Whole New World: A New Society
Introductory Letter
At thirteen years of age in the year 2001, I was like the rest of our generation of kids born in the 1980s and even some of them in the late 1970s that caught the beginnings of the World Wide Web 1.0 in 1991 through 2004. We talked in chatrooms, used Napster to download our music, and we all thought that we were in the middle of something groundbreaking and wonderful. Social media and YouTube didn't exist, and dial-up modem ruled everything. This was the boring text internet that few people even got into using.
The state didn't really care much about what was happening or the information being distributed as long as we weren't intruding other systems. A number of publications could certainly be read that weren't the best of friends to their continued power, because we were all 80s and 90s kids growing up with their parents talking about “the man”, the USSR, and how they almost died in a nuclear holocaust. I certainly didn't live through Richard Nixon, have a loved president assassinated, watch college kids die on TV by the National Guard or Vietnam, but it horrifies me to think of what it might've been like.
Looking from a neutral perspective of what they went through and barely escaped is far worse than 9/11 and terrorism. It's safe to say that they who built our technology thought about the world around them in a much different way than we do. Far more skeptical of those who wield any kind of power over anything, and really nothing much there has changed either except that Daniel Ellsberg lives in the United States and Edward Snowden doesn't. Young people from the 70s and 80s invented the early personal computer scene and BBSes, and that is what became the web we know of later on because those people became the first Internet Service Providers. Much of this history has been preserved by the wonderful Jason Scott of the Internet Archive and textfiles.com. I was intrigued by what was happening.
I got involved in early personal computer music. The larger part of the people who were doing that at the time was really an extension of hacker culture from the eighties. The reason for this mostly is that the Commodore Amiga scene was the real beginning of digital audio that was usable, and this carried on with software built for DOS and early Windows 9x systems. This technology was called the “tracker”, and you could use digital sampling and some carefully crafted sequencing to make interesting music. Aphex Twin is probably the most well-known user of these systems still today. However, it was very tedious and technical to use this kind of program. It was designed primarily for game music creation and other things of that nature for the various computer hacker and computer graphic scenes. Most of the pirate groups and early game developer crews used such technology in their demos. Other people had Macintoshes with Pro Tools and stuff like that, but that was also very expensive. MIDI couldn't do digital audio. That is all we had. It didn't catch on with the public until some years later. Other music software like FL Studio and Ableton didn't mature until at least 2003. Now, many young people make computer music.
Because of this, a lot of the hacker culture blended over to early computer music people. Additionally, the early web was made up largely of nothing but computer enthusiasts to begin with. It was simply the way things were like. The older people didn't understand it or went so far as saying it was evil, and the younger people were all rebellious kids playing around with things that were practically just handed to us without much intervention at all.
I got into reading about anarchism because the web took me there. You can still go to the web and get much of the stuff that was around then. The EFF that was founded by Barlow is the organization most well known that deals with Internet rights. The EFF is very powerful today, with many lawyers and representatives that lobby for the laws we have on the Internet.
I thought all of this was interesting, so I engaged it further. People think anarchism means chaos, but that isn't true. Anarchism simply means no hierarchy. It can mean chaos in the streets or voluntary peace. It's simply up to the individual to decide and think what they'd like without a top-down control mechanism controlling knowledge.
Serious anarchists, not the kind that engage in “The Anarchist Cookbook” or any of that nonsense are primarily historians and social scientists that have looked at the track record of various governments and the authority structure and have said that the majority of them have always been in war and have always killed or disenfranchised those who are underneath their rule because they did not conform or were different. What's worse is that the majority of the time this has taken place was because they refused to do something evil or have brought hidden information to the forefront of society. Even anarchists themselves were persecuted by Stalin, and they were directly involved with the Bolsheviks because some of them were Marxists. Those who do not have a proper understanding of political science is at a loss because there is far more than what is available in practice or allowed to be used in actual society, even with the information being free.
About the same time, I got into the work of Ray Kurzweil. Ray Kurzweil was describing a future that someday we would all be linked with machines. Not only that, we would be able to have anything and everything we wanted because manufacturing technology will get smaller and more efficient. He did analysis on the historical data of technical inventions going back to the dawn of humanity and said that this was always true.
Tools build better tools, which are more powerful than the previous tools. Additionally, there's really nothing that we can do to stop this tool building. Not even the Dark Ages was immune to technological advancement. Gunpowder, optics, clocks, and advanced architecture started to appear in this era. These were people who believed scientific advancement was heretic. Galileo himself was put on house arrest for heresy by suggesting that we weren't the center of the universe and that we orbited the sun as he used these new optics to observe Jupiter and it's moons. We conquered the heavens told in the story of The Tower of Babel as of 1957. In 1968, we created the first machine to translate between two languages. In 1969, we went to the heavens and brought back materials just so that we could say we went and lived to tell the voyage. As of 2018, we have gone to Jupiter; not just once, but twice. We have gone to Pluto and sent photos back. Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 have both now reached interstellar space.
Kurzweil saw this as a benefit to humanity because we could solve all of our resource and hunger problems. However, Bill Joy wrote an article titled "Why The Future Doesn't Need Us" in the year 2000 about the dangers of this kind of blind faith towards things we may consider progressive. Having myself lived near a hydroelectric dam in the Pacific Northwest named Grand Coulee and with myself having partial Native American ancestry, I have grown up with the story of the destruction of their forced removal from the riverside and the destruction of ecosystems; where salmon and other fish spawned; and now have to be artificially introduced to compensate. Most people grow up with how great the WPA was, how Woodie Guthrie sang about the dam, and I can see FDR's statue every day; looking out towards the big blue man-made lake where there was once a river. Bill Joy saw it as a danger, because of the social implications of using this kind of technology as a weapon. This was debated in technical circles because Bill Joy founded Sun Microsystems and created the first versions of BSD Unix that were instrumental in developing the web itself. Steve Jobs, later on, built NeXT with BSD technology which later became the foundation for modern Apple as well, and Tim Berners-Lee built the World Wide Web on NeXT machines. However, the public largely was not concerned or even aware of what was happening and the debates going on in these kinds of circles of people online or offline.
In 2012, right after the release of the first cheap 3-D printers, I noticed something about what Bill Joy said. By that time, I had read many books about political science both within anarchism and outside of it. I was reading more to do with philosophy and economics, including Marx and Ayn Rand, comparing and contrasting viewpoints, etc. Defense Distributed came out with the first gun that you could print out on a computer with no background check.
Nobody would know you have done it, there was no regulation of any kind of software, nobody could know which exactly was the person who developed this technology, shared the files, or anything. It did to guns what Napster did to music. It is true that this was done in a crude way and plastic guns aren't very usable, but what I understood about this was that it will get better and cheaper to do this kind of thing. You couldn't even regulate it, because the maker scene was using the same technology to print cases for their devices. That's a completely peaceful activity, and so banning the device because somebody evil decided to make weapons with it is absurd. It is estimated that a huge majority of your retro and out of service car parts and other aftermarket things are done with the same kind of technology. Microsoft even used 3-D printers to prototype the Surface.
It's actually a very revolutionary technology because it allows individual people to do custom case designs. Before, you had to get a mould created or know someone with very expensive machines to do the additive and subtractive manufacturing. Now, anybody can spend a five hundred to a few thousand dollars to buy a machine that does this for you from raw material. 3-D printers are the Apple I of manufacturing technology. You only need limited skills like how to do basic drafting and how to run a computer, and this is taught in most high schools. The technology has the potential for the means of production to escape factories, fundamentally shifting the balance of power.
As this technology gets better in accordance to the vision of Kurzweil and Drexler, the world will move towards this place. I was always concerned about what Bill Joy said, and even theorized as a child on what the economic implications for this might be. As automation increases and the means of production shift to less of a need of organized bodies of people, this will disrupt economic systems like we've never seen. Think of your job being as relevant as CDs and newspapers. We're already seeing this shift. Automation and Artificial Intelligence (AI) are the top two most referenced subjects in business technology and within policy circles that need to plan for its existence. I don't think that we should be Luddites, but be mindful of the things we're creating and why we're doing it so that we can be prepared to allow the best possible benefits from its existence. You're certainly not going to stop it. It's only going to get better.
For example, us bringing supply chains more local and with less corporate activity needed to carry along society is a huge benefit that exists from deploying this tech and is greater than the evil use of it will ever be. If we do not do it, we won't meet the needs of decreasing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. What if you could just tell the machine you need a spoon, and to use the recycled plastic from your spoon from yesterday, or even a fistful of straws? It's all plastic, just different structure. That is the potential power of 3-D printers. However, scrap metal can also be melted and made into guns. We don't quite have personal metal 3-D printers yet that can be had for under ten thousand dollars, but they will exist soon. We have cheap CNC mills and lathes at this price though and this is close enough.
In 2016 two things happened that will change this debate and draw a line in the sand. The first was Defense Distributed releasing a machine that could give you a fully functioning AR-15 from legal to buy parts that don't have to be registered with anyone. The second was the election of Donald Trump. When I started seeing Nazis regularly in these types of forums in 2017, I grew very concerned.
This meant that someone was deliberately flooding society with Nazi propaganda. Really, it doesn't matter who it is, but it matters that it happens at all. You don't have a check against this stuff like you do in the public. If someone spews Nazi rhetoric in public, they usually have to prepare to get beat up or yelled at physically. When the numbers of these are small because of this, they're not much of a problem. The Internet allows small numbers of people to go forth and just say whatever they want. Not just that, it allows someone to rent a bunch of robots to go do the same so that it looks like a real conversation is happening, through which the group psychology of follower and leader mechanism kicks in. Essentially, those who become Nazis now do it because that is what their peers are doing and they don't want to feel left out. There's lots of research done on this effect as of late, and the actual numbers are striking but the state has always known.
State propaganda was invented primarily from these techniques. It's how they convince populations to accept wars with other people or kill other people. Individuals can't create genocide. For genocide, you need funding, weapons, and people. This takes a group. For state propaganda, even they needed the media, money, and so on. With the Internet, I can buy AWS by Amazon for very little money, install some software chatbots in a bunch of virtual machines, connect them to various China or Russia addresses, and point them to Twitter saying that the state is going to come to take all of our guns tomorrow and so we must mobilize and overthrow it. There's nothing stopping me from doing so. It would probably cost me a few hundred dollars. That is the power of the Web.
All of these events happening spurred me to write this series of documents, because I knew immediately that Bill Joy was correct. Even though I knew he was already, those kinds of events made his writings more real and no longer the future anymore. I decided to write this series to cover a lot of subjects I am familiar with as a professional in Information Technology itself along with my cyberculture history, but with interconnected and interdisciplinary evaluations of what they mean to each other in a systemic sense of other subjects I know about.
The first is the social implications and other historical arguments, so that is what this goes over. Much of it has been ideas kicking around for over a decade, but I just didn't have all the pieces required and it wasn't the right time. Now, I feel it is. I will release technical specifications in an additional paper of how to realize this argument sometime in the future with code, though I'd like involvement from others inside industry, policy, and governance types of people of what it might contain.
As such, even this document is more of a guideline than dogma. It is also living, which is why I released it in draft form and has been revised multiple times to date. Even so, to realize most of the concepts takes involvement from people to realize the vision anyway. Anyone can certainly give me their views and evidence I may be wrong on the condition that political dogma within the Democrat and Republican religion is not observed. They will not get us any closer to our individual salvation from Nazis, Marxists, and other people who believe that the function of the state is to force your ideas, your way of dress, worship, culture, language, and so on on somebody else, even though there is a lot of evidence this creates conflict. Solutions are strictly data-driven, and they always have been. “Because I think so” is not a good enough reason. Additionally, “tradition” and “principles society was founded on” are not good enough reasons also.
Until war, genocide, exploitation, poverty, and domination goes away and human rights are observed, your bright ideas that we have been trying and doing for the last one hundred years are failures and it's back to the drawing board. Scientists and engineers come across this every day. They don't fix broken systems that blow up by putting the pieces together the same way. They don't say horses and buggies are the best forms of transport because that's what we used before we released greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. If we went back to horse and buggy with billions of people, our greenhouse gasses would increase. We'd just get methane instead of carbon dioxide, and both of those are lethal in concentration. That is not a solution.
A solution is Toyota and Elon Musk building electric cars and trying to get people interested in them so they buy them on their own because they're cool. Just as they thought the automobile was cool when Henry Ford introduced it. They didn't argue for old times being better because you could hear the birds and there was no pavement. They didn't do humpty-dumpty as we do to our economy when it crashes. They did something about the design. Their work, information, and designs will be in electric cars forever.
