That's not to say that everyone should be allowed their caprice, rather that the process should include anyone and everyone who wants to opt in. Participation must be the keystone of this society, and the advent of telecommunications, computing and publishing tools available to a large number of Americans indicates to me that this is a vision that can be realized, though only after a lot of hard work and very difficult choices. It's my contention that we have the tools and, for the first time, the experience to decide how to proceed in a democratic way towards a balance of spiritual, political and economic values, within the context of the community. Such communities are often virtual, based on technology that doesn't force participants to look at one another and, part and parcel of their participation, learn to deal with differences among themselves. It's a half-assed, agoraphobe's kind of community.
People stay in, away, apart and indifferent on most levels.
The center cannot hold, and I think we all know it. However, our fears are unformed and, as a byproduct of a social environment shaped by information distributed according to market forces, they will not be given shape if the people do not exercise their technological franchise. The computers and networks that weave our information environment threaten to overwhelm us with trivia, drown us in repetitive and biased information. Yet these are also potentially democratic tools, if the people will demand access to information, access to one another without the intervention of corporations, and explicit power in opposition to corporate bodies. Freedom of choice, when exercised by consumers, is no different than being offered options in the means of execution inflicted by invading barbarians.