The first requirement when governments need to consolidate control is to prevent horizontal peer-to-peer communication. To this end, the first tactic is to suspend the right of “freedom of assembly” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly ).

In the past, people gathered in public squares and coffee houses. Today, they gather online.

So it comes as no surprise that governments are targeting these spaces.

In the past, people simply moved their meetings to new spaces. I’m hoping we will choose again to do that.

I’ll be over here….

Where will you be?

-----

Back in 2004, i wrote a lengthy response to Alexander Wendt's amazing article “Why a World State is Inevitable." (Wendt, Alexander (2003) 'Why a World State Is Inevitable', European Journal of International Relations 9(4): 491-542.), but surfing the web of late has convinced me to bring it forward (finally).

Alexander Wendt begins his paper “Why a World State is Inevitable” with the following concise formulation of his intent: “In this article I propose a teleological theory of the ‘logic of anarchy’ which suggests that a world state is inevitable….” I offer the following equally concise opposition: In this article I propose a teleonomic theory of the ‘logic of panarchy’ which suggests that a world state is not inevitable. I suggest that the stable “state” for
this teleonomic process is a global “complex adaptive system,” or governance network, in which the “logic of anarchy” gives way to the “logic of panarchy.”

http://www.panarchy.com/Members/PaulBHartzog/Papers/Panarchy%20Is%20What...
(folder: http://www.panarchy.com/Members/PaulBHartzog/Papers/ )

Converted my Master's Essay "Panarchy: Governance in the Network Age" (pdf)

http://panarchy.com/Members/PaulBHartzog/Papers/Panarchy%20-%20Governanc...

to html and posted it online here:

http://panarchy.com/Members/PaulBHartzog/Papers/Panarchy%20-%20Governanc...

Why?

Well, so that the inner content becomes available for full-text searching, e.g. sections like this:

In this paper, I have shown that the convergence of processes crosses a critical threshold to create new possibilities for governance. The result is a new system. The key distinction between the old system and the new lies in the fact that governance in the old system was achieved through states, whereas in the new system it is not only achieved outside of hierarchies through horizontal networks, but is in fact often achieved in spite of hierarchies. Wapner states that we are able to observe this condition whenever agents “work to change conditions without directly pressuring states.”[209] What is significant is not that the EZLN sought to oppose the state, but rather that they sought to delegitimate it outside of the state system. Similarly, the Seattle protesters sought to delegitimate the forces of globalization.

We have opened the door on the notion 1) that the state could participate in the new networks as a legitimate actor, or 2) that the state could decentralize to the point of being a network itself. Certainly states participate in networks already, but for many global networks the impetus to their formation is the failure of the state to adequately address their interests. The result is a general antipathy toward the state, a resistance to its inclusion, and an oppositional attitude. On the second point, the primary characteristic of statehood is an embrace of hierarchy (at least one), i.e. that the state is the supreme legitimate representative of the collective will and that all others must be ultimately subject to it. This fundamentally at odds with the “plurilateralist” nature of networks. Therefore, in both instances, it may be that for the state to continue to participate effectively it would have to overcome its own nature, or state-ness, and in so doing would no longer be a state in any real sense.

:-)