This is why Steve Wozniak had this argument way back in 1984 with Stewart Brand about information being free and why it should be. This is why we all have this same kind of argument today. What good is intellectual “property”, how do you pay for it, how do you get it away from those who may control how it's used and who sees it, and all of these things is the discussion and debate we face. The benefits we get from the thinkers and doers are immense. The hard-line conformist conservatives of every generation are retarded towards this progression.
Even Marx himself described such nonsense when he noted what happened in the 1848 French Revolution:
"And just when they seem to be engaged in revolutionizing themselves and things, in creating something entirely new, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service and borrow from them names, battle slogans and costumes in order to present the new scene of world history in this time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther donned the mask of the Apostle Paul, the revolution of 1789 to 1814 draped itself alternately as the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the revolution of 1848 knew nothing better than to parody, in turn, 1789 and the tradition of 1793 to 1795. ... The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot draw its poetry from the past, but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped off all superstition in regard to the past. ... In order to arrive at its content, the revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead. There the phrase went beyond the content; here the content goes beyond the phrase.…
(redacted)
The defeat of the June insurgents, to be sure, had now prepared, had leveled the ground on which the bourgeois republic could be founded and built, but it had shown at the same time that in Europe the questions at issue are other than that of “republic or monarchy.” It had revealed that here “bourgeois republic” signifies the unlimited despotism of one class over other classes.
It had proved that in countries with an old civilization, with a developed formation of classes, with modern conditions of production, and with an intellectual consciousness in which all traditional ideas have been dissolved by the work of centuries, the republic signifies in general only the political form of revolution of bourgeois society and not its conservative form of life – as, for example, in the United States of North America, where, though classes already exist, they have not yet become fixed, but continually change and interchange their elements in constant flux, where the modern means of production, instead of coinciding with a stagnant surplus population, rather compensate for the relative deficiency of heads and hands, and where, finally, the feverish, youthful movement of material production, which has to make a new world of its own, has neither time nor opportunity left for abolishing the old world of ghosts. During the June days all classes and parties had united in the party of Order against the proletarian class as the party of anarchy, of socialism, of communism. They had “saved” society from “the enemies of society.”
They had given out the watchwords of the old society, “property, family, religion, order,” to their army as passwords and had proclaimed to the counterrevolutionary crusaders: “In this sign thou shalt conquer!” From that moment, as soon as one of the numerous parties which gathered under this sign against the June insurgents seeks to hold the revolutionary battlefield in its own class interest, it goes down before the cry: “property, family, religion, order.” Society is saved just as often as the circle of its rulers contracts, as a more exclusive interest is maintained against a wider one. Every demand of the simplest bourgeois financial reform, of the most ordinary liberalism, of the most formal republicanism, of the most shallow democracy, is simultaneously castigated as an “attempt on society” and stigmatized as “socialism.”
And finally the high priests of “religion and order” themselves are driven with kicks from their Pythian tripods, hauled out of their beds in the darkness of night, put in prison vans, thrown into dungeons or sent into exile; their temple is razed to the ground, their mouths are sealed, their pens broken, their law torn to pieces in the name of religion, of property, of the family, of order. Bourgeois fanatics for order are shot down on their balconies by mobs of drunken soldiers, their domestic sanctuaries profaned, their houses bombarded for amusement – in the name of property, of the family, of religion, and of order. Finally, the scum of bourgeois society forms the holy phalanx of order and the hero Crapulinski [a character from Heine’s poem “The Two Knights,” a dissolute aristocrat.] installs himself in the Tuileries as the “savior of society.”
The only thing I can think about Marx is he did nothing but prophecize himself. Marx, the guy who advocated using religious values of anti-greed to justify the entire premise of Das Kapital, by usurping power of the state to do what he wanted. Ayn Rand had a bit to say about this too.
”The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his.”
This may be of importance to consider the need to ask why some information might not be the best information for progress. Why some freedoms deteriorate freedom for others. Even the freedom of certain types of speech. We should ask if some ideas might hurt freedom for all and why they may do so, why some kinds of technology might be disruptive, and so on. Not only that, we need to know under what circumstances and under what design these ideas might be useful or hurtful so that ideas that might be within a minority might come to life and give us the progress we need. The alternative is to hush them up with hegemonic attitudes as an excuse for order, and that is what we've always done. The problem we face is that people always wish to do this, especially certain groups we are familiar. The same technology used to recruit a non-violent protest within the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King is used to recruit terrorists. Sometimes the terrorists are domestic. An Adolf Hitler is always possible. Bill Joy was warning about genetics, nanotech, and robotics technologies, eighteen years later two of those have matured for public use and nanotech is in the works. However, it isn't even these type of technologies that are the danger to civilization. The danger is our own psychology. As Bill Joy was writing this paper, the same complexity theory he mentions was finding its way into sociology. Social media didn't exist in the year 2000.
|
|
|
|
As Information Technology becomes ever more blended with the social and material activity of society, an Adolf Hitler is ever easier to get and the holocaust gets cheaper to do for everyone...
|
Author's Note:
I want to begin with stating that the source material used is located at the end of the draft and referenced in the below introduction only. It should provide a foundation for the entire span of technical terminology and concepts. It is only referenced once because the foundations are crucial to understanding, so please read the documents and watch the videos attached. This is a living draft so it may have minor errors and large updates. E-mail these and any other questions and I will respond.
Section 1: Introduction:
Ayn Rand and the free market economists of the 20th century critiqued socialism by saying self-interest is always rational. [1] Marx says it is bad and creates wealth imbalance and waste. [2] Going past philosophy and into game theory, John Forbes Nash, Jr. says this kind of domination of self-interest is always there. [3]
Nash sees both domination and cooperation as the same because cooperation is used in the self-interest of both the player and the opponent. This is in contrast to both Rand and Marx, who views interest in the individual or interest in the society as a noble cause that are at odds. They assume that individualist capitalism and in Rand's terms "altruism" exist separately from each other in a sealed box that can never interact. Greed vs charity, in other words.
If I were to use the Nash equilibrium model, we could possibly argue that both assumptions are totally inadequate to describe what happens in reality. Assuming that, we'll then argue this point from many different perspectives. This includes the issues we have with nation-states and racism, gender inequality, the justice system, the environment, wealth imbalances, etc.
I will also use quite a bit of terminology related to cybernetics, which in my view is far better at understanding the world than from classical perspectives. It has also influenced quite a few fields including ecology, management, and the social sciences. It includes Stafford Beer's work [4] that deals with social systems, a paper on complexity theory which is an expansion of Beer's trailblazing with better mathematics and explanation, [5] and Niklas Luhmann's book on social systems. [6]
I will also introduce the concept of consensus, based on blockchain technology. [7]
1.1: Section Contents
This draft is divided into three sections with subsections, where the first is obviously this introduction.
The second section primarily deals with the traditional classical philosophy of government organizational structures, their economic interests, and their components. This includes many concepts introduced by everyone from Plato to Marx.
The third section primarily deals with the premise that the differences between sexes are just as game influenced as a shopper and the sales department from a store. It also goes through much of the social and environmental ramifications rather than the political. Also in the third section, I will bring feminism to a believable but extremist and hypothetical scenario. You could compare such a scenario to the extermination of the Native Americans by pilgrims escaping persecution.
1.2: Transcending Anarchism and Marx?
I assume you are familiar with most classical philosophy that is the basis of modern political science. These concepts include democracies, republics, communism, etc. I don't go over the differences between them much because the description of these is in most high school social studies curriculum, so if you do not know anything about what they are please look them up on your own. However, I'd like to touch a bit on anarchism for those who aren't initiated with the politics and theory.
Anarchism argues that the economic theories of Marx and capitalism should stay economic theory and that the use of force to achieve these ends is wrong because it mirrors activity like the crusades, various battles between random Christian denominations, and the people within them. This is also observed by the great Roger Williams who wrote such observations in The Bloudy Tenet of Persecution for Cause of Conscience, which can be argued to have been the first argument detailing freedom of thought and speech; the foundation of America. So, some of this is largely an expansion on anarchist political theory since it is the newest available.
The first books about such in-depth theory that were written by Lysander Spooner, Peter Kropotkin, Leo Tolstoy, and others, were actually published in very close proximity to Marx still living - give or take 20 years. Much of the other concepts described were realized far past Marx's death.
What actually brought me to investigate these topics originally, was because I was interested in why the USSR exterminated many anarchists that were a part of the Bolshevik movement in Russia. This is written about by people in works such as My Disillusionment In Russia by Emma Goldman, and Listen Marxist! by Murray Bookchin, who were Russian immigrants or first-generation citizens struggling with the same problem. I am indebted to them greatly because even though this is not an argument for anarchism, it would look much different without their influence. I definitely could not have thought about this topic in the way I did.
I credit Bookchin specifically for introducing the concept of eco-centric political science, for instance. Bookchin's analysis on that subject is absolutely marvelous reading, because he describes many problems we are facing today with clean and clear details. In fact, his theory on libertarian municipalism and how to make cities with an ecological focus may be an equal human equivalent to this model, and a lot of what he wrote I consider to still be valid in many ways. I seriously believe that if I only stuck to the classic political and social sciences, I never would've landed close to this description of society, the ills of it, or the solutions. I simply would not be thinking about such subject matter and it deserves mentioning.
1.3: The Internet Is Not What It Seems To Be
Back in the 1990s and early millennium, those of us like myself that were into cyberculture decided to try such theory for real. The Internet was completely new technology, and very good for simulating various types of societies. As such, this text actually contains many, many years of direct experience with cyberculture. This includes using primitive versions of electronic music tools and also communicating with “groups” such as anonymous, internet piracy people, and other information freedom activists via IRC chat. Beyond my experiences with cyberculture are more serious forms of study in relation to the topics I am discussing.
In the 2016 election, I started to notice the kinds of things that were warned about by those who critiqued such theory. Donald Trump's campaign guru Steve Bannon was involved in a company prior to this that developed bots designed to tread World of Warcraft and other video games for items, then sell them back to gamers.
The rise of white nationalist content in America is frightening because they could've taken advantage of the structure of the Internet itself - and are. Trump might not be Adolf Hitler, but we could have gotten there – easily. What is alarming is that the Internet was exactly what we wanted to society to become, and it is also what society wants to become now because we sold them this world.
What has happened with the Internet may also be a direct preview of what will happen to real life society. Especially if we allow this kind of thinking to continue on without anybody to say stop or at least evaluate what is happening. It had capitalist economics, but we didn't require them. It also had a socially anarchist structure. The systems of virtual societies and even money that you made, were yours. In fact, you could do whatever you'd like with them because there was no government, and we actively blocked the government from ever getting involved with it besides in reaction to really bad things. We even tried giving things away for free, like music, books, and other forms of media to see if this would increase knowledge, art, and enlightenment. It didn't work.
When the grey area of legality went away with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Napster and Kazaa were shut down, we then actively sought to specifically and out in the open divise and use technology in response to such legislation. This included, by design, a technology that had no company or any kind of organization to shut down.
We understood by then that if there was somebody in charge of a service that broke the law, they could be taken down. However, if we just built technology that could be used for anything including piracy, then piracy will always flourish and it's simply a game of whack-a-mole. We also devised by design to block any kind of tracking of such data transfer. These technologies became torrents and dedicated encrypted network hops overseas.
Some of these goals were a success. Some of them were not. However, it largely didn't work. Society, art, music, and other digital things were becoming more corporate, not less.
This happened because of two reasons. First, there was no money for independent artists to thrive. Sales fell across the board. Then, new powerful corporations like Facebook, Google, Spotify, and so on started to aggregate the content that was left for advertisements. However, advertisement revenue wasn't enough and didn't really help. The advertisements weren't monitored properly and led to things like Cambridge Analytica, which came under scrutiny for “election meddling”.
The freedoms we gave were exploited by bad actors, the content creators lost their rights to their creations and starved, the arts and print media became a sea of amateur and corporate junk as a result, gigantic corporations appeared and exploited delivery of such junk, the quality of language in society went down, the quality of work in other areas went down, productivity went down, etc.
Even bad ideas that would never be acceptable in the public square, led to people like Dylann Roof shooting a black church. It is estimated he was 100% influenced by the Internet. You could say the entire premise was a complete disaster minus a few highlight advancements in technology, and we may have to throw it all out to start fresh.
1.4: What Do We Do Now?
