Give Me Liberty
Volume 1/Issue No. 3 April 2003
________________________________________________________________________
In This Issue:
Welcome
“How Do We Hold, Further, and Develop Our Commitment to Libertarianism?
by Stephanie West Allen, JD
“Free Speech on the Net Has Its Hidden Costs”
by Donnell King
________________________________________________________________________
Welcome to Give Me Liberty! We are thrilled to have you reading our
liberty-oriented news ezine that hopefully will become one of your
favorite monthly reads. For this issue, we are pleased to welcome one
of the leaders of the Libertarian Party in Colorado, Stephanie West
Allen, JD. Also Donnell King returns with another thought provoking
article.
We are especially interested in having your input and feedback since
this is YOUR ezine. We want to know what you want to see in future
issues. We are going to working on a web site in the future at
www.givemelibertynow.com and at that time we will be moving the ezine
from Topica.
Finally we ask you to spread the word about Give Me Liberty! If each of
you would invite just five others to subscribe then we could begin to
grow this ezine into the thousands very rapidly. Just ask them to send
an email to
givemelibert-@topica.com !
________________________________________________________________________
How Do We Hold, Further, and Develop Our Commitment to Libertarianism?
By Stephanie West Allen, JD
Today our country and our world need some very sharp, finely tuned ears.
To facilitate change, we need to close our mouths frequently. Listening
plays a decisive role in change. And not just any sort of listening. The
listening must be mature and committed.
For the components of that quality of listening, let’s look to two
brilliant educators. Their theories in the past 40 or so years have
proven to have broader application than just the classroom and students.
These two thoughtful teachers can help us to define the kind of
listening we need today. And tell us why focusing on one another’s words
will move us forward.
William Perry of Harvard University developed what he called a “scheme
of intellectual and ethical development.” He began to develop the Perry
Scheme when he, as a literature professor, asked his students what they
expected from him.
Some students saw him as a kind person who wanted them to think
independently, to think for themselves. Others saw him as an authority
figure who would impart to them true information and then extract that
same information from them as correct answers. Other students had still
different responses. Dr. Perry saw that his students wanted him to play
several inconsistent roles.
He also saw that, as some of the students who viewed him in an
authoritarian role moved towards a less authoritarian model of teaching,
they changed in many ways. Over 14 years, he developed his scheme of how
the students changed, and his map of development showed the progression
of those changes.
Perry’s map has nine positions and I will only present three here, in a
much condensed form. They will help us to see the importance of
developed listening and dialogue, as opposed to swapping swordfight
statements.
The first position is what he calls “dualism.” A person in this position
sees the world in very black and white terms. Two points of view cannot
coexist for them. If you disagree with me, one of us has to be wrong.
When a teacher is teaching in this position, he or she is the right one,
the authority, whose role is to convey knowledge to the student. The
student’s role is to receive.
The fifth position is “contextual relativism.” Here the person sees
world in shades of gray. Differing points of view can coexist. In fact,
differing points of view are invited. Dialogue is present. The role of
the teacher is facilitator. The students learn from each other and the
teacher. The teacher also learns from the students.
Above position five are positions of “commitment.” The person recognizes
this as a relativistic, shades-of-gray world, and realizes the need to
orient him-self or her-self in such a world. This orientation, this
anchor, is a personal commitment to certain values, life style and
philosophy. The person chooses this commitment and learns the
responsibility it entails.
A Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or libertarian in the dualistic
position will be quite different from one in the committed position.
Chosen commitment is not at all the same as dualistic “we versus them.”
The commitment position respects other points of view and enters into
dialogue. Substantial, meaty action can occur, as well as evolving
understanding. The interaction between those in the dualistic position
goes round and round until everyone turns into tiger butter.
In order to make changes, it is helpful to recognize in what Perry
position a dialogue is occurring. The dueling dualists will not likely
effect change. Speaking to a person in Perry’s committed position from
the position and stance of dualism will not result in societal
adjustments, either. We need dialogue between committed people of
various belief systems. People who are committed — and willing to
listen and learn and evolve.
Paulo Freire presents the perils for a country of what Perry calls the
dualistic teaching mode. In his book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” Freire
calls this mode the “banking concept of education.” The teacher deposits
into the student knowledge in a one-way process. This method makes
students, later adult citizens, passive. He says: “Authentic liberation
- the process of humanization – is not another deposit to be made in
men.” Freire too advocates dialogue.
Freire says the way to developing fully human, thinking, participating
citizens is through “problem-posing” education — a dialogue-based
education.
“The teacher is no longer merely the-one-who-teaches but one who is
himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being
taught also teach. They become jointly responsible for a process in
which they all grow.”
He lists a number of ways that the banking method of teaching mirrors
the society in which it occurs. Here are a few below. To see the mirror,
substitute “teacher” with “government” or “politicians”, and “students”
with “citizens.” Here are a few items from his list:
“The teacher thinks and the students are thought about.
