The following is an excerpt from the book atheoryof.us. It is most relevant to today, America’s independence day. It represents the most difficult political matter which America faces (and ignores) today: the fact that the structure of our government does not support a balance of power in the modern world.
Precautions against imbalances of power in a system of government cannot be treated like any other risk. This risk is posed by the government itself, and against the rights of the people they are supposed to protect, in virtue of the structure of government. The basic problem, of course, is the potential for a top-heavy (or otherwise imbalanced) power structure, which may become more interested in protecting the elite and their interests than defending the rights of the people. Furthermore, any system which allows for such a top-heavy (or imbalanced) structure is itself a risk to its own stability through the accompanying issues of trust by the people who realize the potential imbalance. These issues must be addressed in system design.
According to Libertarian principles, we should not assume that American governance turned out uniquely correct. Nevertheless, our forefathers were well aware of the problem of asymmetric power, and for this reason, the American government is specifically constructed to prevent it. Nearly every policy which is not designed to cover a basic right is a (pragmatic) hedge against the possibility of abuse of asymmetric power, from the right to not quarter soldiers, to the right to bear arms, to the right to free association and militias, to freedom of the Press, to Representational Democracy into ’three separate but equal branches’ system of government itself.
From this list, three ’hedges’ stand out: the right to bear arms; the freedom of the Press; and Representational Democracy. In this chapter we examine these, and whether they achieve there original intent today.
The right to bear arms serves two fundamental purposes. The first is the enforcement of rights in those situations where the government is not in position to provide protection. That is, it is a means to enacting your right to self-defense, which is necessary given the essential limitations of any system of law and order. The second is – in conjunction with the right to armed militias – a means of balancing power against the government itself, should the time arise where the government is not properly representing the people by protecting their rights.
For all of the issues with gun violence, it is hard to argue that basic weapons don’t serve an essential purpose of self-defense in situations where the system of law and order is doomed to fail (i.e. be too late). Outlawing guns is therefore not in the cards unless and until there is better assurance that the need for self-defense will simply not arise. It is difficult to envision a state of the world in which the need would never arise, anywhere in the country, and for now the matter of a right to hold basic arms is not on the bargaining table.1
But the right to bear arms currently fails part of its initial purpose. Initially, this right – together with the right to armed militias, not to quarter soldiers, etc. – put the citizenry on a level playing field with the government itself, technologically. This is quite clearly no longer the case. However one may argue from this to the point that one needs a right to automatic weapons or more, there will never be symmetry in this area again, de-nuclearlization or not.
More and more, therefore, the people must be assured that decision makers are protecting their rights and that they are qualified to assess risk to rights.
The fundamental balance of power in America’s current age must be information. How do you know that decision makers are protecting your rights? Keep an eye on them. Press them for information. Question and analyze what you see and here. This is a freedom of the Press. But there are three fundamental problems about disclosure.
The first is that public announcements no longer simply reach an American audience. They reach the world. In some cases this means that you have pressure from the world, through the American Press, to disclose when it is detrimental to American interests. Given the current system of informing the American public on anything (i.e. public media or nothing at all) it is difficult to see how this can be prevented.
The second is that technology and the risk-to-rights from technology make it impossible to disclose much of anything. Often one cannot publicly announce that such and such is a risk from technology without giving the idea to criminals who may in turn leverage that risk. Furthermore, often the public is not in a position to understand the risks from technology without effectively understanding the technology itself. And should you explain the technology, you may only be exposing the citizenry further.2
The third is credibility. In the current state of society, it is very difficult to know where to look for valid information on the work of government and its officials. Some major media outlets still exist, but are being drown out by a cacophony in social media. This is not helped by the the problem of trust in representation (which we deal with in the next section).
Our forefathers did not and could not have anticipated the problems for disclosure posed by weapons technology in conjunction with information technology. Considerations for weapons technology were in their infancy at the time and messages were still ridden on horseback.
Given an apparently necessary asymmetry between government and its citizenry in both force and information, it would seem that our assurance against systemic risk-to-rights should have to come from the stalwart, Representational Democracy. In principle, a representative whom we trust would do their best to walk the line between informing us of what is going on in government and not disclosing what would be detrimental (at a time and place and to an audience) to American interests. At the same time, this individual would hear what the public has to say and fight for the policies, within the government decision making process, which best protect its citizen constituents’ rights. This all sounds fine, but it fails.
