Internut Governance

First, I think Mr. Vixie is making more than a few overgeneralizations. If we presume it is true that all hominids throughout history have made a habit of spoiling their nests and over-running the capacity of their habitats, then we would not have been a selectable species, to persist to today. To live at the limit of one's habitat is the kind of prime directive common to all living things; to have children so long as there is still food to feed them. To truly over-run these limits implies that you would devour the last food animal, leaving the habitat incapable of producing new offspring.

The modern perceived (that is, still misunderstood) problems with our impact on our own habitat are unique to the species some scientists like to (sarcastically) refer to as 'Homo Sapiens Sapiens' or "Man who has become too smart for his own good." The dividing line for this species of man seems to be the moment where some ruler built a tool - a scepter-like weapon - which was unusable for its supposed task as a weapon. No human could reasonably swing it...it was just too large, but its girth made it imposing to witness. This tool was designed not to be used by the hand, but to be used to instill fear and loyalty in his fellow man. This ruler was using psychology to coerce others. Too smart for their own good, indeed.

But that isn't the brunt of my complaint with Mr. Vixie's line of thinking.

He supposes the existence of himself as one of a troupe of "chicken littles", which although being an apt metaphor (to which I probably also may be so labeled), further implicates that this troupe is a numerical minority. The supposition is that the majority of individuals will not reliably make decisions in the best interests of the whole, but rather must be governed. This minority troupe's task is to produce some form of governance to force the majority into a submission to protect the greater good.

This is not an uncommon point of view, and indeed it has served hominids well throughout history. Modern day examples might be certain religions that found the consumption of pork to be deleterious to public health, and public health was something you do want to think about on a societal level (you want the people you rely upon to be healthy); simply naming this consumption as taboo according to local religious custom creates a mandate enforced simply by loyalty. Feng-shui could be seen in the same kind of light; this time as more of a distributed city planning tool, dutifully carried out by its practitioners through loyalty to its own mandates. In networking, our modern day "x considered harmful" sets of common wisdom achieve a similar ends; they create systems of loyalty, tenets that their followers implement without question.

But the strength of these systems, that they operate even when its followers don't understand their meaning, comes at a price. The tenets are created by some minority, religious or social leadership in these examples.

Coming full circle now, you may more easily see my complaint with this line of reasoning. The majority of people can't be trusted to make good decisions. It's up to the "chicken littles" to create governance. Here we have leadership by minority, something wholly different from a democracy (where the majority lead).

Precisely who shall we name King, and then despot?


[1] Paul Vixie - NANOG Mailing List Archive