Response to:
Cyberspace and the American Dream: A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age
E. Dyson, G. Gilder, G. Keyworth, & A. Toffler
The authors argue a traditional conservative economic perspective: government should get out of the way of innovative businesses. It is not surprising to learn the authors are members of the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a well known conservative organization with huge corporate support. The authors believe deregulation will allow our country to remain on the cusp of the digital revolution. Any regulation is merely slowing the inevitable process down, or worse, applying old solutions to new problems. In essence, "the reality is that a Third Wave government will be vastly smaller (perhaps by 50% or more) than the current one--this is an inevitable implication of the transition from the centralized power structures of the industrial age to the dispersed, decentralized institutions of the Third."
Assuming governments do deregulate and subscribe to Dyson et al.'s philosophy, they are giving up control and power to another source. The authors argue that this power will be given to 'the people.' Well, not quite. The power will be given to a select group of people, namely leaders of newly-globalized multinational, multi million dollar corporations.
Personally, the authors' argument would sound logical (even ideal) if I was working for an influential software development company or already making over 6-figures a year. I'm not. This argument is Machiavellian, arguing that the ends justify the means. It completely ignores the plethora of negative implications to run-rampant corporations. Unfair wages for workers, exploitation, destroying the planet, etc. etc. -- you know I could go on! Usually conservatives are known for the signature 'trickle down economics' theory, but in this article the people who are implied to receive the 'trickle' are barely mentioned.
Oh wait, maybe once... "Americans still celebrate individuality over conformity, reward achievement over consensus, and militantly protect the right to be different." How militant! The irony is that the authors' proposed system does not allow for creativity at all; It encourages monopoly!
After a week of chewing on the readings, I'm left with many questions. It seems complete deregulation would be insane, and allow horrible horrible consequences. Conversely, total regulation would stifle creativity, personal freedom and provide its own set of problems. It seems the answer is somewhere in the middle.
One theme throughout the readings is change. Some believe this change is just a regurgitation of historical trends. Others believe it's the manifestation of the 'information age'. Either way, the prevalence of technology is challenging us with new questions, and it will be our generation's responsibility to search for answers.
2 comments:
If you had to choose, which would you?
a) TOTAL regulation
b) NO regulation
Obviously I'm taking your comments and throwing them into an extreme comparison but here is where I'm getting at.
If an unregulated information network could become inequitable, (which is what I think you were trying to convey) then WHAT would you regulate and why? Does making rules for, possession, transmission, flow, use, ownership apply for something intangible like information?
I think we should keep in mind that regulation can go both ways. It can be used to prevent some from running away (unfairly) with the system, but it can also be used to protect interests (good or bad.)
One example might be how the RIAA is continually trying to regulate information and enforce regulations to protect the interests of a few people in a business model that has become outdated. Sure, pirating music is wrong. But, does a song now a days have the same value as a song a decade ago? I mean in terms of cost. A song as a tangible product is not the same as a song as information. There are hardly any distribution costs, manufacturing costs and yet these companies insist that a digital version of an album should represent the same cost. One might argue that this places the profit of a few interested parties ahead of making music culture available and affordable to a wider range of people. So all the lawsuits, lobbying for stricter DRM rules, hearings about piracy - in my opinion are counterproductive to an equitable solution.
And of course everyone's favorite... "Look at China!" (Enter western imagination here.)
To take my opinion to an extreme, sometimes I think it might be kind of interesting if everyone was a pirate and able to take other people's ideas freely. Sure, no one gets credit for any more work but it might also afford us much broader choices. LoL - oh it would be so crazy! I won't go as far to say I think this is best... but it is interesting to think about.
"It seems complete deregulation would be insane, and allow horrible horrible consequences. Conversely, total regulation would stifle creativity, personal freedom and provide its own set of problems. It seems the answer is somewhere in the middle."
The recent global financial meltdown speaks to a combination of greed (McCain), lack of proper regulatory oversight (Obama) or somewhere in between (fictional presidential candidate X - let's just call him Nader. Please stop crying Mr. Gore).
When Dyson et al. speak of the end of government, it sounds more like wishful thinking than anything pragmatic or even possibly realistic. The complexity of modern financial instruments and the speed of capital movement seems to beg for some kind of mediating influence. Government, for lack of an adequate alternative, comes to mind. Whether it is a national government or some other type of international third-party regulatory party, something needs to be in place, especially if Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke's warnings that the financial sky is falling come to fruition. Creating a new financial body, like an International Federal Reserve Body, may be more useful in the future than what is already established. However, bestowing it with sufficient capital as well as separating it from narrow national or corporate interests appear antithetical. We'll have to see how Dyson's argument plays out in the upcoming election.
Post a Comment