The fundamental problem is that if you are in the intelligence community, the best way to prevent a representative from disclosing sensitive information is not to tell them the sensitive information. There appear to be clear cases of elected officials who cannot well keep a secret. Those elected officials, naturally, would be your last choice to tell sensitive information to. This fundamental question of what the intelligence community should disclose to an elected official is a systemic problem, because our elected officials have no particular credentials to handle sensitive information.
The risks of disclosure are great. With the exception of one-on-one conversations with constituents, what a representative says to their constituents will be equally part public announcement to a connected world. But unless the representative can be trusted with information, they are in no position whatever to know and understand the risks to the citizenry of the asymmetric advantages held by government, and are not going to be an effective member in the decision making process within government.
Most representatives have no particular qualifications to handle secure information 3 The result is that elected officials often cannot, therefore, do their job of representing the people in any way, neither as liaison or representative decision maker, because they are elected to positions for which they are not qualified. This damned if you do, damned if you don’t moment is brought to you by a system of democratic representation with no credentialing.
In the previous sections we have discussed the issue of abuse of asymmetric power as a hypothetical, but it goes without saying that the revelations on domestic spying turn that into a reality. Moreover, framing the issue as one of spying under-appreciates the problem, for where there is spying there is usually meddling. Here’s a hypothetical: if the government did target individuals for harassment, they would need to know where they are. ’Meta-data’ would help. But while we have argued that our representatives need to be better qualified, the problem neither begins nor ends with representatives who understand information technology, its potential for abuse, and are cleared to handle and discuss technological risks.
When an elected official enters office, they do so on the presumption of representing the American people and within government; but due to corporate-government collusion, we have what Eisenhower called ’The Military Industrial Complex’; it is a social network of decision makers who may seem to do what they deem fit, whether that be for America or themselves. But however they make their decisions, American’s have no assurance, in virtue of electing a public official, that this official will have any real persuasion as even a diplomat to the Military Industrial Complex, much less command over it when they enter office.
One might tend to think, but that is the military, they are people of tanks and ships and airplanes and bombs and need their industrial support to keep America safe outside of America’s view. But enter now what was called, many years ago on the Nightly News, ’The Militarization of The Intelligence Community’, and what do you get? We certainly did not elect Zuckerberg to run Facebook! And yet, he is a significant decision maker within the MICs, a person of much public persuasion, and someone who directly effects your life every day.4
The Militarization of the Intelligence Community likely resulted from 9/11 and was given the justification that America needed to be on top of any and all games of asymmetric information for the sake of managing America’s risk. It is of course important to be aware what is going to happen prior to it happening, in order to mitigate the risks to liberty. On the other hand, the Militarization of the Intelligence Community may seem largely a means of protecting the Military Industrial Complex at disrespect to the economic costs of violations to privacy, and here is the rub: The American people have no reason to trust it is more, i.e. actually protecting life at liberty, because they have no representation in the Military Industrial Complex or its expansion into the Intelligence Community.
In other words, the American people have no assurance that a game of asymmetric information5 is not being played against them by those in power. It is not unlike what Jefferson sought to defend the people against, except that in place of lies has been substituted a permanent non-disclosure; while we are placated by a relative economic prosperity, the world’s future is being decided sight unseen.
When decision making is so far removed from elected leadership on matters directly effecting the lives of current and future citizenry, how are we to trust that the citizenry are represented in the social system at all? This is the problem of indirection. Even if our elected leaders were sound, credentialed, intelligent and otherwise capable of representing their constituents – all matters which in the previous section we came to doubt – we would run into the problem that, at best, their powers are circumscribed by ’MICs’ out of their control, and at worst, the MICs control them.
In the previous sections we have reached the conclusion that in the modern age, we must more heavily rely on a system of democratic representation to find assurance that essential asymmetric advantages held by government will not be used by the government against its citizenry. We have, however, found that the current system does assure that our elected leadership can carry out their functions of liaison and representative decision maker, because they are not necessarily credentialed to handle information on technological risk-to-rights which are definitive of modern governance. It can be added here that the Intelligence Community also has no real motive to change this situation, since the current system justifies their asymmetric advantage in every regard. This is the case whether the Intelligence Community is in the business of protecting citizens rights or not, but leaves the citizenry completely without the assurance required for a stable system6 Here we ask how the system of representation could change to better represent the people, averting disaster from unstable trust.