This happening by default creates a new paradox that is awfully brain-numbing. On one end, idealistic values like Marxism and capitalism may be more like religion in terms of using such force to achieve ends and conformity. By using these instruments of violence to achieve certain idealistic goals, you always get tyranny and violence towards other people, especially those who are innocent and created no violence of their own.
In such cases, anarchism gives a correct critique of such madness. What anarchism does not do, is provide a framework for justice or organization, even voluntarily. It's basically do what you want. Anarchists argue that the whole thing will be cohesive eventually because everyone will always be happy and so structures will eventually emerge. The best way to describe this thinking is through observing structure and types of order nature creates. This hypothesis relies mainly on the concept of the self-organized system.
This is critiqued by many as unworkable, because you may get warlords and other nasty things. Since this activity actually started happening on the Internet, it started to threaten the freedom of people in ways that we have never seen before. In many ways, the cure was worse than the disease. So, knowing the critique was correct but the ideas of self-organization were most certainly not, I set out to devise a new political framework which is what this is.
1.5: Nash Goes Optimal? Maybe.
Before I elaborate more on government, individual decision making, economics, and society, I want to introduce a viable model that cancels out all the unstable or non-optimal Nash equilibrium sets, leaving only the optimal result.
In the prisoner's dilemma scenario of the Nash equilibrium, a defense attorney goes to two prisoners that are in for a minor offense carrying a two-year sentence and gives them a list of options. He is wanting to get them for another crime to increase his numbers for a possible raise, so he tells the prisoners that they could confess to the crime and get a reduced sentence. Since they are separated from each other and cannot communicate, he tells each prisoner that if the other person confesses and they don't confess, they get ten years. If both confess, they each get three years.
Nash says that under such a scenario, both will confess to get a reduced sentence. The reason he gives is that they are unaware of the other person's decision. This is actually true in all real-life interaction we know of. Assuming Nash is correct with a high degree of accuracy, they will always choose the non-optimal state. In reality, they should not confess to the crime they did not commit which is the optimal choice. However, they will never do it because the possible ten years (or possible uncertainty) is worse than getting an extra year. Using both Marx and laissez-faire capitalism theory for reference, the defense attorney is exploiting the prisoners for his own financial gain.
Additionally, it is not limited to exploitation for financial or resource ends because social ends like peer status, ridicule, promotions, and demotions apply to the defense attorney as well. This could explain why it is hard to stop things such as global warming, because the self-interest for you to go to work or drive inefficient sports cars are much greater.
Furthermore, it may explain why regulation is ineffective towards solving the problems we face in modern society. There are simply no incentives to do anything else other than the minimum required, and tough regulation will more often than not create rebellion and fighting between different identity groups because of conflicts of interest.
To elaborate, some groups or individuals may value reducing the possibility of climate change by using public transportation, and others will value getting to work quicker by using personal vehicles. Because they believe that their future or lives are threatened, they will defend these personal interests at the expense of other functioning systems and even lie about their association or activity; which is the most common form of this phenomena and may even explain why politicians have a problem with lying in general. This process also may include violent action or civil warfare at some tipping point in the future, especially if there is sufficient conflict where one party is threatened by actions of another.
This means that Marx, Hayek, Ayn Rand, and so on may actually all be correct, and the circular debate and applications of either theory might actually be a feedback loop towards chaotic ends no matter which model is chosen, eventually. When these chaotic events occur, nobody is aware of anything that would have caused them at first glance. Usually, it stems from someone exploiting something, whether it's law, the economy, or sometimes both. Humans seek their self-interest no matter what.
This kind of self-interest is the only thing that is in a state of Boolean truth that is contained in Marx, Rand, Nash, Hayek, and so on. In fact, humans will exploit anything they can, including groups of people, materials, animal species, money, business, etc. This at some point later creates an imbalance, and we end up with crises that have huge costs and occasionally death tolls to the millions.
I'm going to be bold and state that socialism and capitalism might actually be the same phenomenon. Using this viable model comparison against traditional Marxism and capitalist theory, we may be able to explain why we tend to get wealth instability, increased amounts of groupthink, or tyrannical dictatorships with various other models that focus primarily on both capitalist means of production and centralization of resources.
It could also potentially explain why we get states like the USSR and China. We consider socialism a failure because in these countries disparity in wealth and prosperity actually increases. Not only that, freedom is deteriorated and human rights violations are common. True Marxist socialism may actually be humanly impossible to realize because it allows for dominant people like defense attorneys seeking their own interests in the same manner as a capitalist would exploit a worker.
In this case, you're really doing little but shifting power around. Furthermore, you're not doing anything to solve this exploitation and you may be making the problem worse. The only difference between a factory and a government is that the government usually deals with disputes through the use of imprisonment, fines, or death. We agree that this must be limited to the most extreme and deserved cases, and it is also why we have the justice system and law to limit such activity.
In contrast, a factory simply terminates your employment contract. They really don't have to care about what you're doing off the job either, so they don't really spy on you other than while you're at work. That's for the rest of the population to do as far as most businesses are concerned because law enforcement handles this activity.
1.6: Incentives To Not Just Go Green, But Be Green
Even though the scope of this document is to address the will of the people, law without nation-states, and describe a new kind of social politics, I have included a very rough economy structure that is based on the concept of system health - which is a term used in computers. What system health does is it monitors resources to balance what is available to use, or sets priority to important processes if reserve resources are used.
The goal of the potential economic system is called hyper-efficiency, where the fewer resources you use the more you have over the long term. For example, using concrete to build houses is better than using trees because rocks are plentiful, they do not rot, are easily recycled, have better weight capacity, don't affect the global carbon life cycle in any way, and so on. This economic method spurs innovation in technology to keep living standards high, to give value to craftsmanship and longevity, and to mind what resources are being used. The economics need to be better developed with some more research of the mathematical concepts to provide a proof of equilibrium, but I believe it works so it will do for a basic description.
How it works, is through a systemic disincentive to cheat or exploit global means of production and the natural environment for personal gain beyond the capacity to carry such gain. It doesn't assume gain is bad, nor does it assume pure capitalism and communism is bad. It simply assumes people can't be trusted, and an AI may be superior. People do their best work when rewarded in a just way according to their personal desires, and we can't know what those are. However, it should act whenever some kind of activity starts to go out of range of sanity.
First, it starts to load balance to make sure needs are met. If it has to act, it tells the population that we are at risk for a catastrophic event and to vote on possible solutions. Such technology should give engineers a way to think about these problems and create solutions far before these catastrophic events happen.
For the concept of this, you might think of a separation of powers. In traditional government systems, you have people and representatives. These representatives act as a liaison to a more centralized government apparatus and provides a barrier for potential bad actors. This even includes themselves.
As you hopefully now understand, this may not be adequate enough to stop bad actors occurring.
1.7: Stopping Nash's Cold War Feedback Loop
To use the previously referenced prisoner's dilemma scenario as an example of this phenomenon, theorize what would happen if we could add another party that can communicate with the prisoners via phone. This new person that is a third party, has evidence that they did not do the crime but someone else did. Furthermore, they have some video or some other verifiable hard evidence, and he is willing to give the tape to the court for trial. Instead of the optimal scenario being uncertain, it is now observed that it is the optimal choice, meaning the defense attorney loses his case because both prisoners choose not to confess.
Using this model as an example of solutions to potential environmental problems, the increase through positive feedback of goods, products, money, etc can be metered, fed into the AI, and matched with a decrease of natural resources through negative feedback. As natural resources deplete, negative feedback is applied to global production numbers. We already have this data today. Collecting it is the current job of economists, foresters, climatologists, etc.
In many cases, we know what is wrong with what is happening globally because of their research. However, there is simply too much data to make heads or tails of it, even if we did there are too many interests involved to do anything about it, and you can't trust any of them not to lie to the public. This is bad because the will of the people by default can't be matched with the environment that it is in. Because of this, we need a serious change in design that allows us to compensate for this problem.
If such a system was active and the public was convinced this model was the proper form of organizing society, we might be able to compensate. For example, if you clean cut the forests and throw greenhouse gasses in the air, your production levels slow to a stop through negative feedback. The only way to keep production levels up is through popular consensus vote. However, if everyone knew that they were going to die they will more than likely not vote for it.
To illustrate this problem, people actually outnumber those who don't accept climate change by overly huge numbers and demand something to be done about it. What is important is that without sufficient economic reasons to switch to electric cars, it will take a very long time to do so regardless of what we think. The reason for this is because those who drive society in the form of human governments have incentives to keep oil the dominant form of fuel, and those who drive cars to work have incentives to not buy any new cars because fuel is heavily subsidized.
Because of this, fuel appears cheaper than driving electric cars even though it really isn't.
It is true that electric cars are more expensive than gasoline cars, but this doesn't have to be the case. The law of economy of scale says that if more people bought electric cars, production would scale up and we would have positive feedback towards more electric car numbers, negative feedback towards the price of them because competition drives new innovation to make them cheaper, and thus a new social norm will develop over time.
Because governments are tasked with figuring out how to drive this more rapidly, all they can really do is tax fuel. Because of the oil lobby, consumers in some cases even pay twice from subsidies and at the pump. Killing and putting people in jail is out of the question. They can't ban existing cars because that will instantly crash the entire economy.
The taxes also do nothing but increase costs for families going to work. Then, sometime later when gasoline cars are still on the road and everything is more expensive, citizens demand higher wages so they can survive. Needless to say, it's a mess of dynamics all the way around. This model may be a possible solution for that.
1.8: What is Bitcoin?
Consensus blockchain technology like Bitcoin may be able to replace these human actors that have carried out this consensus normally. In fact, it was developed to stop bad actors that want to double spend a currency for their own gain. It uses a set of consensus rules to do this by using cryptographic functions that do proof of work calculations. These calculations come at a cost to the nodes, where the more nodes there is the proof of work gets more difficult.
Because of this, the individual nodes secure the network to attack by any individual bad actors. If someone tries to make a Bitcoin all on their own by feeding all of the other nodes junk, the network will reject this as invalid because the network verifies which node has played by the consensus rules. The only way to defeat the security of this technology is to be able to convince 51% of the nodes on the network to agree to make a bitcoin. Even if they figured out how to do this, it is very, very hard. It is also extremely expensive in terms of electricity and computing power, on the order of trillions of dollars and many years to achieve such a feat for a full-size network with millions of individual nodes. Even if you got that far, you still may not succeed.
Using this kind of technology, you could easily give a single entity the power to carry out the will of the people with the correct design parameters. Usually, computer problems lie between the screen and the chair. Most hacks are caused because some end user gave the bad actor the information. Because this design requires the participation from many real humans to take action and is verified, hacking such a system would be next to impossible.
1.9: Everyone Fails Economics 101
We may have been seeing this the wrong way all this time if these kinds of social economics and governance could be had over some crap like the advertisement model or even the circular arguments between Marx, Hayek, and Malthus. Those are kind of dark ways of dealing with people because they see them as problems. I have never in my life been thrilled with any of those theories, as if something seemed to be amiss.
They might as well be dystopias themselves, and maybe by following them, that's what we're creating. Anyway, are we properly metering our resources and properly adding them to our models?
Say a pine tree for housing or whatever costs $200 raw and in the ground, and it takes twenty years to grow. Nobody in their right mind would want to plant trees for ten dollars a year ROI. Even though trees are a renewable resource, we're consuming them faster than we plant them because we value the tools they make for us. We can do some rough math to illustrate this “hole” in classical economics. Even Marxist ones.
Think of the real cost of the tree…
-
If a tree takes 20 years to grow (time=production cost), that's 7300 days. Your production cost is NOT the seed. The tree is your employee. Your cost is time. The seed is an unrecoverable expense or investment depending on the survival of the tree.
-
According to last estimates by the USFS we have around 300 billion trees in the US
-
Some random number of trees ranging between a few hundred million to less than ten billion are killed each year by non-human production. This includes everything from bugs, fire, etc.
-
We plant 1.5 billion trees in the US, and consume about 6 billion globally.
If you say 250 million trees are killed a year in the US from regular events, and a major fire takes out another 5 billion trees over 10 years, over 20 years that means ten and a quarter billion trees are killed before maturity, not including harvesting. We can also add an extra 250 million for padding. As the earth gets dryer and the climate changes, fire is more at risk to the trees and they've measured that so this number will get larger unless we change course as we already know. We're not planting nearly enough trees, we're just accounting for human activity in relation to the ecosystem or disaster.
To actually do anything at all about our environmental problem this number should be far past even the 6 billion trees a year planted. Disasters obviously already eat most of ths up, because we all know the numbers are much higher. We kill them quicker than we plant them and we wait for disaster just to do anything about the lost trees.
