The ‘Occupy’ movement is one of several in American history to be based on anarchist principles.
"The easiest way to explain anarchism is to say that it is a political movement that aims to bring about a genuinely free society - that is, one where humans only enter those kinds of relations with one another that would not have to be enforced by the constant threat of violence. History has shown that vast inequalities of wealth, institutions like slavery, debt peonage or wage labour, can only exist if backed up by armies, prisons, and police. Anarchists wish to see human relations that would not have to be backed up by armies, prisons and police. Anarchism envisions a society based on equality and solidarity, which could exist solely on the free consent of participants."
oh yeah I just remembered why I thought writing about the concept of ownership was important today, because I though it was relevant to current events with the government shutdown and the controversial question about who gets the right to choose and who gets penalized for the decisions in defacto system that requires we leverage the existing business structures to organize medical insurance coverage.
I can sympathize with religious business owners may not want to pay for insurance that could be used to facilitate an abortion, like as if they are providing or performing the abortion, what they consider an act of murder punishable by their god.
The real controversy over this I think lies in the concept of ownership.
Do the heads of the company that which must provide insurance as dictated by the commanding government, presumably in an effort to facilitate more robust and reliable health care for the human hive it is supposed present and assist, own the company that is the entity that incurs the burden of this mode of operation? Do these people who are at the head of these companies own the wealth that is actually being attributed to the insurance that must facilitate the operation? Do they own some part of the insurance hey are buying? Certainly we know that not ALL the insurance company and its operations could be owned by them as a result of this kind of transaction, for that is not customary in these times.
Is the transaction of paying for insurance somehow transferring ownership of the abortion itself to the head of the company or any member of the company or its customers or contributors?
Is it the government who owns the abortion? Is it only the representatives who voted for this policy to be enacted the owners of the abortion? They are the ones who are dictating that abortion facilitating insurance be so at the expense of the common business structure known as the employer.
Does the person getting the abortion even own any part of the transaction in some circumstances or any circumstances?
Does the world own the abortion? Does nature?
Does ownership really exist in nature or is it merely a human construct? Does it exist only in the presence of humans? Does it exist in the presence of aliens, meaning that exists only in the presence of those that use it or conceive of it?
If ownership doesn’t exist in nature, but is an imaginary idea, then can we ever say that nature owns the abortion?
Is exploiting the structure or the business even necessary in this circumstance?
Don’t make me do somethin’ I don’t wanna do! I’m sure that’s what a lot of Christian and otherwise company owners are thinking right now, for whatever reason they’ve used to justify that conviction, even if it be greed or it just be their emotions.
Would it be better, or even possible, for the government to provide a different solution to the problem that not all are able to take advantage of a health care system due to wealth inequality that has arisen from history and our present organizational and economic structure, whether it was intended to be that way or not.
To clarify the seriousness of the problem of inequality in access to the healthcare system in place now, one may need the “safety net” style of support to overcome the burden of their families, who have claimed ownership over them, until the age of 18, or whatever. Further, one needs to be working, coupled with one or more of these business structures, or somehow independently acquiring monetary wealth. The former wealth acquisition scheme, consisting of coupling with privately owned business being the most feasible acquisition scheme in most cases due to the need to increase the value of one’s work with infrastructure for most practical skills.
Do the businesses take ownership of part of the lives somehow when the worker has to couple with them? Who gets to decide that, and why? I the case that having ownership of something implies a situation in which the owner is disadvantaged, does the owner get to define how the relationship forms? Does the worker get any part in the decision of who gets to own anything, or must they just comply?
Does the worker own their work when coupled with the business? Is it not the work of the worker in coordination with the business that generates the wealth the worker and the business have set out to acquire?
Because it is easier for the business to replace the workers, and thus the worker has very little negotiating leverage, does that give the business ownership over the rules of how the coupling must be formed between the worker and the business, and how ownership of the insurance policy gets defined?
Is it practical or even feasible for the government to provide a health service in which it is declared and agreed upon by all business owners that the service will own the abortions it facilitates? Does this require some alternate mechanism of transferal of funds to facilitate the service?
Can we not provide any service to those whose prospects of health care are in effect being owned by independent factions, without somehow extracting the wealth from the independent factions who have claimed ownership of so much wealth that it may be impossible to provide access to health care for those who can’t accumulate wealth independently?
Do we just have to continue to live with the fact that not all people will have equal access to healthcare, even though the health care system is prepared to facilitate this access?
Could we provide that service based only on the contributions of those who personally submit to a tax, or only those who make donations to private organizations?
Should everybody stop using insurance provided by their company and get their own? Can poor people do that? Can the average worker do that? Is analyzing the wealth of the average worker meaningful in this discussion?
We need new concepts to be formed within our language and well defined.
How about the concept of bullshit.
I wrote to my friend the other day that we should replace the government in times of bullshit, because I favored what I would call slow anarchy or simultaneous anarchism.
It sounds funny but we all have a concept in our minds about what that means. There is no solid description to exactly what that means, but maybe our language isn’t capable of describing it without resorting to new words, words with definite relationships and connotations, and cultural history.
the concept of ownership, as I have mentioned before in this blog, is one that I feel is overused in the situations we find ourselves frequently.
Like the implications of altering a brick wall to convey a political message, the implications of creating a parallel government in the geographic midst of an other one, the implications of conducting business inside of someone else’s bank without asking their permission, the implications of labeling products owned by a company or store in a store on your block.
The circumstances surrounding these actions are actually extremely complex yet we morph the concept of ownership to satisfy the desires of those who wish to own in strategically built settings.
Thus we can say the concept of ownership is fluid, and manipulated to produce desired results fitted to specific circumstances.
The circumstances we see this concept most fitted to (manually) are those which we are bound by nature to incur.
Institutionalized Drug Distribution - A Proposed Solution to Drug Use Problems and Mental Health Problems
Lets think about how distribution of recreational drugs can allow us to easily identify and reach out to those who need mental help.
If we legalized drugs in such a way as to require distribution centers to be staffed with doctors that require a mandatory health check upon distribution, then the doctors could identify mental problems and offer help, and (possibly) refuse distribution if the help is not accepted.
If a system like this is done carelessly then we can open up a pandora’s box of societal problems and create a tool of exploitation for use by the state, and a tool of profit for the use of those who run the facilities and supply the drugs.
If the right precautions are taken, then we could have a system that pays for itself, reduces crime, and helps combat the problems of mental illness.
Some precautions to take:
Don’t allow centers to individually profit off off distribution, otherwise they would sell anybody drugs, encourage the use of drugs to everybody including those who should not be taking them, and push drugs onto the black market in order to sidestep restrictions that prevent them from making larger profits. Centers would all receive the same amount of money (relative to local economy) for their services, and the amount all of the staff make would always be transparent to the public, as well as the quantities or each type of drug each center distributes.
Satiate the staff with good salary so they don’t have incentive to sell on the black market.
Heavily regulate the facilities, production, and distribution networks using 3rd parties.
Restrict patients from taking certain drugs off the premises (like LSD, Heroin, Psilocybin, and other hard drugs which significantly impair people for long periods of time or are addictive and can seriously disrupt communities if distributed via the black market). This could be achieved by administering certain drugs immediately on the premises, instead of just giving the drugs to the customers to administer to themselves, and by requiring customers to deposit their car keys, etc. before administration of any such restricted drug.
Keeping specialized security guards there for the customers protection, meaning that the guards are trained to safely restrain people if they freak out, and to prevent people from leaving the premises with restricted drugs.
Privacy agreements between distribution centers and customers that don’t allow the centers to share information about the customers’ identities with any outside parties (especially not governmental institutions).
Centers can (possibly) keep track of the amount of times customers have used certain drugs in order to limit the usage and identify addiction, or use this to identify mental afflictions.
Provide customers with full information about any substances, including warnings of drug interactions, ingredients, production history…, and historical information about drug usage
Make group or peer “therapy” sessions mandatory before use of certain substances, like addictive drugs such as heroin, cocaine, etc. so potential customers can talk to those who have addicitons before making their choice to consume.
Arguments for Machine Dependence - Instant Feedback vs. Learning Curve
Consider the argument that we acquire so much knowledge and make it digestible and preserve it in such a short amount of time, even if the period spent intensively acquiring information is unsustainable and counter-beneficial to the short term acquisition of learning or thinking skills, when the knowledge acquisition system exceeds its capacity or otherwise breaks down, we could be left with such a wealth of well preserved information that future life ability is increased greatly and thus life forms with increased ability are left able to easily and dynamically cope with the stress of withdrawal from the knowledge acquisition systems and support systems that came with them or were supported by them, and are also easily and dynamically able to cope with subsequent maintenance of the collective life form in the absence of such knowledge acquisition systems.
In today terms, the manifestation of the systems mentioned above involve human lifeforms coupling with electronic and mechanical machines, which require a large amount of energy and resident infrastructure and to maintain and develop. The acquisition of the energy required to create, develop and maintain these machines involves destructive pollution with is in many ways and possibly overall counter-beneficial to the survival of the collective human life form.
This may mean an inevitable end to the ability of human life forms to use these machines, or to use these machines in any meaningful way related to knowledge acquisition or high level computation or maintenance of life support systems.
However the knowledge gained through intensive periods of knowledge discovery could unlock many secrets that could prove to be so valuable as to make up for any adverse effects of the retirement of the knowledge acquisition machines or supporting infrastructure.