I will not here propose an entirely new system of governance. What I want to maintain is that the people deserve leadership who are sufficiently credentialed to properly represent them on matters of risk-to-rights from technology. I tend not to believe that ordinary credentials are sufficient and that a new system of credentials is essential. I also believe that the current elected positions should not be overhauled and do serve sufficient purpose in other ways; namely, as the ’heart’ of their constituent citizenry. Nevertheless, elected information officers with required credentials should serve as their liaisons to a ’Technology Congress’; essentially making up elected members to the Intelligence Community, where matters shielded from the people are discussed openly among representatives of the people. These officials should have accessible local offices and the capacity to inform constituents of risk and policy, in a modal way, while having their ears open to new risks.
Among the capacity of such representatives would be the ability to understand models of risk7. This would require some advanced testing 8 and vetting, as well as special education. But while this may, in the end, become very technical and advanced, it is not a procedure different than other governmental qualifying exams. What would likely set it apart would be that it is very advanced and also very general, a necessity in a world in which risk cannot be silo-ed.
5.6 Environmental Policy
It is clear that the issues in this section expand beyond those of environmental policy and touch on nearly everything we know and love about America, nevertheless, we can find our footing again in the question of how we are to be assured that the current social system is not destroying the earth for future generations. The answer is that we cannot take it as an article of faith and have no real assurance as long as our elected officials do not have a watchful eye on those in industry who have a history of disregard for the environment. On the other hand, in all likelihood, our representatives have no such clearance or capacity before or after they arrive in office so the demand seems undeliverable from the start. While the trust we should put in an unelected intelligence community holding industry accountable, when they are in collusion with them (MICs), is almost zero.
I have argued here for a system of credentialing and representation which would start to fix the problem. In the next chapter, we address a matter which may seem tangential, but is actually quite central to the issues we have encountered here. The matter of educating the people and how. This is the first start toward the new system we have glimpsed above.
It is the plight of the Real Libertarian to argue from principle, on which most will agree, to a conclusion, by sound logic, which, yet, they do not. That said, I am always happy to take up an opponents principles themselves and argue, by sound logic, to a conclusion which they themselves should have to accept, provided it nevertheless supports Real Libertarian policy. It is in this latter spirit I wish here to point out the hypocrisy among our more militant “equality” mongers, who often care less about equality than they do about social control. I am always happy to take such fellows to task along the high road they see themselves as traveling, when in fact, that road is not so soundly leading to the conclusions, which are their real motive.
It is important to point out that ‘the problem’ of gender and sexual equality is and never was a problem for the Real Libertarian. If one says ‘live and let live’, and means it, why would one care what people do in private or public, as long as no damage is done? And it bears repeating the obvious: exposure to different ways of life is no real damage. It may be so perceived by those in need of travel, and I hate to burst a cultural bubble, but I wish to set ‘them’ free.
Some things are so secular-sacred that they are held as the Sacraments themselves – and with equivalent faith-based justification. To a Real Libertarian, such is no part of governance, even should the right to practice your life with such faith-based justifications be fine, provided you allow they are not a constraint on Liberties for the purpose of the Law. To the matter at hand, the Real Libertarian has to date cornered the market on arguments for freeing ‘them’. It could not be more obvious that people – even if they don’t care to look at my hairy physique – should nevertheless appreciate my right to play the hand I was dealt, without worrying for those who would rather I cloister and conduct myself alone or with a single mate, with insense or marajuana, the Bible or Netflix, wine or craft cocktails…
General arguments for exposing ‘them’ obviously come from our innate understanding that this persistent fashion of covering up is, in fact, little more than a matter of which side of the plate a knife and fork belong in a proper place setting; that ‘acting appropriate’ is little more than being forced to switch the fork to the right hand when you wish to consume the cut food rather than admire it; and our good fashion ‘tastes’, a matter of being relegated to one lump or two, as we take our mandatory afternoon tea. Of course, this appears less clear to the strictly fiscal libertarian, who comes home from their government-networked corporate job to dress in a suit and tie for a steak dinner, only to ironically complain about taxes in the name of more ‘liberty’ to have delicious and formerly sentient slaughtered swine to eat. But to the Real Libertarian, so much convention was constructed to reconsider.
