Can MaidSafe Help Global Governance and Save The World from UKIP Too?


#1

The real reason for the rise of UKIP and extreme right Front Nationale in France is not the failure of UK, France and EU to combat immigration as the media and our own politicians seem to think. Nor is restricting immigration going to solve this problem.

…and in case you think this doesn’t matter, just look what lead to the rise of fascism in the 1930’s and what happened after that. There’s no such thing as “it can’t happen again”, but it can be stopped.

John Bunzl has the explanation and the solution…

His arguments seem like common sense to me, and I’m aware of John through another forum so I respect him for his thinking and work on these issues.

If you agree with his diagnosis, that the problems we face are essentially all to do with “half-baked” globalisation - i.e. economic but not political - and that the solution is for nation states to co-operate with regulating ever more powerful corporations so they can be taxed and regulated effectively.

I’ve long been aware of this need, and of course some politicians have been trying to achieve it, not least the much maligned Gordon Brown. Shame on the super-rich like I’m thinking Rupert Murdoch and other media hit-men, who use their power derail attempts at effective governance that would benefit us all.

But anyway, this raises the question for me of how MaidSafe and similar projects can affect this process. For now I just want to leave this as a placeholder, but I think there is a lot of potential from democratisation, liberty and networking that will enable improvements in governance. Not least through whistleblowing, although it is something much bigger than that we need!


#2

This I wholeheartedly agree with.

The first part of the OP is full of subjective political perspectives that could be discussed endlessly. There is in my experience a lot of diversity in political perspectives in the decentralization community, I think presenting MaidSafe as something that can “save the world from UKIP” is a bad idea because it would give MaidSafe political alignment in the context of a national particracy.

I’m not interested in long political discussions, but how would warning against UKIP because of what the Nazi’s did be different from warning against a socialist party because of what Stalin or Moa did? I think they’re all unfair, demonizing comparisons. In my view the vast majority of people want the same things, they just differ in opinion on how best to achieve those goals and hence vote differently. MaidSafe can provide opportunities to achieve those shared goals directly, outside of the established political systems dominated by corporate and political elites. Let’s stick to that?


#3

Hmmm…maybe we need a thread for where politics meets Maidsafe and whether or not Safenet should adopt one particular political opinion/ethos/ideology or not. I think this has been touched on before. Others may simply disagree with your opinion or analysis of the situation. For example, I don’t think UKIP have stated anything overtly racist, or appear to have any racist policies, though I recognise the media have portrayed them as such. I’m not a UKIP supporter by the way, I’m a liberal/green type, I just go by where the evidence leads me, rather than the media. I would argue that the rise of far right opinion within society is the product of a failure to address legitimate concerns by any major party. These concerns would mainly be around not having enough infrastructure in place to cope, ie hospitals, housing, jobs etc and the downward pressure on wages. All major parties and corporations want a cheap workforce: the argument has nothing to do with race. The problem is exacerbated when the media conflate the 2 separate issues. Some people become afraid to speak out with legitimate concerns for fear of being branded racist, giving the racists a louder voice.
A similar mechanism is at work with “Islamophobia” – the legitimate concern about polititical Islam is conflated with “Muslim”. If you have a problem with political Islam, then you hate Muslims, this non-sequitur is further spun to make this “racist”.
You are right to worry about the rise of the right, but I think the reason for this is a basic failure by main stream parties to address legitimate concerns. The arguments may be more nuanced than the media would have you believe – anyway maybe a topic for another day/thread/forum.


#4

I totally agree with you, I for one am very politically minded and I would hate for my political excitement to harm MaidSafe. I will probably be posting a lot of articles that I find relate to my reasons for being involved. I think “Politics and MaidSafe” might be a good Category to add and kind of preface the first post with the main reason for MaidSafe, Privacy Security and Freedom for all the worlds people! @David what do you think? I already have a few posts I could put under there…


What categories do we need?
#5

I don’t think we should get hung up on the topic headline or political allegiances, the point is in my commentary, and the article a reference that supports my main point: the world needs better global governance.

If you agree that this is of vital importance, the rest is irrelevant, and we can surely discuss the relevance of MaidSafe in this context without it being tarnished?


#6

If by “the world needs better global governance” you mean we need a way to have more/equal influence than corrupt governments and the economic elites that buy them to do their bidding, then yeah I can agree with that. If you mean we need to help create/support some super government (ie EU, UN etc) that believes they know what is right/wrong for everyone, we are on opposing sides of how to use MaidSafe :wink:


#7

The thing is, that,“the world needs better global governance”, is a political statement too, as is the article: others may think the world is governed impeccably as it is. I have to say I think we should steer clear of politicising Maidsafe: Secure access for all should be suffice as it sums things up nicely and is apolitical.


