Radical Politics & New Ideas

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.

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.

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.

leaderless society

secessionary


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.

Genocide

Its Strictly Business

You know what we need is a computerized system that can detect rhetoric and blare it in big red letters on the screen for all the dumbasses out there that get fooled by this shit. 

—- WARNING RHETORICAL ANSWERS —- 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeZXYTNY6c8&feature=endscreen

Rep. Dennis Kucinich grills Donald Rumsfeld

www.youtube.com

Political grilling at it’s finest. In the following videoclip, Rep. Dennis Kucinich takes warmonger Donald Rumsfeld to the woodshed over the administraion’s …

Like ·  · Share · Yesterday at 2:30pm · 

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.