Archive for the 'politics' Category

Ignoring Government

This morning’s keynotes at OSCON weren’t nearly as good as last night’s. In particular, I’ve got a bone to pick with Christine Peterson. She talked about sensing systems, and coming government attempts to both mandate and regulate sensing - making sensing the sole provenance of the government, and using sensing to further escalate an authoritarian surveillance state. Reasonable enough so far. But her proposed solution to this was to ignore the government and completely privatize surveillance, under the justification that government is inherently predisposed towards centrism, inherently ignorant of the Benefits of Free, and inherently unchangeable. “DC is DC,” she seemed to be saying, “and the only way we’ll get anything done is to ignore them and privatize everything.”

Lessig provides an excellent explanation in Code 2.0 of why this is a horrible idea. Ignoring government and forging boldly forwards on your own doesn’t create an system that cannot be regulated by government. Instead, it cedes the government space to the authoritarians, allowing them to operate and expand its influence uncontested. We’re seeing the end result of that in politics now. Across pretty much all of the western world, the notion that “government is inherently harmful” or “government can do no good” or dozens of different variations on the theme have taken hold. As a result, those that would support a progressive agenda have largely abandoned government, and authoritarianism has grown unchecked.

Further, the history of privatization in the 20th century has been an unchecked series of disasters. Private entities are motivated wholly by profit, and thus incredibly susceptible to authoritarian influence. They make more money from it, after all. Public entities are, at least theoretically, answerable primarily to the public good which, in a democratic system, is determined in a distributed manner.

I believe that government can be made to understand the Benefits of Free and work in a distributed, free model. In fact, I believe it is inherent to a properly functioning democratic system. But we won’t have a properly functioning democratic system unless we believe that government can do good; that free and public are complementary, not opposed; and that “being political” is something desirable, rather than something repugnant.

Sexism and the Third Place

Based on the advice of Gavin and the encouragement of Danielle, I’ve been reading The Great Good Place. For the most part, it’s an excellent examination of the disappearance of avenues for casual socialization from modern culture. Except for one thing. Sexism.

Oldenburg places part of the blame on the disappearance of the third place on feminism. While he doesn’t say so directly, he devotes an entire chapter (ironically titled “The Sexes and the Third Place”) to waxing loquacious about traditional male bonding rituals and men’s places, and indirectly condemning feminism and the idea that men and women should associate freely for the disappearance of “third places”. He devotes considerable time to praising the traditional institution of marriage, and men’s third places as an escape from the demands of the work of their second places and the domineering women of their first places. Women, when they’re mentioned at all, are described as “stealing” the traditional male bonding experience for their sisterhood while conspiring to keep men emotionally dependent on them to secure their marriages.

Oldenburg, unfortunately, misses several vital points here, which I’ll deal with in turn behind the fold. Overall, Oldenburg prescribes more sexism as the cure for problems caused by sexism, which is entirely hypocritical as he condemns this very approach in other domains.
Continue reading ‘Sexism and the Third Place’