#8

“the world needs better global governance” that is so wrong. The world needs empathy, love, understanding of differences. Just look Iraq and you will see what happens when alien nation(USA) get military involved in local governance.


#9

Excellent point re global governance, just so wrong on so many levels, well said


#10

In my opinion the US (which I’m a citizen of) is trying to spread it’s global governance all over the globe, which I’m fighting. Big Gov = Big Problems for most people involved, unless you’re one of the ruling class that is :wink:

You know there are a couple other governments that have tried what the US is doing today. One of them we fought in order to obtain our own independence… This is a HUGE reason I will support distributed systems like MaidSafe. It can be used as a tool to not comply when your conscience tells you it’s wrong.


#11

Governance doesn’t necessarily mean it’s done by a government, if inside the SAFE network protocols are build through which decisions can be made by consensus, that could be viewed as a form of governance. I think @happybeing is using the word in this broader sense.


#12

Yup that’s it!

I believe in the future without politicians, only highly evolved conscious people suggesting, discussing, and making decision by consensus.


#13

I was taking it as meaning to be governed globally, as to govern (Control, influence, or regulate (a person, action, or course of events): on a global scale. We need less of this. Maybe de-centralised, self governance is the way to go, an evolving anarchism if you like.


#14

As in my OP post, global governance means governing at the global level - the missing aspect of globalisation. As in the article, we have economic globalisation, without the global system to ensure it works for everyone. At the moment financial markets and powerful corporations can run rings around national governments, who are powerless to govern what happens in their own country. The article suggests this is why voters are frustrated and turning to populist parties.

That change is is needed I hope is not in dispute, unless you want corporations and those with power and wealth to have free rein.

How this is achieved is for us to think about and work towards, but we can’t do that without discussion, and it seems to me that MaidSafe offers an opportunity for participating in global governance for everyone, as well as at national and local levels. Just look at the impact of social media, and the internet in general, for giving individuals a voice without censorship, access to information from independent multiple sources, anonymity, whistleblowing etc. MaidSafe takes all these to another level, but has much greater potential as well.

MaidSafe can be used for anything. This forum is a place we can think about all the good things we can use it for, and these can create a positive image to counter those who may well want to paint it as for use by criminals etc.

You might not think global governance is a good thing, but whether or not it is relevant or good for MaidSafe is a decision for the community, and surely that requires it can be discussed if people want to discuss it.


#15

@magussilikonski said: “The world needs empathy, love, understanding of differences”

I certainly agree with that!


#16

I don’t personally disagree with your political statements, I’m just pointing out that that’s what they are and in my opinion Maidsafe should be apolitical. You say we can all agree with certain opinions of yours, but I don’t think we can claim that. As you say yourself, “You might not think global governance is a good thing” – which highlights the problem.
I don’t think anyone is against discussing this, - I myself in 1st post suggested having a thread for exactly what you want to discuss.
“Saving the world from UKIP” won’t attract such a discussion


#17

I consider global government as a nightmare scenario because, if the world government turns authoritarian and oppressive, there is nowhere else to go.

@happybeing, what will you do of the UKIP and the FN take over the world government? Move to outer space? Not quite yet I am afraid. Who will save you from UKIP? Aliens?

My dream is a world of small autonomous co-operating communities, with
enough diversity to permit everyone to find his place and let others
find their place.

I am interested in MaidSafe because I think it can help with that.


#18

I am inspired by Project SAFE because it is an example of regulation through decentralization ie. SAFE network consensus. Whether the concept of centralization is represented through politicians, banks, corporations or servers, it is important to consider alternative ways to solve the problems that centralization has historically solved within society.
That said, the discussion regarding whether Project SAFE is apolitical is important but I think we first need to decide what apolitical means to us. We certainly can’t ignore the implications that decentralized software brings to legacy systems which are almost always politicized.
The bottom line is that this is an open protocol for anyone to use to build distributed apps. People will build apps to replace corporate and government structures whether anyone from MaidSafe or any of us agrees or not.


#19

True, what I meant was for Maidsafe to just try and avoid “taking a view” wherever possible. Although it is true that a large majority of Maidsafe supporters and certainly investors/early adopters have similar viewpoints, these can manifest at app level rather than protocol level. IE It is likely that aspirations and goals other than “Secure access for everyone”, will become reality via devs and other contributors, without tying extra ideological ideas to Maidsafe. RE global governance, again we probably all have similar aspirations and I think something has been lost in translation whilst debating the semantics of governance. This too will evolve naturally I think, as touched on by a few to become some form of de-centralised system. I just think all these things will happen, but perhaps not attach the politics to Maidsafe, rather let it evolve naturally at the app/user /contributor level.


#20

Agreed. The politics behind project safe are clear and basic: Privacy. Security. Freedom.

Builders can be more specific on political aspirations with the apps they’re creating.