“The teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined.
“The teacher chooses and enforces his choice and the students comply.
“The teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through
the action of the teacher.
“The teacher chooses the program content and the students (who were not
consulted) adapt to it.
“The teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his own
professional authority which he sets in opposition to the freedom of the
students.”
Freire suggests the problem-solving” education to counteract these rigid
roles of the student and teacher; problems which are faced by both
teacher and student are posed. Together they work to solve them.
Perry’s book was published eight years before Freire’s book so Freire
likely did not know of Perry’s commitment positions yet Freire also
stresses the importance of commitment in developing one’s values and
one’s guides for responsibility and action.
“Students, as they are increasingly posed with problems relating to
themselves in the world and with the world, will feel increasingly
challenged and obliged to respond to that challenge. Their response to
the challenge evokes new challenges, followed by new understandings; and
gradually the students regard themselves as committed.”
How can we promote a problem-solving community in this country? This is
a question I pose for dialogue.
And how do we promote a community that nurtures development of people so
they are committed and fully participating in the problem solving? How
do we promote a community that promotes fully listening to each other?
Both Perry and Freire hold clues.
For three years, I was fortunate to be a part of a group of professors
who were committed to teaching their students in the positions of five
and above. One of the most successful programs for doing so was
developed at the Colorado School of Mines.
The best way so far discovered to move students out of dualism is to
place them in situations of diverse options and answers. At first, they
often become angry. They think the professor has THE “right” answer and
is not divulging it. They think their future clients would know exactly
what is needed and would express that in clear, black and white terms.
As these students are placed in the shades of gray, they develop.
Dialogue and creativity increases; the need for black and white
certainty decreases. But the change is not without anxiety, stress, and
retreat into the old way. They need support as they grow. They need to
realize their life experience has given them the ability to contribute.
Listening is a part of this growth and part of the way the uncertainty
is navigated. The students listen to each other and to the teacher. The
teacher listens to the students believing, and demonstrating that he or
she believes, the students have something of value to contribute. The
teacher demonstrates that he or she does not believe he or she holds the
only true answer. The answers will evolve with the participation of all.
Those of us who want to create the kind of community described above
must first take care that we are not conversing in a dualistic position.
We must not present ourselves, even in our commitment, as having THE
right answers or believe that we have it all figured out. A
problem-solving community is one where people enter into dialogue with
respect for the points of view of the other. Members of a
problem-solving community respectfully listen.
Respect means to re-spect, look twice. Listen again. Respectful
listening holds great benefits. It helps us to deepen and modify and
further develop our commitment. It helps our community to actively and
effectively develop solutions in a problem-solving spirit. We need
problem-solving community now.
Aren’t we both students and teachers?
The above is what I think. In furtherance of fruitful dialogue, I sure
wish I could now listen to what you readers have to say about my ideas.
Stephanie West Allen, JD, shows organizations how to raise the
productivity of their people by incorporating a positive mood, humor,
and spirit. She also works with individuals helping them to achieve
their goals in the face of challenges, difficulties, and obstacles.
Her website: http://www.allen-nichols.com
Free Speech on the Net Has Its Hidden Costs
By Donnell King
The publisher of this ezine, Cort McCadden, commented in a recent email
exchange with me, “several of us were discussing the attempts recently
of Congress to intervene in the Internet, especially as related to sp*m
which can be looked at from two points: freedom and also being a
nuisance.”
If you notice an odd spelling in the preceding paragraph, it’s because I
changed it. The change came about because of an oddity in this argument
that makes it necessary for me to do so. Actually including the word
sp*m in the email could possibly kick in some readers’ sp*m filters
which would prevent this legitimate email, to which you have subscribed,
from getting through to you.
I run my own filter, so I can tweak it the way I want. Other users buy a
software package that filters mail for them. Unfortunately, such
packages often filter innocuous emails just because they contain phrases
someone else has decided characterize unsolicited commercial email (UCE,
techno-jargon for sp*m).
If you buy one of those packages, set it up to move suspected UCE to a
special folder you can later peruse before dumping. If it weren’t for
such a practice, I would have missed an email from Cort! I happened to
find it in my “Junk” folder, and I have no idea what word in the email
might have gotten it assigned there.
Libertarian communicators struggle over UCE. Congress is gearing up
legislation addressing it, and doing its usual stunning job. (I would
tell you the bill number, but including it could kick in some of those
idiot filters. The purveyors of the filtering software assume anyone
including the bill number must want to lobby against it, and is
therefore a sp*mmer.) I think that, as usual, Congress should stay out
of it, if for no other reason than that they will scr*w it up. (That
word could kick in the filter too.)
It’s hard to define what actually constitutes UCE. The Net enables
people who aren’t already rich and powerful, including people other than
the Demopublican party, to get their ideas distributed. At least some of
the motivation in Congress to limit unsolicited email (broader than UCE,
but the definition that some now use for sp*m) may stem from the usual
motives for licensing– making it hard for newcomers to compete with the
established folks. None of the bills being considered would prevent
either branch of the Demopublican party from soliciting your donations.