If we just quantified the normal cost of a tree at market rate according to the trees we lose, whoever plants 11.75 billion trees per year to stave off deforestation in the United States which is the real number we should be planting (twice the amount we are consuming globally) should get a profit of a couple trillion dollars in twenty years by just turning those into dead wood to build stuff with, considering we already use half this amount today. If we added these kinds of metrics in our economics, everyone and their dog would be planting trees, but we don't do it. Why?
Here are some more interesting numbers that deal with this:
-
$2,349,853,125,000,000 (cost of 11.75 billion trees at market rate of $200) / 20 years = $117,492,656,250 yearly revenue. These are silicon valley numbers.
-
11,750,000,999 trees / 10 years to plant which is required just to curb the deforestation trend from random events (not including humans) = 1,175,000,000 trees to plant per year
-
128,767,123 is the number of trees we need to plant per day, assuming we only get about 40 days out of the year for best conditions that won't freeze or fry to death the trees before they grow roots
Even if we had 500,000 people it would still be 257 trees per day or eight trees an hour planted just to reach the ten year goal of replacing half the trees lost over twenty years. That isn't enough time but it is enough money, to the tune of 50k a year and half of a billion jobs just to plant trees and nothing else. We'd need to have eight times $200, and that is more than an ounce of gold. A tree, worth more than gold? Maybe so.
We're so horribly in debt in this resource all the way around that it's gone as far as screwing with the economy in addition to the actual environment. Since we would need to hike the cost of trees eight times, meaning we're looking at like twenty trillion dollars worth of just trees.
The REAL cost of a tree to the economy even if we just used how many trees we consume globally (about half of this), we'd still need to hike up the cost of trees four times just to reach equilibrium from our resources down through the supply chain. The reason for this is because in the global supply chain with conservationist policies they will use areas with the most resources first, especially in America. This means that eventually, all of the resources will even out so we'll just assume that because deforestation is a world problem, this is the same everywhere.
The reason why I bring this up is because that kind of difficulty and disaster in standard economic theory is padded six ways to Sunday because they know that if something catastrophic happens with humans (they die, go bankrupt, or quit working and spending) it's really bad for the economy to the point that if this goes to insanity the entire thing will crash.
Additionally, training new employees for specialized skillsets within their industry can cost as much as a single year's pay in some cases, and even for a regular hole in the wall restaurant once you add up all the turnover and having to pay two employees to do the shift of one person it may apply for them as well. Time and disaster are always accounted for.
We're not doing such things with our renewable resources though beyond human resources. Our economics don't value natural resources, only product. It destabilizes all the numbers down the supply chain because it automatically assumes natural resources are renewable and this theory does not apply to them, except that humans and employees are renewable resources as well.
On a large enough scale, that lack of attention does irreversible damage, and this might be the effect of what Marx actually saw. Therefore, I don't think capital is the correct terminology when describing phenomena such as this. This reads to me more like user error or a bug which are also terms used from those involved with computers. What we have is not we know as proper economics. Likewise, in computers (and unlike sociology) we cant make something up and blame it on some group, class, or any other arbitrary thing.
Your program either computes, or it doesn't.
If you have bugs, the system can probably survive for a while, until someone figures out how to exploit the bug for personal gain. In this case, ecology should be called economics. Humans weren't valued (and still aren't, but it's better) by other humans that are selfish. It isn't a problem with money, because that's just an abstraction. I can write a trillion dollars on a piece of paper, give it to you, and if someone else believes it, then it's worth that. However, we use it to value work via hours spent on some random activity that we're doing. It's the way we measure worth and why we do it.
What if we applied our computers to just simply track how much resources are consumed? Marx says that we should, he blames capitalism for this. I don't think I can, because of what I know money to actually be. It's worthless. It's just a metric. Our real wealth is the resources. Those take time to grow, just like people take time to get things done. Gobs and gobs of time. Ponder for a second and think about if we had to actually track all the things we use like we do employees?
We know literally everything about them, but our system doesn't even use resources in their mathematics down to the end user. It's just supply and demand.
Say for example paper. we could know exactly how many sheets of paper the entire world that's on the internet prints, to the exact number, how much ink they used, how many times it was printed, etc. Every single piece of resource can get fed to the EPA and economists. We can do this easily.
It's just no business bothers counting, and they just refill the tray when they're out. This is horribly wasteful, because it encourages a lack of watching habits towards your consumption. I've studied quite a bit about economics over the years and to my knowledge literally nobody puts resource numbers that quantify this stuff into their math anywhere.
Economics is based on human activity and how they might buy something or even interact with society. If you have a system of economics designed to reflect the interest of self-interested individuals; whether via social benefits or via greed; you will always lose. The goal of economics is equilibrium, like ecology. Not chaos.
Marx says self-interest is capital, and that's the bug within Marxian theory. He is wrong, because capitalists are correct, likewise capitalists are wrong because Marx is correct. Marx created sociology. Sociology uses these terms There's even a description for this in field theory itself. He's a terrible economist.
This is why sociologists can get the correct data, but applying it gets nowhere. Capital is accumulation of something, but you don't need to accumulate something for self-interest. Less time spent in jail is not an accumulation. Less time spent in jail has a name, and it is called is living. Eating food (accumulation of nutrients to enrich your nutrition at the expense of the environment) is capitalism in the Marxian realm. Not growing food and overpopulating is exploitation of your environment. This is why most Marxists are also Malthusians and many of them advocate eugenics and population control methods. It is absolute madness.
The theory of social capital is also right, but with the wrong terminology, because social science is also based upon the theories of Marx which is also centered around human activity. In short, there is no such thing as capital, because there is no such thing as real money. Not even the “gold standard” counts. However, there are such things as time metrics and resource numbers and those are not fungible numbers unless you can make more to meet the demand. For this, we have to go way far beyond traditional money theory. Even Marx assumes these resource bugs are just a burdensome expense that will always be there rather than valued, and his theories are human-driven so have no inclusion towards any sort of ecology whatsoever. His proposals, like Malthus; have been responsible for the worst genocides and crimes against humanity the world has ever known.
The only thing that's calculated in payroll is time*wage. Purchasing departments just say unit cost * however many you think you might need. The data for the second portion goes literally nowhere but for advertisement purpose and inventory. This might explain over-producing with capitalism and logistics problems within socialist theory. In this respect, it might not even matter whether you use Marxism or Capitalism. what matters is your data and how/why you issue currency. We will always be in a relationship of take and not make if we use this kind of economics by default
1.9: Random Notes Of Caution
To be forewarned, I'm going to try to keep a completely neutral position and for the most part, leave labels out except for descriptive purposes. Depending on your views, sections of this may cause disagreement. However, I urge you to be mindful of your possible cognitive dissonance on the issues described and carefully read the source material with careful analysis to the subject matter and conclusions.
I also do not argue political ends to justify means, but if you have any data, mathematical corrections, comments, or other additions that is more than welcome so please e-mail them. Otherwise, I believe that extreme scenarios make for good analysis because we are rarely ever interested in the social sciences, politics, economics, etc if they work. Nobody likes economic crashes for instance, so preventing an economic crash by accounting for the observations of them and why they happen is probably the ideal route to take.
Section 2: Technations Good, Nation-States Bad.
To say that patriotism is acceptable but nationalism is not, is a grave mistake we should dare not repeat. The argument we need to have is not patriotism vs nationalism, because they are symbiotic. We need to attack both. Attacking patriotism attacks nationalism at the root which is the nation-state. Nationalism is fluid and has varying degrees of extremes. Nationalism legitimizes itself through patriotism, but not all nationalist movements are like the Nazis, Soviets, or even ISIS.
What is important is that left unchecked, liberal nationalist cultures arguing over boring things like Coke and Pepsi preference can easily drift into extreme nationalism arguing over skin color preference. This is especially true with populist leaders in the right political climate, and it's very hard to get rid of them without force or revolution. These leaders tend to concentrate power towards themselves and tend to become tyrannical to varying degrees of success.
If a powerful nation gets taken over by this kind of leadership where that powerful stance was used for peaceful means in the past, such power could be used to gain dominance over the democratic process without any opposition. We know this to be true because this is what happened in the development of Nazi Germany from a traditional democratic government.
2.1: Nazi Germany
Adolf Hitler showed up after World War I because Germany was in bad economic times. What's worse is that he took power through a free election. Hitler's argument was that the world powers were destroying Germany through the Treaty of Versailles and that the world powers were run by Jews. This became a popular view, even though it wasn't factually true. What really happened in Germany was our weakness in handling WWI from all sides of the political spectrum. Woodrow Wilson was so eager to get his peace deal and create the League of Nations that he practically let France, Russia, and Britain do whatever they wanted despite huge opposition with the Republicans of the day in the US Congress. The Germans didn’t even start WWI, or at least that is how they felt. Franz Ferdinand from Austria-Hungary was assassinated by a Serbian Slavic nationalist belonging to a group called Young Bosnia. Austria-Hungary then attacked Serbia out of anger.
War came afterward once people saw an opportunity to join, but all sides got beat to hell before the US even got involved and were about to simply call a stalemate. Additionally, the revolution leading to the Weimar Republic was also caused by Marxists like Max Weber and Rosa Luxemburg. This led to the “stab in the back” myth of how the Jews did it. In reality, the Jews in Germany were wealthy. Weber, Luxemburg, etc all held high education credentials. They were “the rich liberals”, like Mark Zuckerberg or the vast number of educated Marxists of America that studied hard and were scholars. That is why Einstein had to come to the US. They were attractive to a bitter Adolf Hitler because Weimar had gone into hyperinflation, but it would have anyway. This wasn’t because of the Marxists at all. It was because of Woodrow Wilson letting the debt for WWI get stuck on the Germans after they had their own debt ballooned from getting off of the gold standard, and France occupying the Ruhr to try to seize Germany because the Germans had no money.
This environment led to Adolf Hitler directly. Because the Jews had money to take back Austria and create a new Reich which really was his only aim, he killed them, stole their property, privatized it under new ownership to get some credit issued, then forced them to be death camp slaves while he invaded Poland. The internal dynamics and minor occurrences of the interaction between different players paint a different picture than the major dates which is what most historians pick for analysis. This is all written however, and you could build a conspiracy theory around this very easily that Germany was set up to fail and go partially to France, Britain, and the socialist revolutionaries that were taking control country by country. The Jewish Bolshevism was blamed by the Nazis. However, it is Bolshevism itself and not their Jewish heritage that drove what was happening. Lenin and Stalin weren't even Jews, they were atheists and Stalin murdered Jews as well. Hitler could've simply blamed it on Marxists and tried to kill the Marxists. Literally nothing would have changed.
Hitler was not the only evil leader in history that we can point to, and that is a huge problem.
In fact, we have gone through many years of trying to understand this problem. Everyone has heard the answer of perhaps we shouldn't have nation-states at all, because they led to all of the ills of the twentieth century. This is why most people who know what really happened in Russia were anarchists. In the United States, people confuse anarchists with the far right but it is primarily a leftist critique. Marx was actually wrong about a lot. Socialism in general describes all the right data. What it doesn't do is account for the problem of groups within a dominant hierarchical leadership structure. If you were to throw all the bourgeoise language out within Das Kapital and replace it with dominant hierarchy, you just get left anarchist authors like Noam Chomsky, Murray Bookchin, and Emma Goldman who correctly explain that the bourgeoise are just symptoms of the disease itself. Corporations and states are really the same pyramid of leaders and underlings. The most common rebuttal to this argument is we can't get rid of nation-states, because "roads", "invasion", "feeding the poor", "police", etc. In other words, we need government. So what are we to do now? Obviously, that's been on our minds for quite some time. Nobody has been able to come up with anything viable so far. So, I figured it may be time for something new, that's not really just rehashed stuff from yesterday. There are a lot of new things coming to be that might begin to solve these problems and we should look at them.
2.2: Donkeys And Elephants Are Not Cheetahs
One thing is for certain and that is government is slow. It is designed for paper mail on horseback, where to get anything done you need representatives to carry out the will of the population and cater to their needs. The larger the populations and needs get, the more ineffective traditional governments are. It is easy to make a government for something as small as a single state and have it work, but any larger it becomes ever more difficult to organize and agree on things. If someone needs any resource from the government, we've all been through the heaps of paperwork and waiting rooms to know how slow this process can be. If that paperwork has to travel somewhere else to get approved, at best you're waiting a day to get a response. Sometimes a week. It accounts for the majority of hate governments get, because nobody feels that wait is worth it if they can go anywhere else and get their business done within minutes.