We can especially see prospects for benefit from implementing this type of strategy when we speak within the human context, because of this life form’s generational nature, generations that did not develop problem solving skills and habits can readily generate subsequent generations that have the ability to (relatively) easily acquire the problem solving skills and habits which are necessary for those life forms to substitute for or supplement or knowledge acquisition and processing technology, when exposed to an abundance of information that could be preserved by the previous generation(s) using intensive knowledge acquisition systems.
Consumer Evaluated Value, Performance, and Compensation - Corporations and Political Speech
Consumer Evaluated Value, Performance, and Compensation
Community should set price and value of product, or determine reasonable compensation for a company’s employees, in the case of high paid employees, typically executive level, who have control of money simply because of claim to ownership of the company and executive decision making powers.
Community should be able to guess the salaries of company workers and executives and there should be some mechanism of civil restructuring that conforms wages and salaries to the current will of the public, and maybe particularly of the corresponding consumer base.
Tools would inevitably be established for the community to measure and easily evaluate performance and value, and do so in a unified manner. The power of currently available computerized networks (such as the Internet) would make it extremely cheap to establish these tools.
End Corporate Personhood, Corporations are not People - Money is Not Speech, it is Valued Property
When you buy goods and services, you are doing so in a willing exchange. One might say that the consumer should know what goods and services they are purchasing. Regardless of whether one should be entitled to know all the goods and services they purchase, one might predict that the consumer may make different decisions about their purchase if they were aware of this information before (or at the time of) the purchase.
Further, if consumers could not only know the goods and services intended for distribution upon purchase, they should also know the work collateral or work value they are also purchasing.
Information could become readily available about the political contributions that are being made, or that have been made, by the organization or its major beneficiaries. Information also could become readily available about the effects of the work or type of work implemented to construct the product.
Using the state as a means of enforcement vs. Public enforcement of consumer information standards.
What are the tools the public might have to enforce information standards that products are “packaged with” or associated with, without the help of an authoritarian state apparatus?
One tool many of us are probably familiar with is the boycott. One might suggest that the consumer community could boycott products until the producers submit to higher information standards and greater transparency. As is true of many boycotts, this task would prove extremely difficult to achieve for a relatively poor and hard working public without access to many raw resources (without having to go through the producers they would intend to boycott). This is very much the situation around the world in current times, especially considering the mainstream cultural and societal value of property rights, and prevalent authoritarian policy enforcing property rights. Boycotting so many products on such a large scale may prove enormously difficult, especially considering the size of the population in current times and the relative inability to effectively coordinate across large segments of the population, although this strategy may actually be possible if a high enough degree of coordination was achieved across large enough segments of the population.
Another tool the public might have would be consumer based labeling practices. If consumers were willing, they may be able to label all products they consume, or at least all those they deem relevant or a highly important selection or products, the method perhaps dependent upon community resources or perceived need. Again, this would prove challenging in current times, due to authoritarian property protection and allocation practices that consider consumer products the property of the producer or generally whomever the producer chooses to give that property (although this is a generalized oversimplified statement about the mechanisms by which producer based property is distributed). There are many state enforced laws that would serve to punish the community for adopting such a strategy and ultimately prevent this kind of strategy from being freely realized, and thus rendering any strategy of this kind ineffective to varying degrees.
If corporate personhood privileges were explicitly banned by state apparatuses (such as constitutional amendment), presumably in coordination with the will of the public, then cases could be made by the community at least pertaining to political speech that is being bought with their money.
Now this is an important distinction to make, and the reason why money should not be considered speech, but rather, property. Speech can be made freely by any individual, and apparently, the mostly unspoken (within the Mainstream Conversation) yet legally accepted trend is that those individuals can amplify their own speech or the speech of others using their own resources to purchase tools to amplify that speech. At what point does an individual or organization own another individuals resources? When the producer asks for additional resources from another individual under the pretense of exchanging the resource for known goods and services, but with the hidden ulterior motive to use those resources for the amplification of political speech. In that case, who should now own the amplification devices used to amplify that speech?
The reason why consumer control over value and compensation was mentioned previously (in the Consumer Evaluated Value, Performance, and Compensation section) is that the transfer of enough resources over to individuals that are coupled with, however do not wholly constitute, the producer organization (such as a large corporation), such that political speech expenses can be made at a much higher capacity than that of the consumer individual (on average), can be essentially viewed as a loophole in the mechanism of value or property exchange that takes place during a purchase (depending on the defined and considerably useful goals of the purchase).
If the organization is not making the political expenditures any more as a result of different pressures, but the resources used to make the organization’s political contributions are now going to particular individuals who presumably purchase political speech amplification resources of their own will (although there would also be extreme pressure to make the same purchase the organization is interested in due the the property and compensation schemes that are prevalent in current times)
The reason why corporations should not be considered people - Corporate decision making structure - Personhood is a dangerous oversimplification
As stated in a previously written article: “
It has to do with the power structure. Corporations are constructed of many people, who work together, presumably in order to benefit themselves. Under this model one might argue that since a corporation consists of persons entitled to full constitutional rights, then the corporation itself should inherit those rights.
However, the decision making structure of the corporation is what makes it unreasonable to assume that it should be entitled all constitutional rights associated with persons. Each individual person has the ability to make decisions for themselves. Only one person or a few people within a corporation have the ability to make decisions within a corporate structure. And not every person the corporation agrees with the decisions that get made. In many cases all the persons comply due to the need to accumulate wealth to stay alive and comfortable in some capacity. If any of the persons disagree with the decision, the one or few decision makers have the ability to remove the dissenting person(s) from the corporation. The non-decision maker persons however, do not necessarily, and in practice very rarely have the ability to remove the decision makers from the corporation or its property.”
Also, if one were to assert that producers, notably that sustain themselves ultimately due to consumer based purchases, were intrinsically coupled with the consumer on this basis, we could say that the decision making structure extends then from the decision makers (regarding resources obtained via purchase) down to the consumer about what to do with the resources. This is especially apparent when the resources that are purchased by the producer using the resources obtained by the consumer purchase are used in ways that are unknown to or intentionally hidden from the consumer, because when the resources are being attributed to a purchase unknown to the consumer, the control regarding how to distribute resources is ultimately taken out of the consumer’s possession.
Hey, here is a good argument for why corporations shouldn’t be considered persons.
It has to do with the power structure. Corporations are constructed of many people, who work together, presumably in order to benefit themselves. Under this model one might argue that since a corporation consists of persons entitled to full constitutional rights, then the corporation itself should inherit those rights.
However, the decision making structure of the corporation is what makes it unreasonable to assume that it should be entitled all constitutional rights associated with persons. Each individual person has the ability to make decisions for themselves. Only one person or a few people within a corporation have the ability to make decisions within a corporate structure. And not every person the corporation agrees with the decisions that get made. In many cases all the persons comply due to the need to accumulate wealth to stay alive and comfortable in some capacity. If any of the persons disagree with the decision, the one or few decision makers have the ability to remove the dissenting person(s) from the corporation. The non-decision maker persons however, do not necessarily, and in practice very rarely have the ability to remove the decision makers from the corporation or its property.
Person = Person
People = Zero to Many Persons
Corporation = People + Formal Decision Making Structure + Formal Assignment of Property
Because of this unequal relationship between the decision makers and the rest of the persons that make up a corporation, the corporation cannot be said to fully reflect or even resemble a single person. Therefore, personhood should not apply to a corporation in any legal sense.
The ability for a corporation to claim personal rights against the democratic decisions made by governmental structures undermines democracy because decision making power that dictates and affects many persons is being focused into the hands of one or a few persons, exactly the problem democracy is intended to prevent.
On the subject of rape, I believe that they most persuasive case for most men is the prospect of being sent to prison. Men fear prison primarily because it is an environment where the statistical likelihood of being raped or coerced into a sexual act is 1 in 5. This is something nearly every man has thought about at some point, and nearly every man has conjured up some scenario of how they’d survive prison if it ever came to it.
What most men never seem to consider (why, I cannot fathom) is that our worst-case-scenario survival fantasies are an everyday calculation for most women in our society.
So the question to ask, when a “bro” has a moment to let his imagination run on the topic, is “how would you feel if it was your first day in lock-up and you were out in the yard and overheard a group of six or seven of your fellow inmates, all much larger than you, making rape jokes as they looked you over? How would you feel about it if it was your second day and you’d been raped the night before?”
We might assume leadership to be a thing that humans in the present and into the future are predisposed to do, somehow by nature or as a matter of the course of history.
If this were the case, any leaderless governmental solution we create will have the problem, or the potential problem, of leadership structures forming.
Some or all people under uncertain circumstances may be driven to leadership, like a bad habit, or compulsion that must be appeased by imposing rule on others.
So, if this were the case, what would we need to do prevent leadership from happening?
Jail any leaders? If you exhibit behavior with some resemblance of leadership, would you be in danger of imprisonment?
Create mental health programs to identify and attempt to suppress the leadership impulse or relieve leaders of their compulsion through some sort of therapy or manipulative system of education?
Could you create a governmental structure that is impervious to the effects or otherwise prevents leadership structures from forming or sidesteps leadership structures and thus avoids or mitigates the effects?
How could the prevention of leadership ever be accomplished?
I don’t like to write about my life, or what happened, but I feel like I had a radically different and hellish experience in my early life than most people had and so it is important to get it out for people to think about.