The argument presented here, therefore, will not somehow rest on a pillar of Real Libertarian theory. It will be that even supposed egalitarian practitioners should admit an overhaul of a cherished secular-sacred principle is in order; the Real Libertarian has, of course, taken this as obvious all along, and there has not been much resistance to such covering for our relatively prosperous economic sedation. But the recent movement toward gender-sexual continuity begs us to force the question on our more authoritarian than egalitarian friends, whether they must concede where they wish not.
In the current milieu, where – at least in principle – hetero, polyamourous, bisexual, transgenders, are all fighting for the same companionship with possibly on-the-fence mates, it is clearly not fair to anyone that a man like me with nice nipples (all be them a little hairy) gets to show them off to prospecitve mates while others on the sidelines are bound by law to keep theirs to themselves. Any reasonable egalitarian, with a sense of fairness – which is supposed to be their thing – must admit the time is right to free the nips!
I have to admit, I am not really a nipple guy. There are exceptions, but by-n-large, I am unphased and unimpressed by the nipple. Nevertheless, there are exceptions, and a particularly attentive pair may, in our new world, be the deal maker. Very generally, it is anti-egalitarian that some (usually men) are allowed sway over a person, for their nipple preferences, and some (generally women) are not. This is in addition to the obvious, that enforcing sex-based-discrimination against Transgenders is a losing proposition, and therefore, the matter is in need of a simple and concise solution. We lance the knot.
This stance is considered an advance for sexual acceptance and equality. The forthcoming technicalities around soreness rubbing and quasi-suggestive behavior need adjudication, but are no more challenging than bathroom rights and playing Nicky Minaj in public. One may argue that such rights are for adults only – given possible perversions brought on by a society enforcing cover-up; and this suggests that the Authoritarian Left will nudge their friends on the Right to start outrage with a fire and brimstone passion against the moral degradation of America. But I would respond: like most things in the media which really get the populace riled up, the nips, too, don’t F’n matter. Women, chafe no more!
I found the cover image for this site, the same image as my kindle book ‘cover’, on the web. It was an un-copyrighted image, at least from the source at which I found it. I had hoped that by broadcasting, I could find the artist and give them credit for it, some day, if the book became noteworthy. That hope is running out.
I had considered what to do in this case. I have never plagiarized anything. If this loose image was stolen by the source that broadcasted it and which Google search picked up and broadcasted, I did the best I could to locate the artist, within reason. This image is so prominent that I did not intend to hide my use of it. It was simply so fitting of the content that it was the best thing to use.
The lawyer voice sometimes in my head said I should engineer an alternative work around. Besides the fractal generator I used for the cover of The Death Of Monsieur Bourbaki (which is entirely different tech from modern content generators, as it involves no theft of artists work, as modern generators do), I have never used a content generator at all, image, text, what have you (I have only seen others output of, even, ChatGPT and have never queried myself), but obviously, such generators are available.
Alternatively, I could have done an image on my own. Even ruling out the option of driving to Monticello, (which I would have gladly done, had I the budget), designing a cover in GIMP would not have been but a few hours (as with my cover of atheoryof.me and the filtering on my images for The Sevilla Trinity and The Alhambra Trinity, leading to the cover of my hard-copy book, The Spanish Trinity), but it would not have been justice to the artist that inspired the cover, and I was happy with their take. You might say it is just a picture of the Jefferson Memorial with green filtering. That is right. Still, it is theirs, however a lawyer may insist I instead legally maneuver, and I preferred a shot at a partnership.
Obviously intentions are a murky subject, and given my hope to protect artists not steal from them (ala ChatGPT), if the artist is not located in short order, the image will be taken down. On the other hand, I have made less than $50 on my book, while everyone in the Intelligence Community (MIIC) has read it for free. If you want to in turn blame me with legalities for not using a packaged theft for my cover image (an image generator that has no chance of being traced to the artist), that is the modern right of the rich and well positioned. The unnamed artist and I nevertheless deserve the credit.
Of further note. The Spanish translator of atheoryof.us is anonymous for her political protection.