Huge amounts of this work is actually just third-party verification. Even our separation of powers is considered third-party verification. For example, is a bill the will of the people through congress vote, is it lawful by not conflicting with other laws, will it hurt the security of the population, etc. AI could do such governing without blinking. Project Cybersyn did so with telex machines. However, many people are frightened by the associated dystopias with this. It doesn't matter that the human is paid off, puts career over policy position, or that dystopias like The Terminator were movies once starred by a two term California Governor.
2.3: Diversity Is Not White America With Colored Skin
Racial diversity flourishes with the more communication and peaceful trade we have. Since the invention of the Internet, liberalism around the world has increased by many orders of magnitude to everywhere the ideas and words have landed and without any coercion. It is easy to imagine that without this technology, stories like Malala Yousafzai who got shot for going to school in a country that bans the education of women, may have never received public recognition. Those who control information - through coercion in the case of Malala, or propaganda with other nation-states or political interests, believe limiting the amount and type of information is paramount to the survival of their regime and they are correct. What is important to note is there can be false information, such as school shootings being led by “actors” and other things to distort public opinion for power motives within fringe groups.
This is no different than state propaganda, where many nation-states have their own way of inserting themselves between true media sources to spread false media as fact - as we have seen with Russia and the United States in the most recent election. Even media sources of other countries are not immune. The banning of media is a hallmark of nations like North Korea, which is also nationalism pushed to the extreme. North Korea also has very strong patriotic themes in their society. In fact, patriotic information is the only information you can get. The citizens there are unaware of any kind of liberalism, any kind of culture other than their own, and the world is their enemy.
The truth is that nation-states impede everything we consider to be American hallmarks such as peace and freedom because they tend to lead to war and loss of rights. Examples of this effect are everywhere from the Japanese internment camps in the US, to even recently with the Patriot Act and subsequent legislation.
Such legislation led to increased surveillance and an ever increasing police state that is more militaristic due to the influx of extra military equipment and training from the DoD. This homeland militarism is actually the building blocks for something like the Nazi SS to be effective because they also enacted such laws, and was a large reason for opposition by organizations like the ACLU. Another effect of nationalism is trade restrictions and increasing restrictions on immigration by definition. Nationalism is isolationist in nature, because it has a clear and defined separation between it and the rest of the people on the planet.
This philosophy clashes with traditional neoliberal and neoconservative positions that believe the use of strength is the best way forward for peace, or what is known as Wilsonianism. The main critique I have of Wilsonianism that is prevalent in foreign policy think tanks is that military intervention is rarely effective. This is because unless the cultures want to change, they will resist such changes. You can't just walk into someone's culture, tell them they're wrong, and try to make them believe a certain way through a foreign military-led conformity project.
The only reason why this worked in Japan and Europe was that they were already industrialized and educated before reconstruction. The perspective of those who see us as trying to bring western culture to destroy their traditions through invasion is the same as our perspective was during events like Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Such lines of propaganda are always the first thing publicly said by an attacked nation towards their attacker.
Usually, corrupt leaders go through great lengths to cover up these things through tight control of information and propaganda channels, to begin with. Thus, I believe that peace through truth rather than strength is the correct way to intervene. The best form of intervention we have is education.
I am not saying that a military isn't useful, such as battling between thousands of men. What I am saying is that the use of forceful strength in numbers should be used as needed. A military is a tool, out of a larger list of tools that you can use to solve problems. Using the wrong tools usually don't get you very far. For example, using a hammer where a wrench is required to remove a bolt will do the job, but you risk destroying the entire object in question. Of course, if the bolt is rusted out, then you have no choice.
2.4: They Made Clean Coal – They Said It Was “Impossible”
Another way of looking at this dynamic is through social psychology and markets. If it is in the interest of any group of people or person to be violent or rip you off, then they will do so. Especially to gain more resources for themselves. If such people are leaders of nations and there is an incentive, the same is true. To prevent bad things from occurring, you have to create a systemic disincentive to do bad things. In America, we do such through regulation.
For example, coal power plants will use the best filtration systems money can buy because they don't want to pay fines to the EPA and it's a one time cost to the plant. We also need better material production to deal with solar panel manufacturing at lower cost, and so we have an incentive to fork up the R&D funds for this because our disincentive is the destruction of the planet. Every person, group, nation, political party, corporation, and so on operates this way.
Usually, they're honest about their motives unless lying is in their self-interest instead. You don't go to your job if you are not paid to go there. You follow said parameters of the job without question and despite disagreements, you may have, because you chose that career path. Nobody forced you. However, there may be a group of people who try to influence you to make a decision you may have declined because it helps them get something they want. Very few are one hundred percent truthful in this respect.
2.5: Blank CDs Made Metallica Cry For Spotify
My observation is that government can very easily become powerless through a process where nullification of some kind reaches critical mass. When this occurs, they are powerless to do much of anything even if they continue to exist. The faster communication happens that encourages this nullification, the less effective governments are at holding power. We can see this process with the invention of Napster and the subsequent DMCA.
When Napster was shut down and the DMCA was passed into law, the reaction was just simply to develop new technology because people didn’t want to pay for music and didn’t see music as a valuable asset in relation to things like gasoline for their cars, clothing, or even the iPods that played the stolen music itself. It wasn’t until over a decade later where consumer preference for consumption of media switched to streaming services like YouTube and the music could be delivered for free in exchange for ad revenue, did these kinds of people consume music legitimately. One thing is certain, and this is the power of such disruptive technology without any sort of checks or balances. That money left the music industry, and it will never return to it provided that technology doesn’t fundamentally change to return it there. The business landscape shifted, and it will never go back to the way it was.
2.6: Black Boxes, Blue Cops, And White Power Warfare
Computer technology is inherently open in nature. In other words, you put data in, and you get data out. It is a black box that does not care about the user whatsoever. Any access broken or one software bug could fail the best security mechanism. If that data can transfer across the planet at lightning speed, you can’t ever get rid of it. If you attack the technology, harder to break versions are made in a literal arms race between the public and the government.
In this case, billions of dollars worth of government technology with each step is unable to beat a free software program, and at some point, the government has to quit the pursuit of trying to combat the activity or go bankrupt. Imagine if illegal drugs became digitized somehow, and all of a sudden you could upload drugs to the Internet. Now the problem is twofold in that you have to try to combat both the illegal drugs and the files of them, which can have security a mile long designed to make the process of government actually functioning as hard as possible.
Furthermore, under the current constitutional law, those files in transit are actually considered speech.
This meant that the DMCA could be held against individual users but not ISPs for facilitating transmission of contraband. With those individual users using VPNs and other software designed to hide their identity, then they were unknown. It is my personal opinion that much of the hacking from China, Russia, Iran, and so on actually may be coming from US or European hackers that are using those countries as safe havens through such VPN technology, and such VPN technology gives them funding and circumvents economic sanctions. You can’t exactly subpoena a Russian or Iran computer to check logs for American IP addresses, so there’s no way Interpol would even know - they have to assume.
The industry and the government has spent many billions of dollars trying to fight cyber-crime to no avail. Citizens lose money from hackers every day to the tune of billions of dollars per year. Terrorism thrives like bacteria. Location and AI is honestly a terrible way to do business in terms of cost and reliability. Technology-based warfare is useless for much of anything because the cost for entry for cyber criminals is two hundred dollars, and the payoff is anonymous theft with no chance to die. In fact, the governments around the world are more tolerant of this culture than I'd like to admit. They really shouldn't be.
Even if they have the capability now to balance some of this out, who is to say another technology couldn't come along that negated what is available. This type of thing comes at a huge cost to the entire society. The only reason why it's like this is because of a bunch of nerds wanted to play with virtual forms of anarchism, and they designed all of the systems to make it hard to do anything other than virtual anarchism.
Think of a road with no lines or speed limit signs, with a robot at each end, carrying an automatic rifle, that has no problems shooting any police officer that dared cross into it to create an order of any kind at all. If a cop wanted to pass through they could, except with rules. First they would have to stop at the robot, tell them they were only passing through, answer a million questions as to why they needed access to the road, then they would have to go fifty miles an hour while driving on the right side of the road. Also, they would have to hope nobody decides to hit them and cause any damage or death.
However, if a bunch of gangsters all had automatic weapons they wouldn't even phase the robot. They could go cop hunting all day long until the cops finally shoot the bandits from a distance or plead with the robot to let them through this one time. This is exactly what the Internet is like. Those of us who perpetuated such madness owe them a solution.
The easy answer is to ban computers and shut down the Internet, but then you just become a shade or two from Iran or North Korea with freedom exercising street rioters that can set up routers in their sleep. In such cases, there are 10 computers and WiFi points for every gun in America. Even with an Internet kill switch, you eliminate only part of the problem. If the DNS root zone was taken down somehow, it doesn’t mean DNS can’t go over individual mesh networks. Then, any sort of monitoring doesn’t work because there is no government attached in any way to such networks.
The Internet was designed to outlast a nuclear war, in that it is DARPA technology invented during the Cold War. It was built to communicate in connected bunkers that may break down connection at some point, so it was designed so the other connections were redundant from others. We could possibly perhaps say that personal computers should have never reached public hands. We could even say computers are actually potential weapons of mass destruction through the disruptions and societal unrest they are known to cause. However, if we had such a political climate, copies of music may likely be replaced with copies of The Anarchist Cookbook and the country will find itself at war with the population.
Those that were in positions of power and even some (minus the large number of techno-anarchists) who invented this technology did not see ahead. Now because authority is ineffective, it has caused huge instabilities in society. This is true in every case that information technology reaches influence, unless the public likes the authority there. This happens because of the existence of freely available IT without any kind of restraints to usage. Words that are ineffective to the function of the technology itself, are ineffective as law. You may as well write such law down, throw it in the trash, hope somebody sees it, finds somebody breaking it, and reports it. Information technology has also caused a lot of benefits, but increasingly these instabilities are going to cost lives and this is increasingly true.
Bad or untrue information distribution without checks or balances to if the information is actually legitimate such as news, can reach millions of people in a few seconds and there’s no way to confirm the sources. We have to trust what we are seeing and increasingly it’s proven that we cannot do so. We get the increased potential for the delivery of news quickly to those who need it, but the news may not be accurate. Entertainment on the Internet is fast becoming superior to all other sectors.
More people believe that the world is flat than believed so fifty years ago, and they also consider NASA a hoax. They have gone as far as saying satellites and airplanes are fake. Those who spread such viewpoints through social media get millions of views.
2.7: Starbucks By Day, Molotov Cocktails By Night
Therefore, information technology within these design parameters create the problems it was trying to solve which is education and preventing disinformation, propaganda, and violence. In the development of the technology, we were so obsessed with making government obsolete because we equate government with violent, oppressive, and warring nation-states that we failed to actually recognize the function of why governments exist and account for it. What’s worse or beneficial depending on who you ask, is that we can’t do anything about it without building a new government structure that is within information technology itself.
We’re actually succeeding in this process of the destruction of the nation all over the world through this process of nullification. The main thing that we’ve failed to do within our technology designs fails to include third-party peer verification in the process of peer to peer information transfer. If one billion educated people wanted to say the flat earth society and their information was nonsense and stop the snowball effect from more non-educated people believing that nonsense, there’s not even any way to vote it down towards deletion in a decentralized way. If someone is talking about causing violent actions, there’s no system to detect such actions and report this as a possible threat in the vicinity to others who may be able to check, alert authorities, or be aware. In both cases, there is no way to verify the author’s identity, if they ever went to college, if they’ve ever been convicted of a crime, who their political affiliations might be, etc.
This freedom through nullification is in stark comparison to freedom by changing the government, because you can’t change people as easily. Especially if they’ve been hammered with propaganda with no outside sources to run any sort of sanity check, and this is exactly what the Internet has become in many cases. Instead of a battle between nation-states, it’s a battle between the vigilante groups that form them. For example, the people of North Korea do hate us, because they are told to do so by the government every day. In such situations of any sort of shift through force, you are the invader no matter your intention. That change has to come through organic means of information exchange and trade. However, you need some sort of voting system or you simply get random warring factions. These factions are really no different than what you see in middle eastern countries with little government.