I used to listen to my parents arguing and screaming at each other at the top of their lungs, keeping me and my brother and sister up or waking us up, almost every night of my early life. They would swear at each other mostly during the arguments, or accuse each other of not wanting to fuck the other anymore or yell about something about money or the kids or you are a fucking liar. I never called it swearing I called it cussing when they said like fuck or shit head or ass hole or piece of shit, I think my mom said peace of mind a lot and I thought it meant piece of mind, pieces of mind, piece of the pie, maybe it did sometimes too, like: I’m going to give you a piece of my mind..
May dad used to beat up my mom, or attempt to while she fought back every once in a while.
"Don’t lie about me in front of my children!!!" was a big thing that seemed to be associated with that kind of violence.
"I’ll fight you tooth and nail", my mom said. I still don’t know where she came from with these expressions she would use when she was really reacting..?
I remember somebody talking about my how dad punched my mom in the stomach while she was pregnant with my brother or kicked her. Or maybe that was my cousin and her dad while her mom was pregnant with her little sister? They would argue to a whole different tune of fucked up.
My parents cared so much about us kids. Everything was for us kids. And even though we didn’t have money we ate every day and my mom was proud of that, and when she ever mentions that fact she always seems like she is really amazed it worked out like that.
I lived off food stamps with my mom for a while, so anybody that’s got a problem with food stamps or welfare can suck my dick, cause if we didn’t have that, I would have been figuring out how to rob you instead of writing this blog.
We were lucky to have grandparents on my mom’s side that had to help us out full time eventually and let me and my sister and brother stay with them and live with them when things got really fucked up or before and after school.
Of course, it makes me feel kinda privileged in a messed up way and guilty up that probably the only reason they had money, considering how fucked up everybody was, was because of the systemic segregation that they believed in and promoted.
They were really into capitalism and always told me to work as hard as I can and don’t care about anybody else because that was the way to achieve success and the best way or maybe the only way the world was bound to work and I was bound to survive and that it was somehow dignifying to obtain and compete and beat out others.
I remember my aunt crying about how when my grandpa died he was so heart broken when one of his few friends, a mutual friend of him and my grandmas, this holocaust survivor, totally ignored him when he tried to say hi to her after my grandma died. He was a severe racist and she probably knew it and thought he was a creep.
Although I loved him and really loved being with him for many reasons, my grandpa was pretty creepy in alot of ways. Despite being racist which was a mostly conscious accomplishment of his life, he was severely manic depressive and had trouble controlling his temper. We all just kind of knew not to push any of grandpa’s buttons, and all understood he was a little weird, which was cool and fine in itself and kinda cute in ways like taking care of old people typically is.
I only saw him flip a couple of times and never all the way. I heard about it when he apparently threw my cousin out on the front lawn flt on her stomach after she refused to wash her hands before dinner. Somebody at my school actually saw it and apparently the school was a little concerned. Like, he couldn’t handle certain things, like movies about war particularly and any swearing on tv for some reason, although he swore alot himself and said bitch and nigger all the time and jesus christ god damn son of a bitches cheap shit female drivers.
My grandparents used to tell me my dad was a worthless bum.
They apparently hated him and he knew it and I didn’t really know how it all came about and they knew he beat up my mom and she kept getting back together with him over and over again.
He was a great father in a lot of ways and really inspirational and a great teacher and he loved his children.
Does that seem like a strange thing if you were to hear your grandparents saying something like that about your dad or would that seem somehow out of the ordinary to you? Not really to me at that age, but I sometimes wondered what it was like to not have that, and it made me feel a little funny sometimes and pissed and like something was wrong or out of the ordinary when my grandparents were making fun of him.
My great grandmother made me lock out my best friend when I was little, when me and some other friends came in to get a drink of water. “I don’t want that god damn nigger in my house!” she said to me vividly as she kind of trembled in fear, like how a cat does at some ridiculous harmless shit it is afraid of. “Why?” “Because he’ll steal something”
I was so mad right then but I got him a glass of water and stood there with him with a few minutes and then I had to go back inside to get everybody and left him out there.
There are not many things I’ve ever felt so tormented about after growing up. I can’t imagine how he must have felt when that happened, having to stay out there ALONE. He looked a little pissed off at my grandma, but we never really talked about it, like neither of us cared and just figured my grandparents were dicks like that. I think it was mostly confusing for both of us because I didn’t understand what this racist shit my grandparents were saying even meant or why they would think he would want to steal our stuff at that age and he probably didn’t really get what was going on at all because my grandma like ducked me inside the door where he couldn’t hear to tell me not to let him inside.
I wonder how that guy grew up, I used to move alot and haven’t talked to him since. I bet after he grew up he thought about that weird memory and figured out that he had been a victim of racism and is maybe even pissed or enraged about it, maybe he even thinks I am a racist or that I was intent on the act of victimizing him. Actually I moved away from there not too long after that happened maybe within a year so I didn’t really ever get the opportunity to reflect on that with him or any other friends.
That’s another thing, I used to move around alot. My dad couldn’t keep a job because he would always get pissed and start fights at work. He would even fist fight at work sometimes, he was so passionate about everything.
It was really amazing to be around that in a lot of ways, like he was wild and courageous and smart and vocal. I think that was why my mom stayed so attracted to him.
He went up to these old ladies once randomly in a grocery store talking about shark attacks and said how there was a greater probability that you would die by getting stung by a bee than getting attacked by a shark.
He was a lifestyle surfer and the shark conversation definitely struck a chord with him.
That was when him and my mom were separated for the last time and he lived in Cocoa beach, I think. I was hanging out with him and checking out his humble digs in like this shack thing he had behind some older Ronald Reagan looking dude in the Co. beach suburb.
He had an orange tree in his back yard and that was the first time I ever saw that in my whole life of being down in Florida. I’m pretty sure I remember we were not allowed to pick them.
He shot himself in the head, actually in his neck, in that house, probably in his bedroom. I don’t understand how he got his neck or what he was doing with the gun there, like, why he would think of the neck and not the head..? How the fuck was he holding his gun? There were two bullet wounds below his jaw on the side of his neck, there was tape on them and, like, painted over with bluish rosy tan pale skin colored paint at the funeral. The attempted fakeness looked mostly disgusting.
I knew everything that had happened already from hearing him over the phone. “Do you love him!?!?” “Yes!” pew “Oh my god Matthew!! Oh my god Matthew no …”
I could imagine what happened and had a picture in my mind of what he looked like that was really different from what he actually looked like after he died and the actual position of the wounds really threw me off.
I always wondered what that was like for my sister, when it actually happened, because she was literally sleeping next to my mother that night or trying to lay down with her and then definitely awake holding on to her and hearing everything as it happened, I actually haven’t thought about the fact that she was right there for a long time till it just came to me now, it made me really emotional to try to remember what she said, I think she even called out to him like “Daddy no” a few times right before he shot himself, or as he shot himself. I can’t believe how anybody could have been subjected to an experience like that, it makes me really question as I am writing about it now whether I should have gotten up and implored him to stop too or if I even was awake enough to, I remember thinking like it was just another fucked up night he was threatening something drastic and severe. I’ve never questioned that before. I know she had definitely said “Daddy no” a few of the worst really drastic times when violent episodes happened between our parents, it was definitely something she would have said in that situation. I’m somewhat ashamed that I can’t remember that now even though I definitely used to be able to remember what happened that night.
I remember getting up in the morning and high fiving my brother about getting three days off from school.
I felt really guilty about that around the time I got out of college and this girl I knew real well and kind of looked up to told me I would never fall in love, and I believed that she knew what she was saying and mind fucked myself for a while.
I know I was trying to keep my brother from feeling bad, I don’t remember if he was awake or asleep during the whole thing, but I also remember being sincerely relieved about not going to school and not wanting to bother with the whole situation and just saying fuck it and be over with it and just peacefully sit and play video games with my brother.
Anally Ravaged Bankers in Jail, the Libor Scandal, Causes of Prison Aggression Concerning Propertarianism, and Applications of Anarchism
I was told by word of mouth today at work of a conspiracy theory about the connection of some participants in the Libor scandal to the school shootings that occurred in Massachusetts and in Sandy Hook.
Supposedly the shooters or someone killed in the shootings were the sons of a couple of people who were related to the scandal.
One of these fathers was relieved from duty to testify in court because he was so grieved by the involvement of his son in the shooting. I think that was the Sandy Hook shooting. This basically prevented the court from making that father testify and expose names of some of the people involved in the scandal. The other father had a similar situation in which the grievance got him out of something.
I thought, well I could kinda see that, I mean the banker capitalists involved in this scandal have a lot to fear from the prison systems. They would be brutalized and anally ravaged by all the people who they pissed off by being greedy stingy propertarian anti-social fucks.
These are the people who persist on the laws and massive system of violent enforcement that allows them protection of property and their massive accumulation of property, have created the prison situation into which they might be driven.
Their slender bodies and shitty background would render them extremely vulnerable in a place where many people have been forced into or believe in or are provoked to living a life of violence.
It is the accumulation of property and protection thereof which has largely instigated and expanded such systems of fostered and concentrated violence. Without this motive, it is actually pretty hard to determine whether they are necessary to exist at all.
The above anecdote is interesting because it is a case that accentuates the dynamic between property motivation, the drive to accumulate and keep, and the drive to avoid the punishment and exclusion that are the tools used in the protection of that same property.