On the other hand, some versions WOULD prevent libertarian and other
nonprofit groups from sending you email you didn’t first ask for. That
makes it a free speech issue.
Still, it is at least theoretically possible for Congress to pass an
effective law if we could just figure out the ownership issues. For
libertarians the issue revolves around the basic principle that no one
has the right to initiate force against another human being, or to
advocate or delegate its initiation.
Steven Cousineau wrote in the Libertarian Enterprise, “Unsolicited
commercial email forces its way into our in boxes and then forces us to
process it.” Ferris Research says UCE will cost the American economy $10
billion in 2003 in lost productivity (a few seconds here and there
processing billions of UCE messages) and bandwidth–corporate servers
have to allocate bandwidth to UCE, which accounts for about 20 percent
of the inbound email at corporations. I’ve seen estimates that half the
bandwidth ISPs must allocate for home email use comes from UCE.
Newsflash: bandwidth ain’t free. Someone pays for it, and it’s not the
folks sending UCE. The cost of your service reflects the cost of
providing the bandwidth for all that email. In that sense, then, UCE
initiates force by taking my property that I haven’t given permission to
use.
On the other hand, some people say that when you publish your email
address, you give your permission to other people to send you email.
That makes a certain kind of sense. You must realize, however, that
“publishing” your address can be as intentional as putting on your Web
site and as unintentional as visiting a Web site without having stealth
software to block cookies and port probing. Another big source of
unintentional “publishing” comes from posting to public bulletin boards
such as Usenet and Web-based discussion boards. There are a number of
private ways to handle these.
1) Get one of the numerous free email accounts out there and use that
account whenever you sign up for such a bulletin board. Every so often
go into the account and dump the contents.
2) Put sp*m bait on your site. The Wyoming Libertarian Party’s Web site
includes this statement: “Sp*mmers, please read. This section is for
those low-life scum who troll web pages looking for email addresses so
they can sp*m them. Have a few:” The statement is followed by a number
of interesting email addresses including some that will cause messages
to go back to the sp*mmers, the address the Federal Trade Commission set
up for people to use to report sp*mmers, and all the board members of
the Federal Communications Commission. Harvesting programs, of course,
will not read the page but simply gather the addresses, leading to a
sort of self-reporting.
3) Include bogus addresses on your Web sites and bulletin board posts.
For instance, I could use ki-@dumpthis.mailme.com as my address. Any
automatic harvesters would get an address that would simply bounce. A
human who clicked the link could quickly edit the address so it would go
where intended, such as ki-@mailme.com (not a real address, just in
case you’re tempted to try it).
4) Freely use the delete key. If you don’t recognize the address from
which the email originates, delete it. If you’re in business and want
email from people you don’t know, you can usually tell from the subject
line. This won’t help the ISPs who have to transmit the stuff, but it
will at least cut down on wasting your time. I’m amazed by the people
who complain about UCE, and yet read it.
5) If you want to get serious about it, consider posting conditions on
your Web site under which your email address may be used. It may stem
the flow a little. I aggressively pursued for awhile, and I think my
name must have wound up on a “nut list,” because the amount of UCE that
went to that address dropped. Regardless, I had some fun, and reportedly
a few people have managed to get some money out of it by settling out of
court when they sued someone who violated the terms. (If you want to see
an example, take a look at my own Web site:
http://www.soapboxorations.com/. Click on “Writing/Editing” and then on
the “No solicitations” link.)
Bottom line: does UCE trespass on my property? I think so. Is it enough
of a trespass that I want to get the government involved? No. The cure
would be worse than the disease. If I decide it’s worth my time, I’ll
pursue it under existing fraud statutes. Most of them, I’ll simply
delete. I WON’T delegate to someone else the decision about what I want
to read and what I don’t. After all, some of the most interesting ideas
I’ve picked up have come from an email I wasn’t expecting. As annoying
as it is, I’ll make my own decisions.
For the record, though, to any marketing types out there: I’m perfectly
satisfied with the size of my masculine anatomy. Thanks for asking,
though.
Donnell King works with individuals and groups who want to become more
effective communicators. He is an associate professor of speech and
journalism at a Tennessee college and a recipient of an Excellence Award
from the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development. He
is available for consulting and training. He has recently co-authored a
textbook on communication, and he is getting ready to release his first
ebook. You can find out more about his work at
http://www.soapboxorations.com, or contact Donnell by
email at z2dhauk02@sneakemail.com.
________________________________________________________________________
Referring This Ezine – YES, by all means we encourage you to pass on
this newsletter to as many people as possible! We would only ask that
you make no changes to its content without written permission.
If you no longer desire to receive Give Me Liberty just send an email to
givemeliberty-@topica.com .
Cort McCadden, Managing Editor