This technology becomes ever more powerful weapons that are used to overpower those that do not have it or are aware of its complete function, and we should avoid this whenever possible because this leads to situations like the Cold War - where the arms race would have wiped out the entire planet. In reality, only two nation-states were in competition for world dominance by gaining more capability to destroy the planet an order of magnitude greater than the other. This was largely out of reach of the public within both powers to do anything about despite knowing what would occur, and the rest of the world that had nothing to do with the conflict was at risk. From their point of view, their best option was hope and pray nobody pressed the destroy the planet button. This is why the goals of nation-states and governments are irreconcilable. This is also why the non-optimal solution to the Nash equilibrium can become very scary to accept. The good news is that the more interdependent we are globally for resources, the less likely for conflict and the more likely for peaceful intercultural relationships and genetic mixing, which leads to diversity in culture, skin color, etc.
In fact, we can see this effect right here in the US as more people move here and are born here from multiple different cultures. We can also see this effect on the world by watching the transformation of the third world to the first world through information technology being able to educate quickly and enabling such communication with lightning speed. I personally feel that because nation-states were used traditionally as protection of certain races or cultures against others that may invade and engage in warfare, it may be required to shed them to achieve true diversity due to the fact that this has largely already taken place.
We generally are not fearful of other nation-states to attack. The large majority of them we trade with. In fact, the instabilities we may be having in America might be due to various currencies and money supplies that are hard to quantify and give analysis to with scattered data.
For example, economics in Asia have greatly affected the United States and the reverse is also true. The 2008 recession affected global economics greatly, and while it was bad in America it was worse for those who made a few dollars a day. Because they couldn't vote their interests in what we do with our currency, some may have starved to death.
Furthermore, you cannot argue that borders keep any evil people out of your country, because evil people exist everywhere. This is the primary function of law enforcement. In fact, border patrol is law enforcement.
Defining this nonsense through reduction, you can easily accuse people they are using the border for racist motives. The mentality for such a view is they should stay where they are from unless you like them and also respect the place where you are from. Not even necessarily it's laws, but primarily culture. You want to make sure that they think like you do before they arrive, so you make sure they have money, and will be able to “integrate”. You like others to be the same skin color as you, so there is less mixed race. This is especially true if you're the dominant culture.
If you were to compare white people in America to blockchain terminology, they have had a 51 percent attack on democracy since 1776 - meaning they can insert whatever junk they want into the system of law and order without any opposition. You could say that cultural and racial hegemony (the white majority that drinks Coca-Cola at McDonald's, sings the national anthem, puts up Christmas trees, plants grass in yards, etc) is the only legitimate reason why the nation-state still exists at all.
2.8: Italian Fashion - One Century Later
The political theorist Antonio Gramsci came to be known from being imprisoned in fascist Italy. He argued through his analysis of that the political nation-state produces cultural hegemony to maintain the rule of it by design. Cultural influence like skin color and language are a crucial part of the maintenance of a nation-state, and that is why the state will try to control this to varying degrees. He proposed that the nation-state uses an often subtle array of means and cultural institutions to do this - from the media to the educational system - to create a cultural assumption of its validity and the validity of the cultural narrative that supports it.
We don't even need a nation-state to create a government structure. For example, the United Nations is a government structure composed of diplomats and leaders from many nation-states. Their goal is to prevent war - which means their authority is dominant over members of it through international law. Therefore, a nation-state can thus be distinguished from a government. A government is a group of people that control the nation-state apparatus at a given time. That is to say, governments are the specific means through which nation-state power is employed. Nation-states are served by a continuous succession of different governments. Nation-states are immaterial and nonphysical social objects, whereas governments are groups of people with certain powers.
A government is the means through which the abstract concept of governance is realized within a particular community. The government is the organization within the nation-state framework that manages the process of governance. The relationship between a government and its nation-state is one of representation and authorized agency. Governments manage societies and they do this by defining the protocols or rules under which that society will operate. They then have to implement those rules, enforce them and adjudicate them.
It should be noted that the mere existence of such institutions in law does not guarantee a separation or balance of power. Many autocratic political systems such as Russia or some people argue even the United States itself has all the institutions designed for a balance and separation of power, while behind this power remains concentrated within a central group of elite people that dictate the rules of the game, making the separation of powers completely ineffective.
2.9: Burgers, Coca-Cola, & Freedom Fries
A vision starts to take place here that may just say that the techno-anarchists fighting against any kind of information control systems perhaps may be correct to do so. For example, Americans watch animation from Japan on television, buy Chinese products sold within American stores, and used phones phones made in South Korea. The more this happens, the public benefits from trade of information, tools, resources, and their associated markets. Why would a country want to bomb the headquarters of Samsung, LG, Foxconn, and ASUS? We wouldn't have any computers, telvision sets, cellular telephones, etc.
That mentality suddenly makes no sense. This was one of the original goals of the Internet and it has largely worked. Globalism through the Internet, as planned, is largely a success through the nullification of the nation-state. Years ago, nobody could communicate across borders unless they knew someone there. Now, this hegemony is being systematically destroyed.
The techno-anarchists of yesterday were misguided due to the common usage of this terminology. They also didn't include any government to deal with the bad actors that are now an issue. However, all of those problems can still be addressed with better technology. It is the nation-state, the hegemony of culture, flags, skin color, race, and so on that is the disease. Not government structure. Because of this, we should not care to westernize anything or anyone that doesn’t want to be westernized in part or in whole and also demand the reverse.
If the world could agree on such matters, we may see some improvement in our global geopolitical situation. Cultures are important, and people should adopt customs and technology in accordance with their own cultural evolution and adoption - not cultures being forced down the throat of people with no relation.
The reality is that nothing is developed in a vacuum. Even western culture owes much to the Chinese and Arabs through the invention of algebra, paper, movable type, compasses, and gunpowder that we used to make advanced artillery, the printing press, guns, and books. We should recognize this process as beneficial, and give credit where it is due. We should therefore not continue to hoard technology and customs beyond intimate things like religion, traditional dress, burial, etc and we should not encourage such adoption of those intimate things through blanket obedience - but of individual conviction.
We should be proud of who we are as individuals, of contributions to who we are through our own and foreign sources of cultural history, and how far we have progressed as a species. There are a lot of cases in history that tell us that the integration or rejection of said technology or customs was not exactly out of peaceful relations but of war between nation-states and even war between the nation-state versus the citizen. This has to end fairly quickly or we will not have much hope.
Government by this definition as a system of laws and enforcement of such with social programs isn't going to go away, but it desperately needs a shift in design. So does the way we use technology, and how we view the way forward.
2.10: I Can Haz Fake Newz?
Social media has benefits such as the independent journalism that followed things like Black Lives Matter, Standing Rock, and Occupy. They were number one in driving education to situations people aren't even aware of, and this holds true today. White cops shooting black unarmed children, humanitarian tragedies in the middle east, the poisoning of Native American lands, etc have been normal for a long time, but for white America especially this was largely unseen and so easy to ignore as it was not their problem. This does not exist anymore when video can be taken of it and distributed fairly quickly without much friction or traditionalism.
We are seeing a society that now holds information above everything else. Freedom of speech and thought are required but are old ideas, and those into cyberculture were driven by this idealism.
What is obvious to us now is that we had no idea how far people would go with this and try to bend what was actually real. We now tend to believe that consensus-driven technologies paired with information freedom provide the best possible way forward.
If someone or a bunch of bots decide to rain on our parade and spread disinformation, we can then know who they are, all of their aliases, and kick them out of the virtual public square by simply muting their identity through a ton of downvotes and reporting systems or individually. However, people that distribute this information are largely left to do so. It’s possible we could take this further.
2.11: Governance Without Leadership
Under the best system of decentralized and social driven law, society will directly determine the punishment necessary to people that disobey the rules of such society - perhaps even a world society.
People seeking to enrich themselves more than they are already, or even well-connected minorities that don't mind taking their money in a one step forward two steps backward fashion - is obviously not working.
To be honest, I suspect punishments will be harsher for those that deserve it and civil society would have increased justice under such a decentralized and social driven system where media technology is central. As the great Jello Biafra put it: “Don’t hate the media, become the media”. Perhaps an Orwell style surveillance state would be better served in the hands and regulation by the population. Most of us are taught to hate the surveillance state due to constitutional rights. However, those rights mainly deal with potential tyrannical governments which are possible. They do not cover private citizens in public unless they request you to turn your video off.
I certainly welcome this advancement because the technology will only get better with time and nobody will be able to stop it from doing so. Facial recognition and the LIDAR systems used in self-driving cars could theoretically track a perpetrator block after block by remembering exact height and shape to a number of points, and by doing so locate someone to millimeter scales of accuracy despite them going dark and carrying no devices. Men may not rape women anymore if five people can see them do it, because the woman may be wearing a camera without their knowledge. Embedding cheap mini cameras and computers in clothing may even be one of the first applications of wearable technology that doesn't fail like Google Glass did. In fact, Google Glass failed because people were uneasy being watched and had to watch their own behavior.
While the adoption of such technology to have this capability is years away, the technology exists today and is very cheap to implement in relation to the social cost and benefits. We might be able to estimate that the lack of this adoption is on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars in wasted funds and profits at the same time - plus millions of lives. We must define these rules now if this is so. I would rather have citizens watching other citizens through such well defined and developed software, instead of small groups of people who may use that surveillance to enforce draconian laws. They will if we do not, they are now, and that technology will only improve.
The internet is interesting because it has no centralized control pulling the strings and deciding what you can and can't do with it, or what you can and can't view, by design. The people ultimately decide this individually. It is true there are problems, such as those who design technologies need to bring in a system of identity and verification to combat those who infiltrate the commons with things like fake profiles, bots, and Cambridge Analytica so we know exactly who we're talking to. We certainly are able to create such a system to do that, and we already have a crude prototype of this type of system called Bitcoin.
What is so special about Bitcoin is that was the first technology to even suggest building software that is free in structure to all who plays by the rules by giving them rewards if they solve problems, detects cheaters who try to game the system by introducing junk that’s not up to standard, verifies where the data came from and where it goes to on the network more than once, and keeps this data public for anyone to see. However, it was built mainly to deal with economics. What’s so interesting about Bitcoin or more exactly cryptographic blockchains, is per the definition of government that I previously stated it provides all of the functions necessary.
The one fatal flaw of Bitcoin is the anonymous nature of it, which got picked up by criminals pretty immediately. However, there's no reason why Satoshi Nakamoto couldn't have required identification to generate addresses. The easy explanation as to why he didn't was mostly the political climate at the time and tradition. Being anonymous gave you a degree of protection from nation-states for unpopular views and this also is the main philosophy behind cloaked identities on the web. Personally, I also used to agree with this philosophy and I've certainly encountered some hackers and activists in my life, but I don't agree with this method anymore in practice.
Neither do I agree with throwing random technology that can disrupt random things like ecosystems, whole industries, or political systems out there without some kind of voting buffer and discussion first of what might replace it - the dangers of this are clear and so are the benefits. What we cannot do is have nation-states control the web and turn it into some Orwellian fascist nightmare down the road. Instead, society should define the kinds of systems it wants to use and we can use the same technology for that as well. You can't battle such things with AI and votes that don't stick as one person/one vote. You need voting technology that sticks. For this, you need identity, not anonymity.
Notes:
We may need a way of recognizing the difference between human and AI. Additionally, we may also need the ability to verify real names should the case arise to bring action against an individual (ie, they threatened to bomb peaeful people who did nothing). We could call this the national security or NSA paradox, where 9/11 or Oklahoma Ciy can happen without the proper monitoring of communication.
Rational numbers (optimal Nash equilibrium state, or rational human decisions to agree on some state) equal complex numbers if and only if there are more than two variables (ie, (n*n)+/-n humans, money, etc in a stable system) that cannot be observed in full or in part from lack of information (or quantum observance, in the case of Schrodinger's Cat). They can be equal but non-optimal (Nash equilibrium) for some unknown time; or not. This uncertainty leads to war, economic crashes, exploitation, etc if the lack of this data is allowed to go out of range. Ie, bugs in production and resource math in the case of economic theory, justice bugs in the case of the justice system, national security bugs in the case of NSA, ..., ...,∞.
The only way to bring the social bug count towards epsilon through abstracting this way is by using computers to crunch the data to turn the complex numbers (resource data, consensus, grey goo, AI, etc) into a set of rational numbers (observable data that can't be changed that is hard-locked in) rather than a set of irrational numbers within the Nash equilibrium matrix. The reason this is true, is because of the way the Nash equilibrium works. Uncertainty always causes an irrational number. Game theory is nice within small groups. When you start to talk about societies, governments, and so on where the numbers in a set are in the millions, there is absolutely zero way you can create stability without a 100% divulgence of all information to public view except in the most intimate family relationships. Additionally, we’ll have to develop a way for humans to not be in control of this but only monitoring it.