The drive to accumulate with knowledge that the accumulation will be protected can cause a person to subvert society to accumulate more than what the society perceives that it can safely sustain, which is many times more than it can actually sustain.
This mechanism of subversion, distinct from the sole drive to accumulate, exacerbates the occurrence of violence within the society and the necessity of violent and exclusive systems of property protection.
Why does propertarianism even exist?
The social contract has manifested itself in many forms and arrangements over the course of human history. One form of social contract that has been perceived to be advantageous is the contract of property ownership between groups.
Property can be shared among groups or owned by a single group, but it is the property ownership that is respected and enforced with authority. The authority of one group in a breach of the property ownership contract can be held over many aspects of another group’s livelihood, including the authority to physically punish or deprive livelihood or terminate life. The deprivation of livelihood defined in property ownership contracts can focus on the effects of the property itself, like as in starvation when food is the property transferred from one group to another or destroyed, or could be based on some rational or cultural principal. By the way, when I say groups I am referring to any arrangement of societal participants, down to a single person or part of something. A group can consist of one person. A group may be considered a group or a certain group even though it has not agreed to participate as such.
The social contract.
Social contracts can be struck by any societal groupings between each other. Many times these agreements will authority the transfer of authority over some aspects of life from one group to another under defined circumstances. This can include authorization of violence of members of one group over the other.
Social contracts in practice are struck as new information about the relationship between the social groups is discovered. When enough information becomes available about the perceived importance of regulation between groups to some or all members, some or all members of the groups can be stimulated into action which results in the formation of a contract.
Contracts can be terminated, by one or the other group. Contracts can be terminated by either group. When enough information about the perceived importance of terminating a contract has been accumulated, some or all members of the groups can be stimulated into action which results in the termination of a contract.
Contracts such as adherence to a group can be considered. One of these contracts may be impacted very strongly by the effects of other contracts, namely because adherence to a group involves adhering to the social contracts that group has become engaged in. Adherence itself may be loosely defined and have complex implications in the meaning of adherence to different members across the group or transcend temporally.
The important thing to note about the social contract as it is being defined here is that it is something that exists even though it may not be agreed to be referred to as such, and is thus inescapable.
The ability to break these social contracts in a coordinated way as to avoid violence from being part or the coordination and to avoid violence when a previously upheld contract starts to result in violence happening, or other undesirable things, can be beneficial to society overall.
Maybe as more information is gained as to the effect and necessity of violence or other forms of forcible deprivation we may decide to terminate contracts involving property ownership and maybe create more flexible, breakable contracts that do not involve property ownership.
What kinds of motivations are there to accumulate if you can’t ever guarantee that your accumulation will be protected for yourself or your group?
Would this result in more or less violence or more or less strict contracts?
Perpetual Revolution - Free Market Exchange and Advertising
When we see advertising, particularly supply side or supply influenced advertising, we are seeing essential distortion of the free market.
Most advertising techniques we know of are actually aimed at this goal, of distorting the FREE MARKET to gain an advantage and ultimately some extent of control over other FREE MARKET participants.
Hey what happens if somebody drops a bomb in this fucking cage? We’re all gonna get trapped trying to get out!
Of course, advertising can be conducted in a way that provides concise information about the makeup and objective value of the product, but most of the advertising we see masks or distorts the real properties of the products it represents.
Distortion may still happen even if it is not attempted, or consciously understood or rationalized as such or if it is even actually beneficial to the supplier.
On a large scale, this may be determined to be a serious distorting force within the free market. The less consumers know about what they are consuming, you’d think the less optimal decisions they’d be capable of making about their market interactions, namely purchases and investments.
What are the effects of mainstream confusion within a large society, or a dangerously large society?
What kinds of tools or substantive authority or ability do consumers have to counter the attempts at information hiding now?
What I’d like to know more about is how people traded in ancient times. What kinds of techniques were created and implemented during trade to ensure both sides had the information they felt they needed to make the optimal trade.
At how many different levels did this happen? I’m sure people who were heavily invested in any form of trade as some sort of career or obligatory job must have prepared and developed techniques to counter attempts at information hiding by the other side. Did the end consumer always get deceived about the products’ value and composition or were there attempts made to hide the true character of products in order to make the trade happen?
Smiley360.com will never censor your speech and we want you to know that we value any feedback you have about any product.
Smiley360.com will never refuse or hide any offer from you based on any speech you have previously made about anything.
- Put people to work regularly auditing industry and life support systems for adherence to ecological standards
- Increase funding to ecological improvement programs as needed
- Use standards as a labor motivator. High standards makes life difficult to be lax and wasteful.
- Provide jobs instead of forcing jobs, use soft standards for ecological improvement. If labor force is not meeting ecological standards, increase rewards for effort instead of sanctioning.
- Allow people with ideas to get funding to make ideas happen
- Requires speculators and investment sciences to develop, and should rely heavily on automated expert systems to perform speculation and evaluate risks and benefits.
- Use rating system to rate usefulness of products, instead of wealth exchange.
- Social web and encyclopedia can facilitate qualitative review of innovations.
- Free information, no patenting. This paired with archive of qualitative information about innovations allows people to pick up ideas long into the future if innovations weren’t as popular or practical when originally introduced.
Gamify Wealth Attainment to Reward Achievement
- Collectively hoard objects of wealth (such as mansions, vacations, etc) to provide incentives for labor. These things already exist, we could destroy them, or maybe utilize them as prizes for people who attain goals. The prizes can thus be shared temporarily and reused for many achievers. This suggestion sounds kind of douchey to me, but looking at the way people are motivated by contests, as corny and ridiculous as it seems, it can be extremely useful in motivation, we should all realize this and utilize the principle within a constructive democratic equalized context or else it will be used in less ethical schemes. When one analyzes the nature of contests, they reward incentive and are yet equitable, in that there is typically a randomized aspect to the assignment of awards, in the cases when there are many who have qualified for the award under the rules of the contest.
- Use democratic rating system to evaluate achievement and choose winners.
- Work auditors can form field-specific panels to help determine what constitutes “good” work in their particular fields. These decisions would need to be open to public scrutiny and democratic revision.
- The arguments for the use of any wealth inequality as motivators are controversial in discussions about socialism and socialist arrangements. I agree, this is a tough call, maybe all objects of inequality should be abolished instead of introducing any wealth inequality even if temporary in nature. Research and discussion is needed around this subject and possible implementations concerning motivators.
Distribute Work Load So That It Is Easily Digestible
- Use technology and networks to break up complex problems into smaller problems and let people pic up the small problems as they are motivated to. Reassemble the work into a finished product. Do this in as many work systems as possible.
- Reduce work load so that it is easy to sustain and minimizes personal aggravation. Try to automate work as much as possible. We have the technology to do this now.
- Decentralization of work and infrastructure provides a defense against concentrated attacks. i.e. You won’t be able to blow up one building and take out an entire work force, because that work force will be distributed geographically and each point of labor will be autonomous.
- Try to utilize network systems as much as possible to reduce transportation costs and pollutions, and provide incentive for technological development. People should work from home or localized base stations whenever possible to avoid long commutes.
Provide Robust Social Services
- Provide proactive mental health programs, that are active in all social systems, such as schools, work places, hospitals, etc.
- Mental health programs are proactive in that they operate with regular group therapy sessions driven by the group, and therapists can request group members to take additional therapy, although they cannot force therapy upon any individual.
- Provide physical health programs that operate on preventive measures that are judged to be helpful while maintaining a regulated ecological footprint.
- Emergency or restorative health assistance will be guaranteed regardless of ecological impact.
- Reward experts and innovators in these fields to provide incentive.
- The outreach policies of these systems must be controlled democratically, and not by beaurocracy, and must never push any subjective agenda. The moment a policy can be identified as pushing a subjective agenda, it must be discontinued. This can include when any principle a policy operates on is dis-proven in the field using scientific methodology.
Identify Ecological Limitations
- Identify absolute societal limits in regards to ecological sustainment, such as population size
- Keep track of these priorities in a universal fashion
- Institute life effecting/culture diminishing regulations only through large scale democratic consensus, such as birth control, or energy restrictions on things like air conditioning, heat/hot water, etc. Any hard regulations must be temporary and recallable.
- Never use destructive or restrictive methods of authority such as imprisonment or censorship, except in a very limited number of severe cases, like prevention of murder, theft, violence, or sexual abuse.
- Authoritative systems are always open to investigation by the public and must publicly provide all information pertaining to the structure and operations of these systems.
- Never penalize laborers for failure to meet societal goals. We are better off letting the entire system collapse than resorting to authoritative measures that are designed to preserve one system of societal organization over others.
Take Regular Consensus and Prevent Leadership
- Consensus is an essential step in forming community, forming comradery and evaluating the needs and desires or aggravations of the general public. In addition to providing a true system of democracy that also considers the minority, it allows communities to participate in discussion that is not controlled or manipulated hierarchically (which is the problem with our current system of leadership and media manipulation due to centralized wealth)
- Consensus is participatory, not mandatory in all communities.