Asian hate was all the rage for a brief time, presumably for the Trump administration’s inflaming tensions with China. The result, though perhaps involving some understandable economic tariffs and boycotts against the China machine, certainly involved a domestic ugly side. Whether or not the challenges involved in mitigating domestic tensions justified a media counter onslaught I do not care to answer. What I am more concerned with another matter, regarding domestic employment.
The most threatening aspect of Asian hate to actual Asians, as opposed to diplomatic or political positions, is in their capacity for gainful employment. It is therefore with some sadness I must relate this, all too commonly unspoken story.
I have bounced around from position to position in uncompromising fashion for some time, and it was some accomplishment to have landed where I had. I shared some very good ideas to seal the deal – and I subsequently landed the best paycheck of my life. I was living under some personal tension and always on a ticking clock, but I was happy enough with the initial work and looking forward to moving forward. It all came to a crashing halt when I was faced with a stroke of violated principle anyone could have guessed…
We were presented with a seminar on Asian hate. The main speaker was a Chinese American actor and the moderator also Far East Asian. Nothing said was over the top. Nothing suggested was likely false. There were certainly valid sentiments expressed. But all I could think about, sure enough, was me.
I am not an Asian American. I am the proverbial ”White”, but not entirely a standard American version. I am German American and you should understand that within Banking sectors – even technology – German Americans are not always so terribly welcome. Be it the prior rampant inflation within Germany or what have you, the American banking sector has been decidedly not German. So while we may talk of White privilege, there is certainly lost in this that within some sectors that privilege is not for everyone. It was therefore not without great difficulty I had gained the position I had.
And yet, I was presented with something that left me with a pit in my stomach. You see, nearly the whole team and certainly all of management was Indian (Asian Indian). I have nothing against Indian people, I never have. I have worked with many, over and over again, and the experiences have been what I expect from colleagues generally: mainly good. Still, the event and its staging and choices was a challenging one for me to accept. Because Indians naturally, equally, represent the Asian category for employment purposes, just as much as Chinese, and yet the group representatives on the hate message were chosen (?) to be prototypical (dare I mention the eyes) Asian, skirting questions of ethnic discrimination in hiring.
Of course for employment purposes, German Americans are just “White”. I could have made a fine token front-man if I had put my head down and smiled on the command, and been the walking anecdotal counter-example… Even led a session or two. So I left the company. I took an opportunity to show my face as much as possible and everywhere to give no excuse for power to nurse their grudge without cause, and when two locked-down opportunities very suddenly cut off, I left and survived a most inhospitable political climate for a year overseas (for whatever indirect grudge they had…) before this writing.
Now I am broke. But I am good with myself and that is required for integrity.
I went to a prestigious University for my Masters in Philosophy where Conspiracy was front and center. It was something of an on-going test whether your ideas were too smart or probing or suggestive for taste. This went all the way to the point that very smart people needed to make open public statements against Conspiracies in general to make it out, even when suggestions made were in fact reasonable interpretations of facts. Asking the wrong question could be enough. It was sometimes a matter of who got to know what and when, but too often it could be leveraged politically. Trapping someone by leading them into territory that logically led them to make questions which for their own sake they shouldn’t, could be performed as a game and lead one into real and physical trouble. For this and other reasons I have made the suggestion of elections into the Intelligence Community. Writing and publishing atheoryof.us was very bold for someone like me (atheoryof.me). Whatever comes of me please don’t forget. In the end it really was a logical integrity that saved me, despite any and all creativity I display in these or other writings. But yes, Trump and other’s are making my case for a democratic IC (or MIC) easy. The need for at least representation among those with resources to understand the truth couldn’t be more apparent, whether you support the left or the right side of the aisle. I hope that turns blessing over the current curse.
I expected “Hamilton” to be a rather elaborate defense of The Eye of The Pyramid and it was certainly that. I did not expect a serious downplaying of Jefferson’s role in the Revolution, in a bit of New York slight on DC, even if Jefferson and Hamilton were rivals. There was some amends made in referencing Jefferson’s diplomatic work recruiting French support, while referencing Hamilton’s political neutrality on France’s own Revolution. And certainly, in terms of Character assessment, Hamilton’s enthusiasm for duels – that most manly of 1700 pissing contests – at the expense of his wife and family speaks far greater volumes than a brief adulterous affair; the effects of this were not down-played.