It means that not only information should be free, but information must be free - as in no secrets. Zero. Nada. Not for even the best security purposes. Security should be built into the system itself; with as little direct control over it as possible. We must put all information possible into a computer and make it not only freely downloadable; but required to view if it is important enough. However, our laws and economics must reflect this shift. Weaponizing information of any kind or any system of any kind should be banned; including considering capital punishment for such an offense. Not under human judgment; under the judgment of the machine.
Computers require data, and they make pure decisions based on the parameters. Additionally, we must be represented by AI because we can't trust humans to not exploit any bugs, including turning some proof of this to justify a god-awful nightmare - ie using this in combination with a Marxian or Malthusian type of society would be living hell; and someone will find this too eventually.
The problem we are facing is human actors with judgement against their own brothers and sisters; who will burn down their own homes; who will shut out their neighbor; and who will use anything available to them to increase their goals to judge others and exploit holes as much as they are able. In other words, so far you have had to arm yourselves against other human actors so they don't come steal your stuff. This is not optimal, and always gives a net loss. The fundamental requirement in eliminating the non-optimal state in the Nash equilibrium is the same initial condition for all. In other words, we must relinquish our own power to build empires, but we also must have a strong foundation for judgement and we cannot do this. The same goes for computer security mechanisms. The state should never be in control of this, because we must know that Hitler's Germany employed IBM punchcards to allow the holocaust to happen. This is the only way.
Section 3: To Hate The Borg Is In Our Interest
To begin with the social aspects, let's again deal with the classic Marxism/objectivism argument that dominates popular opinion. This can now be assumed to be a limited view. The reason is that although Marx had a lot of really interesting things to say, he may have been wrong about his solution. Marx stressed traditional social values of cooperation over greed, through observation of the damage greed causes to society as a whole by studying the development of social classes.
To elaborate, his primitive concepts of studying capitalism was perhaps the first acknowledgment of positive feedback loops. He studied capital flow in relation to inputs and outputs and what might happen in a critical state. Clearly ahead of his time, and is the foundation for classical social sciences for a reason.
However, what if social, justice, and capitalist phenomena were unified in some way, where you could explain why certain kinds of phenomena happen when those systems break? What if you could also explain why other kinds of phenomena that happen to those systems do not break anything?
If you argued that they will always break at some point but you don't know when, nobody in their respective political camps will argue such heresy. They may argue that the theory wasn't tried well enough, enough money wasn't spent, laws were not strong enough, etc. These reasons may actually be nothing more than nonsense. Not only this, there may be a huge waste of resources with a large social cost for continuing such nonsense.
Perhaps philosophy and psychological phenomena, applied to the previously mentioned phenomena, may also describe a holistic approach to all sets of phenomena, in a systematic way that can be quantified with the goal of reaching equilibrium.
3.1: Defining A New Theory of Hierachical Order
Assuming this premise is true, what is perceived as the "patriarchy", "hierarchy", or any other "archy" is primarily a system - such as a human that has rational decisions connected to other systems - such as a larger group of people. Anarchists tend to classify this as domination, which can be true. Others make excuses for such domination. According to them, society may fall apart if anything changes the traditional order. Especially if it's already been tried, and has shown to cause some negative phenomena.
The problem with this is that we cannot trust people to keep society from falling apart. Police officers are like drug dealers. They both have guns but have different interests. If there are no drug dealers, then there is less need for the police. If there is no police, drug dealers will multiply. They are another one of these symbiotic relationships. In the Nash equilibrium, if the number of cops and drug dealers is the same or the cops are dominant, there will be peace in the streets.
However, this is not the optimal scenario, because it can go haywire easily. The optimal scenario is to provide an incentive for drug dealers to do some sort of action unrelated to drugs - like starting a small business selling musical instruments, becoming educated, or even planting trees.
To deal with this kind of phenomena and provide possible solutions to it, I want to break down good phenomena and bad phenomena and their interconnected properties. In terms of dealing with social phenomena, this requires me to introduce the concept of hierarchies that are either dominant or voluntary. To do this, I will give examples of various groups in relation to individual interests and their interactions with each other.
3.2: What are dominant and voluntary hierarchies?
Good examples of dominant hierarchies are street gangs and nation-states. In these hierarchies, they use a form of extortion to force you to give up some of your rights for protection as long as you pay for it or agree to a set of terms. They usually give you some kind of benefits to sweeten the deal. If you defect from this agreement, they usually have some draconian way to punish you for this.
In contrast, a good example of a voluntary hierarchy is a class listening to their teacher. The class is generally voluntarily going to learn, because they want to get good grades for their parents. However, this does not mean individual students are not within a dominant hierarchy with their parents who may secretly abuse them if they get bad grades. If you assume that the teacher is totally unaware of this dynamic, that information will be totally unknown to them. This is important because it totally changes the reason why someone would get good grades.
3.3: Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan Nyan
Conceptualize the uncertainty principle with the scenario of Schrödinger's Cat to get a good grasp of what this means, in that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time until you observe the state of the cat. This is a paper on philosophy and basic technical concepts. It is not one on quantium mechanics, but it will do for a description.
By using the same idea, let's assume that as far as the teacher is concerned, the child is both beaten and gets a reward of candy by their mother at the same time for grades that are unknown until the child goes home. Now that the teacher is removed from the interconnected system, imagine that the child fails repeatedly because they like to play video games and don't want to do homework.
Imagine then that they are in a tit for tat to see who will win their way, where the child avoids the parent and runs away from home to stay with friends, threatens to report the beating, etc. If the parent escalates, the child escalates.
We have now entered a positive feedback loop.
3.3: Chaos + Warlords + Free Speech = Femnazis?
After a period of escalation, maybe they quit for a day. Maybe the next day the child finds a weapon to fight back. If this occurs, you could say that we are now in a period of chaotic uncertainty because there are no observers. This is the most dangerous time, because this is when tragedy has the most possibility of occurring - but likewise, it also may not. At some point, it will have to return to equilibrium but each person is unaware of the other's decisions. We are extremely ill-equipped to deal with these kinds of scenarios, because this chaotic uncertainty is when our panic and flight response kicks in. This is actually our animal instincts kicking in, because before we had houses we needed to stay alert towards other predators that the chaotic uncertainty of nature provides.
You could also explain chaotic uncertainty and your response to it to describe the panic you feel when you slide on an icy road. It's very difficult to fight this response. This means that it is very easy to choose to fight and hurt or kill one another, and it's not so easy to choose the correct answer which is to introduce "negative feedback" - or de-escalate. If the opponent on each side has any animosity towards you, the more this applies. They may see your de-escalation as a weakness for an attack.
The only sure way to de-escalate is to have a third party observer with an equally powerful position break up the fight and bring the conflict back to equilibrium.
To illustrate this, imagine that the child got bad grades one day. The teacher was concerned about this, so the teacher showed up to the student's house to talk to the mother. When she arrived, she saw the fight and brought it back to an equilibrium state. She can observe this state now, but not before.
However, these methods only work on the micro level. That is bad news for the central planners.
This bad news is that we think we can apply them to the macro level of society. Even though we might think we can, all we tend to get are errors out of most of these voyages to order complex macro systems. The reason for this is because you have to include the states of all things involved, at least as close as you can.
Imagine a similar scenario with a million people that are in two groups that communicate within the individual groups, but don't communicate with each other. Imagine if the two groups had individual pacts that coordinated attack if one of the other groups attacked and there was no mediator. The problem is that you know the initial condition, which is a steady state equilibrium for some indefinite timescale. If some sort of conflict occurs and it escalates to a critical point, then you will never get close to predicting the outcome. The reason for this is that you're now dealing with 500,000 people on either side that have individual decision-making capabilities plus different properties like body strength, motor skill, etc.
You can observe these same kinds of interactions even within 100% female groups in competition with each other. There are countless movies that exist detailing this effect, but "Mean Girls" is probably the most well known to females today above the age of twenty. Gender domination is simply a subset of the same ills that plague everything else in society. Bad behavior will always emerge unless there are sufficient sanity checks that are systemic, and females are not immune to the human condition.
3.4: Freedoms Unbound = Freedoms Are Infringed
For example, we shouldn't talk about freedom in general, but break freedoms down into things that might be desirable or not. Types of freedom and why we have such freedom can influence everything and anything imaginable from the right to protest and free speech to dumping toxic sludge into a river. Over time, lawmakers have had to increasingly regulate such freedom.
Perhaps, it should be the reverse. Perhaps, we should have no freedom to begin with, and add freedoms as we go along. For example, what if we started with the bill of rights to represent the only freedoms we had and everything else was prohibited? It's an interesting train of thought to ponder. This is the foundation for why laws exist, and bad laws can exist too without the correct systemic checks and this is a big problem.
If we assume humans are evil, then they can't govern themselves or write laws for other humans to follow without some sort of disadvantage to a minority or unrelated system. This means that a proliferation of men that are dominant and global warming is really the same kind of problem, and furthermore, they may have interconnections between each that can be positive or negative.
You can compare this even to drug addiction and the related dynamics of the family. Drug addicts have problems with knowing that they are harming themselves, but they also fight family intervention in almost every case because they like the altered state of intoxication more than the harm they are causing themselves. When they finally recognize their problem, usually what triggers this is one of two things. Either there is sufficient incentive to stop, or they went through a catastrophic experience associated with their addiction.
What has been hard for us to comprehend, is that these runaway effects are real. We know that if we don't replace automobiles with better technology, climate change will kill us and everyone else. We also don't have a good track record at handling these runaway effects. Not by a long shot. We see these effects in economics, the internet, crime, biological viruses, and so on.
We are comparable to five-year-old children in terms of dealing with our society that is more similar to biological or ecological systems than a separate subject entirely. We also focus too much on gender and species behavior applied to groups.
3.5: Treading Softly Means Stagnant Progress & War
What has to be recognized now is that men didn't all of a sudden decide to dominate over women. Male domination is an instinctual and evolutionary process dating back thousands of years that ran away like carbon dioxide did when we introduced gasoline cars to the environment.
For example, before agriculture and basic tools like wheels and pulleys were invented, females needed protection from predators, strength to build things, hunt, and so on. The only reason we bother to talk about this subject now, is we have largely made this obsolete through tool building. We can't blame men for this dominance, but we also cannot say it doesn't exist. It surely does exist, but it's also not the only dominating factor in social life. Males also didn't cause domination. Domination is a human phenomenon, not necessarily a male phenomenon and this is an important concept to understand.
We don't blame CO2 for our greenhouse problems, because we know that humans started climate change from harnessing nonbiological forms of energy production. Our love of cars dominate the entire planet, and plenty of females like to drive cars as well. We own it, we've known this has been going on since the 1970s, and we have done next to zero about it since, because of interests of multiple groups and individuals involved with the economics of petroleum.
There is nothing you can do differently to change these dynamics. You can't put more money into it, nor can you legislate your way out of it. This is the human condition.
We need to learn to shed things a bit more often than we do. Who can even argue for countries and nation-states dominating over others as being right in this obviously globalized civilization? While we did have cultures, races, and even religions attacking others in the past, tradition and hegemony is the answer today for the nation-state existence, as explained prior.
In fact, most nation-states minus a few have realized such conflict is wrong. People are correct to bash identity politics as beneficial or progressive. They aren't. They are at best ineffective in solving the root issue, and at worst gives legitimacy to a warlord mentality. Let me illustrate:
The extreme position of feminism is armed conflict, and in fact, this is feminism's greatest potential victory. If you disagree, why is fighting and violence associated with men? With the right weapons and enhancing armor, you will both equal and exceed men in both strength and oppression. Even if it's just to prove you could do it equal or better.
If females won a hypothetical female and male war and turned to genetics for offspring, it would even theoretically be beneficial according to the standard philosophical argument of not even third wave feminism but second wave.
It would even be a social and scientific advancement of evolution in that tool building humans developed the first engineered society made up of a non-binary gender source for offspring, and beyond this, they survived a dinosaur level extinction event from climate change against all odds.
It would be the first example of self-directed evolutionary Darwinism that could compare to the first amphibians in biological importance. The greatest achievement of humankind.
Overpopulation, violent rape, etc would end, and they would have earned their battle stripes - finally victorious. Disregarding ethics, the outcome could bring female Eden where they get the best of the technology out of the thousands of years of oppression.
This includes a personal robot that does their clothes, cleans, cooks, does labor, never complains, never sleeps, teaches their perfect and selected children everything they'd ever want to know, never drinks, never does drugs, never cheats, and doesn't want sex.