- Separate consensus communities can be formed but their decisions must be recorded and made publicly available along with the number of participants present for each decision and a log of the discussions that lead up to the decision. This information should be tracked using an open and universal tracking system that uses time/geo-dependance to evaluate the integrity of the information recorded (i.e if it takes too long for information to be input into the system after a decision is made, or if information is coming from unlikely geographic locations, it is likely to be forgery. Using this mechanism instead of identity to verify integrity preserves anonymity of participants). The consensus of many enough other groups can prompt investigation into decisions and the identities of their participants, to prevent relatively small self interest groups from undermining the democratic value of the system of federated consensus.
- Consensus systems should include automated and networked systems that protect anonymity within the consensus group and break down geographical boundaries.
- Participation in consensus cannot be denied, although abuse should be identified and there should be a democratic system of temporary suspension from group activity. The suspension functionality should be robust enough to prevent abuse that freezes up consensus in the case of an attack on the consensus process itself (…maybe, this is a tough problem to solve. Has it been solved yet? I don’t know, please provide feedback…)
Adhere to an Amendable Constitution
- Constitutions are important because they give universal rule sets and recommendations for people to fall back on in case they start to loose direction or forget the reasons why they are doing something in the first place.
- Amendment allows the constitution to evolve with its environment and as flaws are discovered.
Consider, for example, the complex social relationships that are established during a session of shopping.
The consumer can’t simply place markings on product or packaging, say like when information becomes available about the makeup of the product or its history, and so on, because the product is considered property of the provider, like the grocery store, or manufacturer, or whatever deals the Property Owners worked out with each other.
We can see that example behavior as is described above could be of immense social value, and the simplification of the social interaction due to adherence to the rules of the concept of property ownership, and subsequently the rules of shopping become detrimental to the pursuit of the optimal product consumption or attainment scheme.
Of course, the over-simplification due to the prevalence of the concept of property ownership gets in the way again when we consider the limitations that would be necessary to allow people to mark products with useful, and not socially destructive markings. An example of something that is socially destructive if one were to simply invert the concept of property ownership would be the ability for a competitor of a product provider to place false information and propaganda, or destructively cover up any useful information on the product or its packaging.
The ability to form complex schemes of social interaction that can allow the useful and prevent the destructive without causing collateral damage to other social systems is severely limited when the problems at hand are constrained to narrow rules.
The concept of property is thus flawed as it is antiquated and this as well as other over-simplistic or historical social constraints must be replaced by flexibility of concept and openness to problems as they comes as well as unlimited imagination in solutions to working with problems.
It is possible to view human networks, and societal groupings of humans, as a computing machine, and thus, to develop a system of programming that machine, defining rules that have to do with networks of semi-autonomous components (which in this case would be humans themselves and their machines) and identifying prevalent designs that are known to have certain effects.
In computer science, we can break down designs of certain parts or aspects of a program into cataloged patterns, so that we can quickly assemble programs by using patterns in conjunction with each other, and be able to ascertain the behavior and effects of the program well at design time.
In computers today we typically use centralized processing, like in the case of a home computer, a CPU. In actuality, nowadays we use multiple CPUs like a standard CPU paired with a Graphics Processing Unit, and multiprocessors within those CPUs. We have been able to identify limitations and develop programs for those setups by studying the way they fundamentally work.
Of course, CPUs behavior is quite predictable, because we made them that way to make the job of figuring out how to develop for them easy.
However, networks of autonomous and semi-predictable entities can also be viewed and studied in the same way we can view and study digital computer CPUs, even though they may lack some of the predictability of computer CPUs.
Studies may lead to discoveries like certain limitations in our ability to develop programs in which we can predict all results of “processing” within the autonomous network. Like black holes around certain parts of behavior we may see that there are certain aspects of the system which we can’t control, and thus implement measures to allow us to efficiently handle the possible outcomes at those points. The black holes may even be huge, taking up most of our ability to process predictably within the network, but we may find regions of behavior that actually are predictable.
Take over Take over Take over Take over the government.
A Citizen Designed Protocol for Political Transmission to Enforce Governmental Compliance to Citizen defined Standards of Transparency
Just as we define standard and accepted protocols to govern and coordinate efforts on the internet, we can define protocols surrounding the addressing of politicians to the people of the United States.
Politicians must be forced to conform to citizen defined standards that have been built and maintained by the public, and agreed upon by consensus.
Protocols should enforce optimal use of media real estate.
For instance, a television screen contains much space which is poorly utilized or not utilized at all for optimal political address to the public. We take up much of the space just looking at the politicians, their podiums, and the people standing around.
Political panels of decision making that are present for the address must present information pertaining to the matters being discussed. If a politician or government entity is queried for a Fact by a political, government, or non-government non-political entity, then they must present a Factual answer, and if the politician does not have the fact on hand or in mind, they must contact panel members in order to produce a factual answer. Non-adherence to this protocol will be subject to immediate, documented and severe scrutiny.
We have technology available to facilitate this retrieval and organization of information, and we can use it to asynchronously follow up on facts using many different forms of processing.
For a government or political entity to fail to use these resources will be looked upon as an extreme abuse or misuse of power and position, and should be subject to immediate, documented and severe scrutiny.
Screen space or available space in media must be used to present statistical or graphical data.
This data or and visuals must provide all references used in their creation.
Non-adherence to this protocol should be subject to immediate, documented and severe scrutiny.
Scrutiny may be a function undertaken formally by non-government society members in the form of democratic consensus or open forum that is formally documented and carried out.
Social networks can be utilized to facilitate quick consensus, asynchronous consensus and forum, and paired with location specific components, such as in-person meeting and consensus.
The use of rhetoric should be identified using some media real estate, and open, non-biased, citizen built systems of rhetoric detection, classification and representation should be implemented in the media.
The failure to use these systems should be subject to immediate, documented and sever scrutiny.
Industrial Sabotage and its importance in the Market
Most people tend to think of Market Anarchy as being the Forces of the Market, driven by human desire and necessity, that drive the production and innovation that happens in the absence of rules, or the activities as such which subvert or are conducted contrary to the rules establshed to regulate the Market.
Of course this is what Market Anarchy is, and most would agree by empirical study of the effects of Market Anarchy (especially when contrasted to Market disrupting effects of Market control techniques, like through centralized decision making implemented by totalitarian state socialist countries such as Cuba and U.S.S.R.), that free Market Anarchy is in many ways, and maybe overall, beneficial to the growth and versatility of the existent Market.
One Force many overlook as being outside the domain of the Market, and somehow a different Force, is the free will of the people to limit certain aspects of the market through preventative, disruptive or destructive means, some which subvert established rules governing behavior of Market participants, rules that were established in an attempt to enforce what is thought of as safe or proper behavior in Market interactions.
Particularly, the will of the people to shut down Market entities, such as supply side entities, is thought of as being improper, and laws are established to discourage this behavior. For instance, if your protest activity or other activities cost a supplier a certain amount of money to sustain, then you and the participants in the destructive behavior will be breaking the law. An example of a real life organization that has been targeted for these types of activities is the Animal Liberation Front. This organization is labeled as a terrorist organization in the United States, so that now even associating with the organization will put you in danger of being penalized by authority. I personally know one of the members who has spent time in prison for activities such as shut downs, and sabotaging animal testing facilities to free animals.
We should look upon these types of activities as being legitimate however, maybe best if there is enough democratic support from other people, say a certain threshold of democratic support which can justify many means of Market Destruction such as industrial sabotage (in the case of freeing animals from a research facility, breaking down deforestation equipment, smashing big bank ATMs, etc), extremely disruptive protest activity, democratic shutdowns (like the Occupy Oakland port shutdown), theft, exposure of sensitive or proprietary information (probably best demonstrated by Wikileaks), free sharing and replication of information when it is cheap enough to do so (like in the case of Napster, Megaupload, bit-torrents, and other forms of information “pirating”), and spreading awareness through graffiti (which probably is best exemplified by graffiti placed in the physical locations where Market transactions, like a message about health issues, factory farming or deforestation on spray painted the wall of a McDonalds).
These types of activities actually serve to regulate the Market in a way that stimulates the development of the most useful products, and products that integrate the best with the available ecosystems and social landscapes. Without this type of regulation, other contextually inferior Forces, such as the value-profit Forces facilitated by the use of money, exert dominance within the operating Market Forces. This is a problem, because forces such as money have no environmental context, or at least such a small environmental context, that it causes Market decisions to be made that have no consideration of ecological issues. The same happens with social issues, money has very little social context and its dominance in the Market generates long term social issues. Both these environmental and social issues undermine the integrity of the Market and the products and relationships, and societal organization which it creates.
Maybe a good way to put the money example, particularly, is that:
Money is blind to society and the environment, as such its dominance in the Market is detrimental to both society and the environment, and as the Market itself operates within society and the available environment, and relies of the health of both, money’s dominance in the Market is detrimental to the Market itself.
And as such, we need to use Democratic Industrial Sabotage to regulate the Market and balance the detrimental effects of other Marker Forces.
The absence of such anarchic Forces paired with the presence of legal Forces in the favor of special interests could be part of the Market problem that caused the 2008 Financial Crisis, for instance, and is certainly the cause of widespread unsustainable ecological destruction, and societally disruptive distribution of wealth within industrialized nations and among nations they interact with.
In the same vein the absence of the Market Force of widespread and graphic coverage of the operations in the Irag and Afghanistan wars allows the Market transaction of war to the American people to complete. If the American people were to be stimulated by the graphic reality if what they are buying with their tax dollars, they may not wish to complete the transaction. Other forces are at play in the war scenario, that convolute any speculation about the possible definite outcomes of the Market Interaction that is taking place, such as political rhetoric, which creates the pretense for security in effort to stifle war coverage.