I cannot help but write my favorite Jefferson quote: “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” He wrote it in the context of religion, but that wisdom applies to money all the same, as Jefferson knew. Still, in so far as popularizing interest in American History, I do think “Hamilton” does more good than harm; and I think we can all agree with Burr’s sentiments in the end: The world is wide enough for both Hamilton and Us.
We shouldn’t take the actions of the police in Minnesota lightly, but we should also not be blind to the fact that the violence we are seeing is a result of a more systemic injustice and difficulty, exacerbated by current economic conditions. That more systemic injustice and difficulty you can say is based on economic inequality, but in reality it is rooted in a systemic inequality in our education system. In saying this I do not doubt the intelligence – or capacity to be informed – of those rioting and luting (and of course not those protesting). I say this because education is the foundation of economic and social equality and stability, and we have known for some time that we are failing people of color in education.
I say it is a ‘difficulty’ and not simply an injustice, because education is long and it is strenuous. The difficulty is in the length of the eductation process: the ability to see a better world at the end of the study, the patience and persistence needed to complete an education. Even if our education systems changed to address the inequalities and overnight, the actual fruit of this metamorphasis would not be born for decades down the line, while this and that quick-fix promising to heal and now would be proposed to divert those from the necessary hard work to overcome the more systemic issue; some even going so far as to fight the required hard work by undermining the content of that education as not of value to this or that people; an argument which can seem compelling when one senses a need for a fix and now. Sadly, the process need be slow and steady – even if the start toward change should come quickly.
If there is a good to come out of this challenge to America, let it be in a quick change to educational inequality, and a realization of the need for patience, not chaos, in the long process to follow.
This piece is written on occasion of my cousin Lauren’s graduation – love you and congratulations!
It is only with great ignorance that we expect our elected officials to have the intellectual toolset required to grapple with most modern social and environmental issues. Social and Environmental threats and cures represent the height of complexity in decision making, and law makers rarely have the technological familiarity to appreciate the issues nor the mathematical background to comprehend them even if guided. This entails that our elected officials generally cannot be in a position to make the correct decisions on tough issues and must instead defer to their advisors, whether they received credit/blame to the public’s eye or not.
That this disconnect is not readily visible to ordinary citizens is what keeps our current form of democracy afloat. But it is becoming more and more apparent to more and more people, during the current coronavirus pandemic, that there is such a disconnect. It is becoming more and more clear that no amount of informing our leaders will put them in a position to do what they were elected to do: make decisions. But even as this becomes clear, there is probably the false impression that MDs are needed in office. The truth is that MDs as a whole would be more qualified than most politicians, but as a whole they fail to have the training in complex decision making and the technology which makes complex decision making possible.
What is needed is a new kind of toolset, with a new kind of credentials, to complement the current legal system. It is what I have called in atheoryof.us a ‘Technology Congress’ and the credentialing – though perhaps initially borrowing from technical professions – would entail familiarity with the requisite technology and mastery of the required mathematics. In point of fact, this Technology Congress would do less to change the way things actually work than it may seem. Today we have an opaque Intelligency Community of de facto decision makers filling the role which our elected officials cannot. But in point of fact, we have no reason to trust these decision makers, because they were not elected by the people – this trust, if I need remind you, is what Democracy is for. Without it we are relying on benevolance of the well positioned, and history often does not speak highly of such people.
Upon reflecting on my take on U.S. diplomacy in this blog (‘Obama’s Diplomatic Legacy’), I have to ask whether Trump was specifically the antidote to a good image for the U.S. abroad, funded by a New York Wall Street guard who prefer global power reside with the U.N. in the seat of New York’s influence rather than with American ideals embodied in, say, Jefferson or Lincoln or, yes, Obama. Not since the sinking of the General Slocum have we seen a ship go under so quickly as American Diplomacy, as a result of its losing leverage as a place where people coexist. This is eerily Civil War material, were it not the result of an adversarial foreign influence America knows already all too well. One can’t forget that the seat of KGB influence in America is in New York; and they are there because that is where the money is. They know all too well that their ambitions had been previously lost to economics. It is time that America take back its Economy, and that does not happen by feeding from the Devil’s hand.