Message-ID: <19981209153046.AAB2527@LOCALNAME> Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 11:28:30 -0400 From: Kerry Miller <mailto:kerryo@NS.SYMPATICO.CA> Subject: Re: Tobin/net tax To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
> > (Btw, if you could extract the subject line from the Digest, it'd help
> > those who read this list solely via the archives. If it comes to that,
> > has anyone thanked WU for their kind service, recently?)
>
> I don't understand the above.
http://library.wustl.edu/~listmgr/devel-l
has, as I understand it, no official affiliation with either VITA or American U, but is a courtesy service maintained by one of the subscribers here. It is convenient to sort the posts 'by thread' but this depends on their having a common subject line.
> I see you also chose to continue using a public forum, inflicting your
> difference of opinion with me on list members (recipients) who don't want
> to know of or about our difference of opinion, and are therefore not
> consumers, even though they received the message.
>
I look forward to the day when we shall be able to join only lists where everyone is in complete agreement, and we can all sit in blissful contemplation of the Perfect Harmony of the World. In the meantime, I work from (and invite you -- and everybody else ;-) -- to entertain) the premise that 'development' is first and foremost human development, and that learning to use, rather than avoid, differences of opinion is the first step on that long road.Therefore, I continue this public dialogue, which presently stands as a very fine example of how readily an idea can be derailed by the mechanics of communication, but which can also illustrate how to *recover from derailment. (God knows, the first is all too frequent and hardly needs another example, but the second hardly gets any airplay at all.) The first step in this process is to get the dimensions of the 'problem area.'
But, rather than talk about 'negotiation' and 'conflict resolution' in theoretical terms (that is, as if everyone *already understood what terms are relevant), it seems to me that Devel-L, with its practical orientation, is an ideal place to *use* this 'problem' which we have conjured between us (and which exists in its entirety in the archives, if it is necessary to determine who said what in what context) to practice it. Seriously, if we can't solve word problems, what chance have we got with beehives and microfinance and solar collectors?
In this spirit, I offer an 'autopsy' of the last exchange, with a brief interpretation of the 'mechanics' involved. *Of course* it's my interpretation; I heartily welcome anyone else's contribution to the analysis.
------------------------------ A: The "business" is fostering communications at the lowest cost for all, period, nothing else.
B: I disagree, vigourously. The serious business is to make communications *count for something.
A: Businesses in general don't care why their products are used, only that they are used.
[A frames his statements as if B needs to understand the word 'business' in the abstract; B is coming from his own role as a 'netizen' trying to communicate.] ... B: I further believe that not every group, elected or self anointed, has the right to determine what is best for all of us.
---------------- A: The evidence on the Net (not just this list!) to date is pretty meagre, and it's not rocket economics to infer a connection between message content and the conceptual investment behind it.
B: By what authority are you, or groups like you, appointed to determine what is best for the rest of us?
[B does not respond but continues his preceding thought. ]
-------------------- A: Please enlighten me: how does being a message recipient differ from being a message consumer?
B: Webster and Oxford have done that already.
[A sought to understand B's reasons for distinguishing; B 'borrows authority' to imply that the question is not worth answering.]
B: A recipient (only) receives something, a message, or anything else. A consumer makes use of something. It is not required for the consumer to make politically correct use of that something to be a consumer. While it is necessary to receive to consume, it is not required that one consumes what one receives.
[Two tautologies, one comment, one pleonasm; none addresses the question.]
-------------------- B: I contribute more than pennies. I do it indirectly by paying taxes > that go for lots projects I don't support and don't believe various
> levels government should be in. I do it by supporting charities who
> do mostly projects I support. I do it directly by doing health,
> education and renewable energy projects to meet the needs of various
> users overseas.
>
A: No one has suggested that you stop;B: The above statement is pure distraction. By indicating I had proposed an "improper" idea, you probably hoped to make me feel guilt, and overlook the fallacy of that, and other statements you made. It's an old, shopworn, tactic. Advertisers use it all the time under various disguises. I had never suggested I would stop my charitable activities or paying my taxes. I don't feel guilty, and have not been distracted. Your exhortation for me to support and send taxable messages was expressed in a manner implying I was "not doing my part", as determined by you. Another attempt to imply guilt without being direct.
[Frankly incomprehensible as dialog, although it clarifies B's earlier post re the 'impropriety' of responding at all.]
---------------------- A: I'm only extrapolating the 'devolutionist' tendency towards paying only for what you get.
B: You are complaining that sin (use) taxes are not collected and spent on projects you consider ought to be important to all us because you have determined they are best for us. In doing so, you are again proposing that you are better at choosing our course of action because you believe you know better than we do what's good for us. You further imply that we are not capable of choosing which charitable entities to contribute to because some contribute to entities that are not on your approved list.
[ A tries to put his earlier comments in context. B takes it as an assertion, even agression.]
---------------------- A: Government -- that is, the collector and distributor of indirect tax -- > in this view, is a dinosaur.
B: Not a valid conclusion, dinosaurs didn't change and didn't survive. Both our (forms of) government is always changing and thus survives. Groups of governers who don't change also die out by not getting reelected.
[A gives his earlier general statement a specific interpretation. B finesses the issue of indirect tax and (interpreting dinosaur = unchanging, not =obsolete; conflating theory of government and practice of governors) offers a 'glittering generalization.']