The actions taken by free people to limit Market activities can be destructive, however the compliment that direct action aimed at prevention and willingful sabotage provide real and useful compliments to the other forces that distort the Market, in many cases to the overall detriment of society, if left unbalanced or unchecked.
Cameras on the Battlefield, Transmuting Suffering into Peace.
The next time you find yourself in the courthouse, explain this:
"Respect has no place in the Court House. Respect is a cultural construct, and as such it transient across culture. Culture is ever evolving and new , constantly being created and redefined.
The symbols of class, institution and the concept of respect are irrelevant to the justice system and the function of the court and are thus perversions of its definitions of justice and purpose.
It is the obligation of the court and the American judicial system to evolve with ever new and perfected knowledge of the workings of culture and society, as well as nature, logic and science.
It can only be looked upon as an intended cultural manipulation and coercion of the people processed by this system in that the symbols and concepts of the court are enforced by the means of authority. The use of dominant cultural symbols rather than operate with completely neutral behavior in presence of definite knowledge of cultural persuasion, its manifestations, its physical presence and its effects, is completely despicable and unworthy of a free people in an age of definite knowledge and proliferation of information.
We have to face it, laws that were created years before you were born or ever had a say, or were passed even though you were extremely opposed may not be wise to follow, and its not serving justice to a people to not understand systematically fair rejection.
Cultural symbols are used as a system to repress dissent and discourage reaction.
These symbols also serve the purpose to enforce a dominant culture or societal structure, class structure, method of behavior.
One example is the use of the phrase “In God we trust.” in American court houses.
The use of this phrase was instituted in the American courthouse during the Cold War to discourage communism because of the belief of communists at the time and direction of Marx’s communist manifesto, which criticized religion as a distraction from physical reality and corruptable tool of manipulation and advocated the abolition of religious institutions.
The phrase “In God we trust.” is still in the courthouse.
This is not fun and games, this is our government and the fact that they have left this religious phrase above the judge of each courthouse is a direct attack on the American people and the victims of its court system. It is insultful and despicable gesture and an indication of the incompetence of our court system that in an age of commodity and information our court would not proactively remove religious symbols from their walls.
This is a direct violation of the separation of church and state clause of the 1st Amendment of the United States constitution.
How can I respect an establishment that so blatantly breaks its own rules to get what it wants, and procrastinates removal of these policies under the pretense of difficulty and lack of resources or what excuses they have opinionated to be in the pursuit of good intentions? The use of these symbols in this instance is no step taken to ensure safety, this is an attack on our freedom of choice of government being that it was instantiated as an effort to fight communism.
Of course, one can make similar arguments over the use of the suit and restrictions placed on attire for legal workers and its subsequent imposition upon all of the participants of courthouse affairs.
Intrinsic Identification and Foundations of The New Web
Intrinsic systems of identification, may end up being part of the features of next generations of the internet provides.
Identity storage has become commonplace on the internet, as well as storage of information, like posts, uploads, and communications, which can essentially be viewed at as and extension of the identity, like a large fingerprint of activity.
Consider the fact that social networking is such a large and integral part of the modern web. Protection of identity is questioned all the time and not always transparent. Control of information is present and not always completely transparent. For instance, if you post something, the transparency of your being able to see who is manipulating your content and have control over censorship is left up to the website developer to articulate and implement, there is not built into the internet itself much control or transparency mechanisms for high level transactions such as posting and deletion or alteration of content. Also protective measures are left to be implemented by site developers and managed by them. A good protective and transparent high level protocol could make this an indestructable feature of the internet itself for all sites.
We could then designate roles and view officers and force them to identify themselves n the case of a breach of information or intrusion within communication channels, keep better track of politicians, who maybe would have to register under stricter transparency measures than regular citizens or free people, to track activity in an easy and useful fashion. Citizen/Free roles may have high support for transparent and highly controllable degrees of privacy and protection, to ensure safety from authoritative bodies or intrusive or malicious traffic.
You may not realize but even nowadays you only have a (limited) number of privacy rights and protection rights built into the internet, and you give up your information each time you access it. The simple patterns of you interaction build up to a likeness which when compared to fragments of identity information that is in actuality captured in pretty large amounts during regular web use. All this builds up to an accurate profile, or choice of a certain number of possible profiles in the case where information is blurry.
Systems intended to more universally and intrinsically handle this type of information may also have the effect of optimizing the web (as well as the process of web development) for these kinds of applications. This means things like collaborative effort can be conducted at a much more fast paced, concentrated and easily configured way. Logging in can be conducted more instantaneously, and maybe log-in information can be more centrally managed by the individual and more well protected across many sites and applications. Like, picture having like five different passwords, and being able to assign them to whatever sites, or switch them between sites you use or services you subscribe to, and being able to see the all the sites one password is used for, in an easily manageable way (instead of having tons of passwords for different sites, and different levels of faith in security in each site. Centralization and focus on the identity as a thing across sites, or site transient, could also more easily prevent breach of multiple sites by the discovery of one identity. Like, the identity could know when one of its site’s security became compromised, and automatically change or mask itself on other sites that identity is used for, thus preventing further security breach. Your passwords, themselves, may also trigger alerts to mobile devices, etc that subscribe to alerts from whichever identity or password…
Things like passwords and security features surrounding remotely stored account information were not really built into the original web. We see nowadays so many instances of the usage of this type of personal identification and profile representation that its use is almost pervasive on the web. Tunneling, like as in virtual private networks (VPNs), is a technology that requires extraneously built and configured clients to operate on protocols which have been built into the web, but these protocols are somewhat basic and low level, lacking definition of higher level activities such as commenting, censorship, profile definition, storage, etc. and still difficult for the average user to configure or become aware of.
Diminishing Borders - Separation of Border and State
I’ve always thought how awesome it would be if people could just choose whatever ideological system they’d want to support and could then practice in that way, throughout networks of individuals who share the same ideology.
Also, I’ve thought about services provided by the federation of these ideological “nations” to provide ease of transportation to one location or the next, like ideological hotspots that consist of large numbers of like-minded individuals or infrastructural systems that are somehow necessary to support particular ideological practices.
Possible policing of the national transactions and interactions could exist but only limited to infringements upon the other nonboundaried nations based of their ideological definitions of infringement and possibly federated rules of interaction. The federated rules may have jurisdiction to rule certain claims of infringement or ideological definitions of infringement unreasonable and mitigate the policing actions based on a ruling of a federated court.
The court or rules applied may only have a certain level of jurisdiction or there may only be a certain level of federation in the rules, meaning that less nations may have to have agreed upon the rules, depending on the agreements the interacting nations have between eachother, and the broader federal recognition of these agreements.
As a measure of safety to ensure civil liberty and to prevent unfair abuse of geographic or political ties between the nations, the agreements between nations may be required to be made known to all participants in the federation.
Regardless of policing action, the core of this approach relies on coordination between the different ideological nations, maybe better termed as factions, or organisations, as well as the flexibility of allowing people to transition from one ideology to another without any consequence except adhering to ties established consensually with the “nation” they are transitioning out of. The federation or specific nations may provide assistance in adhering to ties to increase ease of transition. Also, there may possibly be federal national, or semi-federal intervention at the request of the individual, such as a federated court or federated decision that could be made in the case of any conflict arising during transition.
Also, as mentioned briefly before, transportation and communicational or otherwise networking oriented facilitation may be provided as services by the federation or specific nations, that can be or must be respected by the entire federation, to ease transition or transportation, or operation.
Note, the diminished borders, geographic boundaries or otherwise eliminated boundaries would call for coordination at a federal level to protect the ability of individuals to travel and operate, regardless of geographic location or traversal involved.
Further programs could include thought inspiring awareness programs that can operate independent of geographic location, so that members (maybe especially youth or otherwise vulnerable individuals) of any nation or ideological organization can gain awareness of other ideologies and federated civil rights.
Of course, new ideologies could develop, and they could develop into their own nations and be recognized by the federation. And old ideologies could cease to exist.
Because of this, federal services could be provided to preserve ideological information that is no longer in use directly, and to foster the foundation of new ideology in a way that is safe for the individual and ideologically neutral.
Pastor Charles Worley of the Providence Road Baptist Church in North Carolina recently told his congregation that LGBT individuals should be rounded up and detained in camps until they’re all dead.
During a sermon on May 13, Worley berated President Barack Obama for claiming that same sex couples should be allowed to marry.
“The Bible is against it, God is against it, I’m against it and if you’ve got any sense you’re against it,” he said. “I figured a way out to get rid of all the lesbians and queers. But it isn’t going to pass in Congress. Build a great, big, large fence — 150 or 100 mile long — put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals, and have that fence electrified so they can’t get out, feed em, and you know what, in a few years, they’ll die out. You know why? They can’t reproduce!”
“I am not going to vote for a baby killer and a homosexual lover,” Worley added. “God have mercy, it makes me puking sick.”
Video of his comments were uploaded to YouTube on Monday by Catawba Valley Citizens Against Hate. The group plans to peacefully protest outside the Providence Road Baptist Church on Sunday, May 27.
“Our activists met with the Catawba County Sheriff’s Department and have the go-ahead for Sunday’s protest,” the group said. “Please tell as many people as possible. We need to line the street in front of the church with people with some common sense to tell the world that hate is not welcome in our community. And, believe me, the world is watching!”