Robots and genetics could be as liberating, feminist style, as the vibrator. With complete feminine freedom from their own and male chores. This is all possible while they live in luxury for the next 6000 years. Will it work? Yes. Ethically, it's a disaster on the level of the Holocaust.
But wait, how does liberal culture give us fascism?
This is the danger of such domination. We must end all human-driven forms of dominant hierarchy and leave only voluntary hierarchy.
3.6: Dominant Hierarchies Driven By Self-Interest
Domination comes in many forms whether it's gender based, social, religious, statist, racial, environmental, etc. It also has subjective and unequal shortcomings and benefits to everything that is connected. If a dominant position benefits your interests, you will exploit this position as much as possible and you tend to be protective of such interests. Sometimes you will even resort to violent conflict with the opposition (ie, drug dealers) and the reverse is true as well. Sometimes the dominant factor might not be human but as natural as the weather.
Tornadoes are feedback loops caused by weather. The US spends lots of money on weather modification research and detection, because tornadoes even existing isn't in the collective human interest of those living where they frequently occur. Those that are correctly critical of weather modification, say we have no idea what it may do to the climate somewhere else or in the future. If we then think of society as a social system of networks and the interactions involved in communicating over networks influence the society, this inadequacy of generalization is clear.
Breaking these phenomena down into specialized fields and trying to fix parts gives us a limited viewpoint akin to a single human trying to give order to an ant colony. To illustrate this concept, imagine yourself moving ants in an ant farm around in some way to create a result.
If you've ever played with ant farms as a kid, you'll remember that if you stuck something in there to do this the ants either treat it as an attack, or they might ignore it and go back to whatever they were doing. You, on the macro level, have absolutely zero idea of what they're doing on the micro level. You're not even an ant so you can't even communicate with them. This is exactly the same phenomena that describe any other forms of dominant hierarchy.
By generalizing male and female, race, culture, and so on through engaging in identity politics, this encourages a conflict of interest with the current structure of domination, whatever that may be. These interests could be anything and everything - even clothing. Have you ever wondered why dress codes exist, or why people who bought expensive Nike shoes might light them on fire to protest a black person "disrespecting" an object associated with a history the protester likes because the history the black person is aware of is one of domination?
This kind of irrationality is everywhere you go, and you don't even know why you accept it. If you thought about such things through analysis, you may even question the sanity of those around you - even yourself. You simply just do whatever is required to achieve your own interests and social acceptance. You don't necessarily care about what is evil or wrong, you care more about what others see as evil or wrong, and there are also social ties that are more important than others that solidify these beliefs. The strongest of these is family, the next is familiarity, the third is your neighbor, the fourth is your community, the fifth is the state you live in, and so on.
In some cases, even the lack of domination can encourage a new kind of domination in response. The only requirement for this to take place is an opportunity to gain. For example, we didn't need petroleum until the 19th century. It was always around, but we simply ignored the existence of it. It wasn't of use because there was no plastic nor did we have automobiles. Males and females just like these other systems are complex groups, full of variety. This is not only true as individuals but is also true if they organize towards a common goal. These goals can actually be many things. You can then extend this activity to ecosystems as well. Think of males, females, social groups, economics, and so on as an ecosystem that evolves quicker than what our planet and other parts of our ecosystem like plants, trees, and animals are capable of doing. The reason this is happening is due to this simple concept:
3.7: Driving This Point Home
Collectively, we are effecting all systems through geographic communication, tool building, and reproduction faster than the planet and all other animals can compensate. We will have to slow this down or devise more efficient ways of living. If we do not do this, the entire ecosystem will fail. To do this, we must create equilibrium between our own actions and the rest of the entire ecosystem. The reason for this is simple:
We are the only species that protect ourselves from natural disaster, predators, weather conditions, etc by building shelter, weapons, and other tools. Through our self-interest, we exploit this process at the expense of other species and materials. This is the lowest class even in the case of Marxian theory - but also the most important one. This process allows us to thrive and dominate the planet, in the same way, a corporate monopoly would dominate an economy. Just like corporate monopolies are unsustainable to an economy, so is this process unsustainable to our existence. Here are four reasons why this is true:
1. The human race is in a dominant hierarchy to all other species and things on the planet by default.
2. The human condition does not allow us to be anything else other than we are.
3. We can devise no laws that will change our condition.
4. We will always choose the nonoptimal and self-interested route.
To anyone, this would look horribly bad and they may argue that we should stop whatever it is we're doing or to exterminate ourselves out of interests for the planet and other suffering living things. In fact, that has been the ideal policy of many interests and includes some people that wield government power. However, that is not what I believe is the best way to move forward – at all. It brings up discussions of eugenics, because they have always been close to each other.
I do not believe that this process is inherently bad and that we should wipe ourselves out, but we must try to be good to our natural environment and to all other living things - or we will not survive.
It is also important that unless it is required we must try to not manipulate the interactions of the environment around us, but our interactions with it to minimize our effect to it and ensure it's survival. If such manipulation is required, it must be well researched to provide the least amount of damage, voted to be accurate and approved by a majority of people that can rescind such manipulation at any time.
An example of such manipulation would be things like pesticides and climate modification.
We must use our benefits of communication and tool building towards the further survival of the system. Our tools must be hyperefficient, super effective, and as environmentally neutral as possible, by using the most abundant materials and most precise methods for building the future. All other tools that are destructive must be banned for production purposes with a ten year or less deadline to develop a replacement.
The timescale to achieve the technological switching should depend on the overall difficulty and urgency of doing so, and once replaced the old tools must be outlawed with harsh punishments towards those who continue to use old tools. In the case anyone continues to use old tools, the activity of using that technology is comparable to murder.
In fact, in more cases than not it actually is murder because you are simply unaware of what you are doing and furthermore you may enjoy the activity. This is always true because of time or distance shifting, which ends up leaving the outcome of your actions unobservant even though they happen eventually.
Thankfully, most people would rather just have better technology that's more environmentally friendly and isn't too expensive. As more people buy such technology, the price always falls. However, perhaps maybe even with these rough economics, you could see why we might not even have to observe this. Just like a coal power plant might choose the best air filter for their furnace, engineers will stress better materials over cheap ones.
What is even more exciting is that they will also begin to look for ways to make better, more environmentally neutral, and stronger materials cheaper all the way down the supply chain. That is the goal of the model after all. We can only begin to understand things by management of the entire system. In other words, if we want the ants to build colonies a certain way, it may be easier to study ants and then create an environment for them to flourish doing what you would like them to accomplish. However, there's even a larger system involved with the ants and bigger systems that are involved with that system. We need to think about this process while we design systems originally, because it's hard to change them once they become standardized. This includes thinking about the consequences years and perhaps centuries out of all connected systems. This is hard, and worse required, because not doing so has very devastating effects.
For example, think of micro-beads. The beauty industry made money, with a likely male workforce, to make a product for women that they used and liked because of social norms relating to the appearance of flawless skin, that got into ecosystems, and was a detriment to them. Now, throw in a diesel pick up truck containing a couple, that goes to a store to buy the product with the micro-beads in it. Now, you have multiple interactive systems of compound environmental damage directly linked to male/female dynamics. It is our interactions with our environment, and the way we treat our environment as tools, that drives the social theories of Marx and Rand to begin with. We still have slavery, but from a human lens, it's abolished. We don't recognize this normally. What really happened is that in the 18th and 19th centuries we recognized that all human slavery is bad and started the intense discussion on the subject. Machines emerged when this was discussed. This development was also not limited to the United States.
So what is the best argument for civilization? Is it human slaves, a destroyed planet, populist tendencies with fascist results, or some other future unknown society? We might not be able to even answer this without a lot of computers.
3.8: We Built This City On High Tech Soul
Imagine if one group had atomic weapons in a cold and non-threatening manner. The other group would likely not attack out of fear, bringing the two groups to equilibrium. Now, add more groups that may or may not have atomic weapons. Since the atomic weapons are now the dominant advantage, the group with the most atomic weapons will be dominant over all of the other groups, while the groups with some atomic weapons will be dominant over groups that don't have any. If you took the ability to communicate completely out of the equation, these groups couldn't exist because they can't communicate and form those hierarchies, which may be either dominant or voluntary. This is true on both the micro and macro level. Whatever conflict occurs, then happens outside of this scenario, whether it's with a smaller group, or individuals.
Likewise, and this is the most important thing. Imagine all the groups interconnected into one big worldwide group through some kind of communications technology. That's not really hard to do considering how you are reading this. However, introduce into the systems we're already familiar with - a non-human government, that is in control of the atomic weapons all the groups have.
Imagine a scenario where to release these atomic weapons, it would need to verify 8 billion 256-bit cryptographic keys. With current technology, this will take about one sextillion years (longer than the age of the universe) to brute force each key, by using fifty of the world's most powerful supercomputers. The only other way is to track billions of people down and steal the smart card containing their private key. The Terminator scenario just turned into the alien invasion or asteroid approaching earth scenario.
Imagine further that if your smart card had some sort of currency that you could use to trade, and third-party verification of identification so everyone had a proper identity. Imagine if you created a system of rules that had a simple majority vote, where the computers could run sanity checks on us and we on them. This could create a separation of powers that operate within geographic locations from the smallest geographic location, to the whole entire planet. With software and our smart cards or NFC, we could report violations of these rules that could be verified to be accurate within minutes. Witnesses or victims can take timestamped video and have documented evidence where you could securely store all of the information a legal case would need immediately for review. It could provide even immediate peer review with very little wasted time.
How this hypothetically works, is it alerts others around the immediate area to help and/or verify the violation was taking place. If nobody could help or the incident was exceedingly violent or dangerous, those that verified the report would send for law enforcement to take care of the danger or investigate. If they were alone and in trouble, emergency people could be sent as well. For anybody who helps, a specified voted upon payment will be generated and given upon the confirmed arrest or through verification by the others and victim. Imagine if we could video secretly in the case of possible danger. Things like cameras embedded in clothing, and pre-assigned surveillance that is made up of trusted peers instead of potential bad actors like a fascist government, could be a huge societal benefit and also reduce fear, that is in my opinion extremely valid.
We could vote on things like monetary policy, social benefits, etc with scholarly data that is aggregated within the platform. Then, anything humans do that is on the macro level and may have detrimental effects to ecosystems can be checked for mathematics and policy in a one hundred percent open source format. Since identity is confirmed, we can start to design a system of credentials to match. We can also do experiments on how to do interconnected analysis from the micro level to the macro level. We can mix economic systems however we'd like, in whatever geographic area we want, that we can join and leave at will, with one single currency.
We can introduce systems of a legal organization towards the invention of new technology, buildings, software, etc. We can propose media authenticity that requires authentic source material. We can design economic systems that could be well managed. Such systems could figure out how much to pay people that contribute to society through production or service-oriented organizations, for instance.
We can think about having a payment system for new novel ideas that are revolutionary, with proper attribution to those rights holders. We can think about how to deal with people spreading nonsense like the earth being flat and other random conspiracy theories with no evidence, or at least a pile of evidence against such things. The only exception to this is that action against any religion and cultural beliefs will be banned, along with keeping most rights we currently have.
However, it is my view that society needs to define the systems it wants to use. As I said, freedom may actually not be the thing we like. We like the context of what the freedoms mean for our interests, and some of these interests can be evil and destructive. If we go too far where we may collectively effect something negatively and the computer detects it, the computer will not deny us. It will simply warn us that whatever we're doing isn't sane, give a list of reasons why it doesn't think so, and require more votes.
The best way to describe such a system would be that it is a decentralized direct democratic republic that uses well-defined consensus technology, with a truly mixed economy based on individual need, that is eco-centric, and is a true bridge from the virtual world to the real world.
Bibliography
[1] Rand, Ayn – General Philosophy on Objectivism: https://www.aynrand.org/ideas/philosophy
[2] Marx, Karl – Das Kapital: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm
[3] Internation Encyclopedia for the Social Sciences – On Nash Equilibrium: http://www.columbia.edu/~rs328/NashEquilibrium.pdf
[4] Beer, Stafford – Designing Freedom: http://ada.evergreen.edu/~arunc/texts/cybernetics/beer/book.pdf
[5] Grobman, Gary - Complexity Theory: http://www.complexityforum.com/members/Grobman 2005 Complexity theory.pdf
[6] Luhmann, Niklas – Social Systems: https://uberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Niklas_Luhmann_Social_Systems.pdf
[7] Antonopoulos, Andreas – Consensus Algorithms, Blockchain Technology and Bitcoin UC London: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw3WkySh_Ho
Recommended Reading
Bookchin, Murray - The Ecology of Freedom