy" -- e.g., anti-discrimination
laws? Is the U. S. Congress not thus an "elite"? Can the U.S. be denied
its status as a "democracy" (a few would say the *leading* democracy in
the current world)?

>>Democracy (in the restrictive American sense) is a concept that is
>>as null and void in the context of Usenet as in the finest private
>>establishment in Texas.

>See the definition of democracy above. 

Precisely. None of it has anything to do with usenet, except to the
extent that there are requirements for obtaining citizenship in a forum
that you or others may variously choose to call a "democracy", an
"anarchy", or a red toy ship. It's not relevent which.

>>read much of the copious bilge that daily slops from one end of
>>the usenet to the other. Do you really want *your* Mom reading
>>this awful stuff? :-) :-) :-) :-)

>I differ with you as to my evaluation of the quality of what is
>posted here. Personally, I think it is quite good and ought to

There is no accounting for personal standards -- yours, mine, or
others'.

>be shared with the general public. Your question as to "Do you

It *is* shared with the general public -- anyone who cares to jump
through the necessary hoops to become a "citizen" can read the net.
It is certainly much easier than becoming a citizen of any Western
democracy.

This, as you say, might be more easily achieved by BBS access, which
certainly has some merit based on lowering the bar to citizenship,
but has nothing whatever to do with any notion of "democracy", past
or present.

>really want *your* Mom reading this" implies that my mother somehow
>needs to be shielded from reality. I have complete confidence

Evidently, the convention of smiley-faces has not fully penetrated
all cultural pockets of net-readership. Let's try that again, shall
we: ":-) :-) :-) :-)"

>that my mother could handle what is written here. How about
>*your* Mom? Could *she* handle it?

Don't know. I'll certainly ask her, if you are really interested in
knowing. I would doubt there is much here that she, at 74, would find
particularly new or shocking. Human events -- and silliness -- don't
really change that much over time. Indeed, they become boring in their
predictable (nay, routine) repeatability from one generation to the
next.

But anyone who asserts the usenet is "reality" thereby provides the
singular evidence of having seriously lost touch with same. This is
roughly comparable to equating "reality" to whatever Judy Woodruff
or Sam Donaldson (who are at least *paid* airheads) may say in the
heat of journalistic stupidity. Surely not!

>>P. T. Barnum once made a remark to the effect that no one would
>>ever go broke underestimating the bad taste of the American public,
>>and it may be that the usenet could conceivably replace TV as the
>>most-favored form of mindless entertainment in the American home.
>>So I *could* be entirely wrong about all this.

>Actually, to my knowledge, P.T. Barnum said that no one would
>ever go broke underestimating the gullibility of the American
>public.

You could be right. I've seen it quoted elsewhere as I showed it,
but I cannot verify it. Since gullability rests upon a substantial
inability (unwillingness?) to distinguish fact from fiction, your
representation may go equally to the central issue.

>You are of course entitled to your opinions about the usenet,
>however, if it is as bad as you claim, why do you bother to
>access it? 

Because there is something here that I find of value. The pity is
that those few gems must be seined from the larger stew of vacuous
swill that gushes forward each day from people gullible enough to
believe the usenet (akin to any other news source) is "reality"
or who claim the insight to accurately represent just what actual
"reality" includes and/or excludes. Most often, these reports are
taken from other (equally unreliable) "news" sources, regurgitated
here absent any direct knowledge whatever by the poster of the
actual events.

Often, this takes the lower form of selecting an isolated (alleged)
fact, then proceeding to editorialize at length on how that (alleged)
fact demonstrates beyond all contradiction the rightness of the
not-carefully-reasoned politics of the eager poster. And thus one
person's "reality" inevitably constitutes another person's "bilge".
QED

That in no way denies the value of the few real "keepers" that *do*
float in upon the vast tide of otherwise forgettable nonsense.
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Speed is life.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15937 talk.environment:3572 alt.save.the.earth:1141 talk.politics.misc:43811