Systematic and Cultural Influence of the Party System, and Party Perpetuation and its Interference with Political Variation and Natural Political Competetion
supporting a party system means that the certain parties become dominant as the ball is rolling and it becomes extremely hard or maybe impossible for new parties to rise.
Many people use the analogy that you have two parties prevalent in the US because we only can have two sides of moderation, or otherwise that because moderation in politics satisfies the largest amount of the population and is perceived as the safest type of political variation, we can only support two major parties.
But why can’t there be three moderate parties, or four, or so? I may not necessarily want to vote for somebody who is anti-gay just because I want someone who liberates free enterprise and believes in tax cuts for the wealthier population. Why should it all have to come in one package? Maybe some party would favor public health care but still want to reduce taxes on big businesses.
In fact the current bipartisan system has polarized the US culturally, to believe that moderation in politics can only be achieved this way. It also imposes the idea that moderation is the best way to go or the only achievable way to go.
By accumulating and strategically saving large amounts of wealth parties can maintain dominance in politics and overshadow other parties, never giving them a chance to form or get real attention.
This cultural effect is in itself another tool besides wealth that is known and exploited by party systems. Basically the cultural effects reinforce their dominance, and construct an arguably artificial context within certain arguments can be made and certain rhetoric can be constructed.
I wanna tell, each and every one of you police officers, and I’m not talking only to you white shirted police officers who are captains, and the ones in suits who are talking and appear to be in command, but to all, as we believe in an essentially citizen run and owned society.
If you think that you have received orders that have a political motivation We The People demand that you cease and desist
If you feel that you have been working for a politically motivated police administration You should take responsibility, as a free democratic citizen to strike, and openly protest the reasons for your against the state and that these actions shall have no consequence
The police must remain separate from the state The police must remain dedicated to providing safety for the general public And that must be done from a politically neutral standpoint
It takes great discipline to adhere to this optimal mode of operation But it is necessary To ensure that a people are free of any and all political suppression
As a member of the New York City police department You should be proud to set an example that can be observed worldwide To set an example of peace and coordination with the people even when they are in civil dissent, even if many police officers disagree with the reasons for dissent. It is the right and basic obligation of the people to openly dissent in a free country In order to raise awareness and mold a system that essentially belongs to them Not the Government.
You all have the power to demonstrate politically, but as citizens. When you are on duty you must take the utmost effort to uphold your duty, as has been assigned by the people Do Not Break the Laws Even if the people break the laws around you it does not give you an excuse to break the law This may seem counter-intuitive to some of you But if you understand that you are given a great power over that of any citizen That power is called: Authority
You are given weapons and detainment tools And given the authority to assault and detain individuals.
But this is only under order of your written and agreed upon duties.
This is why you cannot exercise political expression as any part of a motive for your policing actions.
You can protest and counter-protest politically as much as you want as a citizen,
but only when you are off duty, not acting as an agent of the law, or if you choose to do a different job that doesn’t grant legal authority.
I think it would be a good idea to get together community assemblies as a routine, and eventually a tradition. I think it would greatly unify the people of this country to have open political discussion on a regular basis.
We should think of some public spaces as forums of the like, and all others to have the potential to be used this way.
After seeing the coordination that is possible at Occupy Wall Street Assemblies, I think it is a great, maybe the best way we have to solidify decisions as a community.
I am a software developer, and I think we spend too much time working in this country and too little focused on politics. As a Democratic nation we may better suit our needs and greatly increase efficiency through coordination by congregating as individuals more often.
Congregations such as these are capable via computer and maybe even more rugged and basic analog phone and light based communication systems.
One of the advantages of these kinds of assemblies are that the truth and facts can circulate much faster and with greater integrity. The general priorities and main concerns of the communities can be more easily discovered this way. Also, people get better exposure to one another regardless of gender, race, religious belief, political beliefs, age, or other discriminating factors.
Instead of having to rely on corruptable and truth spinning leaders for our truth, the people should just get used to spreading it themselves, and having the freedom to do so.
Instead of parties which span across multiple domains of knowledge, and are bound to being responsible for political action and legislation in all the domains, may it be possible to implement domain transient parties.
Use of secession could allow for a more varied society, bound by alliance and peace treaty.
This could possibly be achieved without the use of geographical bounds, or with a very intertwined system of geographical bounds that could be subject to change based on democratic demand of some sort, or somehow adapt to where certain proponents exist in real time or semi-real time or with coordinated delays.
Claims that it would make the overall country weaker should not be considered as there may be no guarantees that different factions will work out and thus may need to re-amalgomate.
Losses would be acceptable, as the need for greater human freedom and the effects of political social and economic diversity may prove to be more important and more sustainable in the long term.
Initial wealth upon schism could be split evenly, and preferably also, access to desired resources. Also, all debts would be split evenly, except in the case of mutual agreement to inherit certain debts based on a sense of responsibility or sense of greater ability to repay for certain secessions over others.
The main advantage of the secessionary model would be of political and economic diversity, which could in the future, merge back together.
An example of how secessionary diversity can be successive, and competitive separation of secessions, is that of AT&T. When AT&T had an effective monopoly on the phone and communications infrastructure, it wasn’t willing to invest in cellular technology, because of the risk involved. Once it was busted up, many independent companies in competition for each other were driven to innovate and take risks. The cell phone was invested in and different technologies experimented with until a few prevailed as reliable standards.
I have little doubt in my mind that within maybe 5-10 years a system like this could be feasible.
Possibly with even minimal development of natural language processing technology, we could learn to sytematically identify structure of answers, and determine if the question was answered, and even provide options as to the optimal questions to ask to infer the truth out of a situation or prove a lie or misinformation.
Certain basic elements of language may be used to determine what the answer consists of. For instance, a consistent strategy of rhetorical answer is to answer with a question. It may be possible to detect questions as an answer. If the question is a legitimate query, or request for clarification, etc. then the conversation, by human means should progress normally.
In conjunction with stenography to clarify the actual language used and meaning thereof, human feedback - like a yes/no detection of opinion about whether or not an answer is rhetorical, paired with a history-of-response tool that monitors users over a long period of use and determines the probability of the integrity of their feedback based on the review of past feedback (to detect abuse patterns in which people lie about detecting rhetoric). This type of feedback system could be used by whoever elects to use the system.
Tap that shit into an open knowledge-base derived from these organizations archived and operational data, bolster monitoration systems to ensure all communications are logged, and we can instantly avoid having to waste hours asking redundant questions and gleaning truth out responses, and rapidly tap into a large base of knowledge to prove statement true, false, sufficient or insufficient.
Yeah, well it appears that this is what happens when any large company centralizes and operates solely according to a hierarchical structure in which profit travels up the ladder without sufficient mechanism for people at large to democratically control its use or otherwise prevent destructive policies from being executed.
Money is blind to things like ecological disaster and profiteering companies have too much potential to let their shit get out of control for the benefit of a relatively small and impermanent group of people.
This is a petition for the U.S. Government to provide facilitated public forums in at least every major city in the United States of America.
In these forums there will be functioning facilities, such as garbage and human waste management facilities.
Police will provide limited security enforcement in these spaces only as they would anywhere else, but will act with no political motive and will not be allowed to suppress any press coverage in these spaces whatsoever.
These spaces will be facilitated constantly, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.
People will be allowed to camp overnight in these spaces and will be allowed to freely bring equipment or materials in and out of these spaces and keep equipment or materials in these spaces, only subject to warranted inspection for illegal weaponry.
it is our job to correctly diagnose the problems with our government, society, and systems of economy
We may very well need to change the way we do things, the way we conduct our lives and the way we think about the world.
I think it has been pretty well proven by example time and tme again throughout history and even very recent history, which I always found surprising, that leaders are essentially corruptable and that corruption happens (I’m not sure about the statistics on this one, but) probably more often than not.
It seems that the essential problems aren’t necessarily with the leaders themselves, but that anyone having a role as a state mandated leader is inherently corruptable and for many people the force of corruption is so much so that it twists people toward megalomania or paranoia, and causes them to loose touch with the people and systems they govern.
The size and capability of our societies have grown many times larger than it has been in the past and further the rate of growth and change now far surpasses any we have ever seen in the past. There may essentially be too much work for the traditional system of leaders to process.
We see this all the time with political inability to comprehend and respond to changes in technology.
It may be time for a more or completely citizen owned and run government. We need to (eventually) achieve greater flexibility and responsiveness, and need to be able to hold each other to higher integrity at a more basic level. We need a more pure and direct system of democracy, without fear of violent political retribution.
The elimination of money and power from the political process can eliminate many of the problems which impede the achievement of flexibility and integrity. We also have technology nowadays which allows us to overcome the communicational barriers which forced America to use its current system of representation.
Many large companies want to downsize, not only because they want to get rich, but in order to achieve higher efficiency and productivity that can be achieved by machines rather than human workers.
What are we really trying to protect when we try to keep people in these kinds of jobs? We are really just trying to sustain our current system of government, society and economy, which are things that operate on the provision of protected ownership, and captial gain and wealth accumulation and retention.
