Based on information in the public domain, it appears that some radical pro-terror groups wish to destroy Western democracy in order to enable their own philosophies to dominate our way of life.
Western democracy is based on the principles of tolerance, individual freedom and rule of law. The dilemma for the modern democratic state is that in order to fight those who wish to destroy the system and values that the majority of Australians hold dear, it needs to compromise the very values it wishes to protect.
Strategies that might be adopted to protect those values include:
· Have all new citizens swear to uphold certain basic principles and values that represent our culture as a condition of citizenship. Any overt or covert attempt to subvert those values will be regarded as a criminal offence and punishable in law. Any resident non-citizen of this country found guilty of such behaviour will have mandatory deportation to country of origin as penalty plus any specific criminal penalties.
· In the short term, the police and authorities should be granted significant additional powers to deal with the terrorist threat within this country. These powers should be strict and unambiguous for two reasons: firstly, to apprehend those who have committed or intend to commit terrorist offences; and secondly as a very clear message to all people (terrorist and non-terrorist) that Australia values its freedoms and privileges and will act unambiguously to protect that which it holds dear.
· BUT, these enhanced powers would be embedded in a sunset clause. The powers will automatically lapse after an agreed period – say two years. At the end of those two years, a bipartisan vote of Parliament can elongate the period for another two years. At the end of the second two-year period, the legislation will automatically lapse. If the Government feels a need to lengthen the legislation for a further two years, then this can only be done through a popular referendum.
The challenge for all of us is to maintain our values and the attributes of our society that make us great, yet eliminate those real threats that promise to take away from us that which we cherish. One can be tolerant and value freedom, while still being strong, forthright and unambiguous about the value we place on our freedoms.

Jim wrote: Does anyone have any hard data on ROI for online community-building?

Jim,

I suspect that the answer to this question underpins the dilemma faced by the entire global digital economy, much of which has been funded by, hope, greed, deception, misrepresentation, misunderstanding, hype, and yet, much good intention.

The problem is, as I see it, the inability of economists and accountants to value intangibles, knowledge, network, and I.P. And the reason, as I see it, that causes this, is the desire to equate and value the digital environment as if it were asset-based and tangible. The core elements of the asset-based environment are:

• transferability of title to asset
• conventional, easy to understand and straight-forward cost of replacement in terms of labour, material and other inputs
• ability to establish reasonable comparisons of value based on availability of similar/same offerings
• relative stability (less depreciation) of the asset

In the digital economy, these factors, as means to establish "value", are effectively useless. I have found the core (value related) characteristics of the digital (on-line?) economy/offerings to include:

• Speed of dissemination
• Cost - high one-off establishment cost, with effectively zero marginal cost
• Potential for exceptional leverage into target market/audience
• Character of subscriber base and its magnetism to product/service providers (as an advertising medium)
• Quality of content
• Authority of content and degree of "third party" validation/support
• Perishability of content
• Degree of hyperlink ability
• Global reach
• Degree of global appeal

These factors are different for each digital offering and therefore their value differs. The degree that an on-line community (or anyone else for that matter) can optimise each of these factors, then the higher the ROI from a conventional accounting, economic viewpoint. However, such a calculation assumes direct and measurable benefit and ignores the intangibles that are associated with the digital technology - many of which are as much about sociological, psychological and cultural outcomes as they are about dollar outcomes. Some of these "almost impossible to quantify" benefits and outcomes may include such elements as:

• the benefit of accessing people/information previously inaccessible
• the sense of comfort and security of people previously at the "margins" of community (geographic and social);
• the value of enhancement of knowledge and skills generated in the virtual community;
• the value of improved communication between people
• the value of establishing global relationships that enhance understanding between cultures and its contribution to world peace;
• the value of lifting the "cost-of-conflict" hurdle to commence war because of its effects on established relationships;
• the additional "risk" prepared to be adopted by people to "venture into new areas" as a result of the added security from access to virtual help sources;
• the value of being able to voice/canvass views;
• the value of enhancing the democratic process;

The list is endless, and must be considered in any assessment of value of the digital environment. As long as the digital environment is measured by non-digital criteria, then enormous peaks and troughs will continue to plague participants in the digital process. The challenge for the early 21st Century, as I see it, is for social and economic thinkers to formulate a set of "algorithms" that help determine value of digital elements in a consistent and predictable manner.