---------------- A: The Net itself has been shelled out already; do you imagine that ideas of how to make e-mail *pay* are not circulating among the ICANN powers-that-be? A cent/K is not only possible, but, imo, highly likely -- but if we put uur collective minds to it, we might have at least a counter proposal as to where the money goes and what it does.
B: Proposals for "net taxes" have already been proffered, and temporarily defeated. Every new consumer concept is soon seen as a source of revenue by elected and self anointed bodies. Petroleum taxes which vary by use, "occupancy" taxes, telephone taxes, alcohol taxes, cigarette taxes, airline (but not train) passenger taxes, are all examples. The concept of "if you can do something something more efficiently, you don't deserve to keep all the savings" is an old one, and is a basis for new or increased taxes. The scheme (in both the nefarious and British senses of the word) is to implement the taxes before a majority of people are subject to them so there will be few enough complaints that the charges/taxes can be implemented, or implemented with a small political cost. The remainder will be presented with a fit accompli, similar to the local telephone charges.
[A is still talking about 'grass-roots' initiative. B talks in terms of 'top- down' imposition.]
------------- B: You're implying "we" approve of over charging.
A: Who said *over* charge, hmmm? (Now who's misdirecting?)
B: You did in your example of local telephone charges.
[The example may have been a poor one, but B's ascription is wrong, here.]
B: From implying we all volunteer to over charing for telephone service, to the same overcharge being OK for the internet, then changing to a minimum use payment from a per unit charge, to admitting it's an overcharge by implying "even I" don't use more than 80K/day, to counting only text so rich folks with fast and fancy computers can have their graphics without extra tax, even though they could afford it more easily.
A: Slow down a kilohertz or two: your straw men are getting too flimsy to count.
B: If they are flimsy, it's because of the material you provided.
[The 'straw man' fallacy consists of arguing against statements which were not made, as if they are direct implications of what was said.]
--------------------- A: a) In terms of outgoing mail, I guess very few individual subscribers send more than 80K/ day, graphics included. Webbed business is another matter.
B: Other than the base for a net tax, of what relevance it that?
A: b) One of the first cracks in the old familiar definitional walls between phone/ data/ TV/ radio/ cable service was digital pix. (This came with the 'opening up' of the Net to AOL and Compuserve, and their GUI interfaces, as well as, of course, the move from text-based gopher to image-intense WWW.) There is no way to distinguish *content*, and therefore the tax proposal can not possible be construed as letting 'rich folks have their graphics.'
B: You were the one who wrote "count graphics only, please." as part of what would count for as taxable net use.
[B misstates here. A recognizes that -- in the absence of disaggregation by content -- a quantitative 'tax' on email implies categorization by source. ]
--------------- A: c) Rather than being tolerant of overcharging, consider that North Americans have come to accept that $25 is 'just about right' for local service and thus have ceased to be concerned. The idea of paying the same for LD or for net connection is still a novelty, so we're more aware of it, and have less precedent on which to base a value judgement.
B: Acceptance is not approval. Telephone service consumers have accepted, more correctly become resigned to, the fact that the is no way the cost of local telephone service is going to go down and have generally ceased to complain. They have adjusted their total telephone service budget to reflect that by apportioning a lesser amount to long distance. This is partly evidenced by the quantity of people constantly switching Long Distance carriers in order to be more efficient consumers. The proliferation of Long Distance carriers on TV and in the mail supports there is a dissatisfied Long Distance consumer market.
[A answers the 'overcharge' gambit with an alternative explanation. B disputes the terminology, apparently not noticing that the LD market (in which *synchronous 'per minute' rates are equivalent to asynch 'per K' ) movement directly contradicts his assertion of 'resignation.']
------------------- A: Therefore the 'Tobinette' tax has more chance of being accepted at this phase than later on.
B: This indicates that there is more than just my objection to this type of tax.
[A concedes that a settled market is harder to change. B makes an _a fortiori_ claim.]
------------------------- B: Invest in a renewable energy system now. That will be a contribution to the LDC's. Volume production will make costs go down for everyone. (I got my plug in too, nana nana na na)
A: Take a deep breath, Bob, no one is arguing.
B: Ahhhh, we must be having a strong discussion from widely divergent points of view.
A: (This aint Usenet!)
B: Is this a derogatory reference to some stereotype I don't know about?
[Usenet mail (and 'chat' generally) is recognizable by its defensive style, esp. reliance on quick replies as well as vehemence, taunts, and shallow argument.]
--------------------- A: RE is a good thing, and the economy of scale is entirely relevant. But I don't see how it moves you from being a 'receiver' to being a supplier.
B: That's because there was no such thing to see. It was meant to show how doing something for yoursel could benefit others without it costing anyone, just being more efficient.
[B admits the mention of RE was irrelevant.]
-------------------------------- B: If this post causes one person to take a critical, rather than emotional look at one project proposal and rational, it will be worth all the nasty grams (tax free so far) that I will get. Please send them directly to me, not to the group, who are probably sick and tired of it all.
A: It's hard to believe, isn't it? Over a thousand people read this mail, and we are reduced to hoping that *one will give it some thought.
B: You do seem to enjoy placing a reverse interpretation on things by turning a minimum requirement (if) into an ultimate goal (hope).
[A offers a point of agreement. B imputes some perversion to holding modest goals.]
-------------------------
I wish I knew what to say.
kerry