Another inefficiency we currently face is that of product creation that actually satisfies demand. Nowadays something like 90% of attempts at perpetuating brands fails. That sounds pretty inefficient, when we now have the technology to create sophisticated idea gathering and feedback systems which may allow us to greatly increase productivity in our ability to meet the demand of the population. If only we weren’t so afraid to exchange our ideas and opinions for fear of losing our ability to personally capitalize on them, we may be able to make some serious progress with these kinds of technologies.
Still another huge inefficiency is our inability to educate ourselves because of the cost of information. We need to be able to post more information that is available to everybody, people are pushing for these things everyday on the internet and yet we are impeded by the antiquated system we choose to maintain. We have outlawed or practically outlawed so many free information distribution systems that allow the distribution and syndication of information to be achieved in a way that is extremely cheap, efficient and decentralized meaning it will work even in the case of an infrastructural emergency. This is done merely to preserve capital gain and centralization of wealth as protected property.
Similar systems could suffice as public opinion and feedback systems for use in social and governmental decision making systems.
We need to take it to the next level. We need to get futuristic. We need to stop tolerating bullshit, the size of our population and level of technology allows for a much lower level of bullshit to be prevalent.
and who gives a shit about what our elders think anyway, it is the job of our generation to pick up the slack and make the right decisions. If I had a nickel for every bit of untrue information, mistaken facts and straight forward lies I was told by my elders I would be a millionaire-and-a-half
When I talk about things like citizen owned society and elimination of leadership, it sounds like communism. I wouldn’t necessarily think that communism is a solution, although the Indian Naxalite revolutionaries who were taken advantage of by imperialistic business and are waging gurilla warfare against their government right now might disagree with me. I don’t think communism is a good idea because it focusses on leadership and those leaders always become corrupt and loose touch with the people. Rather I think we need a solution like the Anarchists have suggested, which is the abolishment of government leadership and protection of property so that the people are put directly into control. Contrary to popular belief which has been perpetuated by governmental propaganda rendering the word Anarchy a mere buzzword, Anarchy suggests a form of government and order, yet a citizen ruled, and decided system.
Here’s a bit from the Wikipedia article on Anarchy:
The first Congress of the Confederation of Anarchists Groups, under the name of Nabat (“the Alarm Drum”), issued five main principles: rejection of all political parties, rejection of all forms of dictatorships (including thedictatorship of the proletariat, viewed by Makhnovists and many anarchists of the day as a term synonymous with the dictatorship of the Bolshevik communist party), negation of any concept of a central state, rejection of a so-called “transitional period” necessitating a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat, and self-management of all workers through free local workers’ councils (soviets). While the Bolsheviks argued that their concept of dictatorship of the proletariat meant precisely “rule by workers’ councils,” the Makhnovist platform opposed the “temporary” Bolshevik measure of “party dictatorship.”
The government exists to provide services for its citizens, not to limit their freedoms. In the cases that limitations of freedoms are absolutely necessary to be enforced legally, the government should only then do so, and it better make damn sure and be damn clear about why those limitations are absolutely necessary and it better get the opinion of the public and respond before making those kinds of decisions.
In the consideration of gay marriage, it is obvious that the government breaches the separation between church and state by limiting marriage to only heterosexual monogamous union. The concept of marriage, practices and arrangements of marriage are well and publicly known to vary from culture to culture, and religion to religion.
Culture and religion are transient, meaning that they change over time, branch off in many different ways, they can be created and can be lost due to a complex and ever changing set of factors.
If citizens request to attain marriage, and that request cannot be met, the government must consider its assignment scheme and grant those people marriage if there is no legitimate and proven reason concerning the safety of the country.
Any culturally motivated reason cannot justify a limitation of freedom, and the limitation of the freedom of marriage is one that is harsh, demeaning and blatantly discriminatory.
If it is discovered that a law that is limiting freedom for illegitimate or dis-proven reasons, that law must be revised or amended.
It is as simple as that.
The modern question of gay marriage, and even polyamorous marriage for that matter, then becomes:
"Should the government provide benefits for marriage, or should the government not provide benefits for marriage?"
(The marriage spoken of above is now assumed to be equitable for all citizens as best we understand how to be equitable.)
I would tend to think, if we were to let government remain pure of breaches of church and state, it would not provide benefits for marriage, because marriage itself is a cultural and religious concept, and by definition those things should be separated from the scope of the government.
It seems that most have become likened to the benefits of marriage and that there is a somewhat pervasive belief that these benefits provide some economic stability or predictability. But when one considers the facts, one will discover that these notions of stability and predictability actually are subject to much debate and nobody truthfully knows if we really substantially benefit from these economic patterns or not.
As we do have democracy that can influence the decisions of our government, in the cases where decisions must be made without absolute certainty of the results and impacts, or to grant cultural and creative leverage of the government in the case of a majority opinion, it may be a moral boosting, fun and productive practice to grant benefits to those who choose to get married (whatever that means to them…) because it is assumed that they will stay married for some time and thus sustain a stable and long term economic pattern of earning and spending and that the married individuals would provide mutual support for each other long term.
Considering all of the above, to provide a conflicted example I’m single, I probably won’t want to get married at least for a while, I don’t necessarily believe in monogamy or marriage after seeing so many violent and catastrophic failures of these kind of arrangements in my life, and seeing this stuff fail in the lives of people who have been close to me. I’m smart and I’m doing really important productive stuff every day, and I know that I am (in a small way) getting screwed because of the culture of marriage.
But what I find the most despicable, is to deprive someone of the ability to be married and call it what they want or do it the way they believe is right. I refuse to allow my government to enforce laws in this way and enforce an arbitrary culture of discrimination.
Allow direct action to happen, if it is sincerely caused by a large enough assembly of people to cause financial loss because of physical presence of the assembly, those losses will be accepted. Police removal will only be necessary in the case of a breach of an actual law, like any act of violence, recklessness, etc.
Considering the fact that there could be alterior motives, financially or politically involved, rendering the peaceability of the assembly insincere, thus constituting of an act of a mass of people with intent to disrupt an organization financially or any of its lawful operations, under the facade of a peaceable assembly.
In the case of adequate suspicion, the D.A. shall be obligated to investigate to assembly, although no arrests or actions outside of regular and legitimate public safety concerns can be carried out by police or military forces. The D.A. shall investigate all organizations and participants suspected to be involved in illegitimate or insincere assembly, however shall not have the power to arrest any participants within the assembly.
The D.A. shall be obligated to reveal fully to the press any reasons for suspicion.
The state shall compensate for financial damages incurred to any organizations or institutions in the case that physical blockage caused by the assembly while ongoing investigation exists.
Any financial damages incurred by an illegitimate assembly shall be compensated for by all guilty participants of participating in the assembly with intent to disrupt an organization for the financial gain of a different organization.
Police shall be completely separate and insulated from the direct influence of political leadership and local municipalities.
Police shall only follow a certain set of rules based on laws and democratically agreed upon rules of enforcement.
Police shall not be able to be directly or indirectly penalized for not following orders of federal or local municipality and shall not be bound to any requests made by federal or local municipality.
Police will be obligated to adhere to the laid out rules and operate within the law at all time. Any deviance must be penalized and the penalization overseen by the public.
All interaction between state and police shall be made publicly available and freedom of the press shall be assured in all interactions.
Police shall only be able to privately congregate among themselves to make sensitive decisions in the case that secrecy is necessary for strategic purposes.
All communications lines to the state including signalized and physical transportation routes will be open to the public an explanation of any communications protocol shall be open to the public and systematized monitoring shall be provided by neutral, publicly owned and operated organizations. The monitoring system must remain operational at all times and funding for its operation will be appropriated by the state as well as free public contributors. The operational costs shall be determined by the public and the state will have to engage and negotiate with the public to alter any operational funding patterns and must receive a response from a certain percentage of the population and abide by the decision made by majority of the vote.
To enforce consistent monitoring, police members will be required to wear upon their person recording devices that will be required to be operational at all times and open to the public, except in cases in which secrecy is critical for police strategy. These periods and units of secrecy and the reasons the decisions are made to instantiate secrecy will be open to the public, and the general public can override a decision to instantiate a period and unit of secrecy if a certain percentage of the public of responds to the decision and a certain percentage of vote within that response is made to prohibit or alter that period or unit of secrecy.
Public Surveillance and Police Walks
- All cameras and surveillance of public spaces shall be constantly streaming and available to the public.
- This could present security issues in regards to remote surveillance and coordination, so to address this situation, police walks could be created along narrow perimeters of the surveillance coverage area. This way police can remain hidden from view when the need arises for strategic maneuvering. These police walks would be well marks so that the public is aware of the paths and areas that are out of range of public surveillance.
And that involves responding to individual impulsiveness
A-Synchronicity in everyday task processing
Might not be beneficial to allocate work into discreet, time based chunks.
You may end up fighting your own impulsiveness over the time of the chunk to justify allocating the work that way.
We can theorize that each event takes a time t to process.
Certain events we can classify as major events amid the noise generated by the mind.
These major events involve a potentially large amount of time to process.
Like getting an idea for some important part of a program, while you’re doing something else may distract you, although you don’t pursue the impulsed idea and waste time thinking instead of just doing it.
This may only apply to special kinds of tasks that must be allocated as relatively lengthy chunks of time during which a break from adherence to the task will immediately open up the task to the risk of mistake or neglect.
Basically, the goal would be to achieve responsiveness, in a situation in which there is not much risk of neglect for long amounts of time, nor must there be much time based adherence to prevent memory, or attention loss in many of the tasks done.