A Question...

Recent events have brought the question into my mind of what to do to prevent atrocities in foreign states. Iraq is the catalyst for this question. First, despite the motivations of the Bush administration, it should be a positive gain that Sadam is no longer in power. Second, liberals bemoan the plight of people living under the grasp of dictators or oppressive governments, but now find it unpleasant that the removal has resulted in the current strife.
How can we complain about oppressive governments if we do not have the will to deal effectively and decisively? Is it nicer to employ sanctions? One needs only look at the result and harm that sanctions did on Iraq.
That results in two possible solutions. First, give up the fake “we care” attitude and treat governments the same. Open trade and normalize relations in an effort to bring the rouge state into the fold while hopefully opening the society to norms that would resort in political change. This would make sense economically because it would open new markets while saving time from fruitless sanctions that do little but bolster the targeted leader.
The other solution would come from the barrel of the gun. If we take Mao Zaedong’s statement that “Every communist [my case: people in general] must grasp the truth, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”’, then it would follow that just and effective use of force would be a force for change in affected regions. It is hard to say no when cold steel is brought down. Economic sanctions leave room to maneuver while a 5.56mm round leave less room for negotiation. This new use of force would need to be different then our current method. It would need to rely on troops on the ground and a clearly defined rebuilding plan. It is nice to claim that justice exists eternally and needs no force, but we only need to look at what our own society finds necessary to maintain a reasonably just society. I am not endorsing the over-use of force by our police, only the reasoned use against deserving individuals.
This brings me to Dafur. The ads claim diplomacy is the answer. What will bring the government to accountability if they view the AU and UN as emasculated forces, incapable of concrete action? Will nice talk make them resign? What about sanctions if China will not enforce them?
I do not know the answer to these questions. It is illogical to cry about the misdoings in the world if there is no will to act. I understand this is problematic. However, if we are unwilling to act then we should accept the consequences of our inaction and absolve from fruitless political posturing or sanctions that only serve to do more harm to the affected citizens while giving us a warm feeling that ‘We are doing something’ (note: sarcasm). Hopefully there will exist a solution someday. I would like to hear your opinions on the subject. Good Night.

The Wealth of Networks

Benkler's conclusion is interesting, though I found it to be quite a difficult read. He concludes that although there is a push to use law to enclose the technological sphere and protect information and innovations from being shared freely, it is not likely that "law can unilaterally turn back a trend that combines powerful technological, social, and economical drivers".

I agree with Evan that Benkler's argument does seem to be a bit idealistic and it seems that he believes in a higher level of freedom that what these networks will bring us. I do think that networks are important for communications and bring about a stronger basis for supporting a free market and providing individuals with information.

The Wealth of Networks: Blogging

I liked Benkler's conclusion, but my interest was caught by his elaboration on the common critique of the internet's ability to improve democracy and autonomy at the same time.

Especially interesting is the democracy-part where Benkler points out how mutual pointing and linking are connected ("Here, see for yourself. I think this is interesting"), because this is exactly what we are doing by blogging or what blogging in general is all about: We are contributing to and we are observing the judgments of others to what is interesting and valuable at the same time, in order to create some kind of "interest groups" or to utter criticism when necessary. The platform, a blog, is definitively less hierarchically organized than other parts of the mass-media environment such as tv or newspaper and therfore we can refer to ourselves as non-intellectual lemmings, not following any kind of movements or opions that makes us feel impelled to say certain things.

The idealism of networks

The excerpt was interesting despite the heavy use of jargon. The argument that networks will provide greater freedom carries weight. It is logical that something far-reaching as the internet will help provide greater awareness because of the ability to connect people seemly across borders and will help foster the sharing of info that was not possible before due to territorial constraints or costs.
However, I do not agree with the assumption that networks will be as productive in creating overall freedom as Benkler suggests. While he notes their limitations, he forgets to see that networks are a tool and that a tool requires implementation. It may be unfair to judge his argument on the current progress of networks thus fair in creating freedom, but it does not seem that their primary purpose has been genuine individual autonomy and freedom unless you consider the ability to listen to ‘free’ music or buy from almost anywhere the growth of personal autonomy proposed by minds such as Voltaire or Kant.
It would also reason that people would have to have an interest in creating freedom. It would stand that there are more postings are the Internet currently on the latest culture item or scandal than on Dafur or global warming.
Furthermore, how can a network exist without engaging the system it lives in? Who will pay or foster greater development? There are certainly those who will work towards progress without pure economic progress, but it seems that this network is rooted in a physical world. The lines of transmission or wireless routers are beings of the physical world in which money is required to create this network that will provide freedom.
I do not want to discount the argument that networks will help to foster freedom. They are a major improvement in greater awareness. However, it seems premature and idealist to claim they will provide the level of freedom argued for by Benkler. Good Night.