When I was first exposed to libertarian ideas, I thought that the US government was in good shape but could be greatly improved. I had a naive belief that I could persuade others as easily as I persuaded myself. I was mistaken.
People complain about the government, but they do not want to change much. Also, as imperfect as the status quo is, people don't like the idea of repealing a lot of stuff without knowing what will take its place. People are skeptical about radical solutions to things they don't see as problems. Voluntary, decentralized solutions have many advantages over coercive, centralized approaches, but they must grow organically, and we face a difficult task in getting started. If we wait around for political solutions, we will be waiting a long time. We need concrete demo projects, things when we can accomplish something and build.
On the other hand, the Internet, cell phones, etc. have changed us. I hope that things like Wikipedia, kickstarter, Facebook, and twitter are just the beginning of a new civil society.
As a result, I want to cultivate alternatives to government, provide proofs of concept for giving jobs to civil society that currently depend on tax finance. This may be no less difficult, but at least one will have something to show for one's efforts at the end of the day, whereas in a political fight, the winner takes all and the losers' efforts are mostly wasted.
The objectives: expose the coercion in the current system, delegitimize it. Offer non-coercive alternatives. We should not depend on political success, but should not reject it, either. I have trouble imagining any positive use of politics, other than repeal of defective legislation. I'm biased, so we may find unexpected opportunities.
Here are some projects worth looking at: Fr33aid (http://www.fr33aid.com/), porc411 (http://porcupine411.com/), liberty engineers, freedom box (http://freedomboxfoundation.org/)?
I want everything to be transparent, though this can be a challenge. Morale boosting in reach can tend toward us-them enemy imagery, which is lots of fun but looks bad to outsiders. I want to avoid that vice. I should want anything I write to end up on the front page of the NYT. I hope I am up to the challenge.
Issues:
Opportunities: activist groups learn and accomplish. DIY self-knowledge. List government services, try to compete.
Outrages: photocrime, TSA, botched drug raids, DMCA abuse, Patriot act, NDAA, stop and frisk
Outreach for protolibertarians
Outreach for anti libertarians
Product or social activity that competes with, supplements, or supplants the status quo
Alliances
Tactics: false positive DOS, fragility, delegitimize, infiltrate, compete, go viral, persuade the public
Who is the intended audience?
How will other audiences respond?
What is the objective? Will your dance partner follow your lead?
bitcoin Emule BitTorrent TOR FLOSS SSL/TLS
Gandhi, MLK, Allinsky, Gene Sharp
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Saturday, October 27, 2012
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" as constitutional amendment.
The principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse is seen as a limit on ordinary people. This was not unreasonable back in the days of common law. The nanny state has made it into a joke. What if we reframed it as a limit on government?
The legislature would need to produce a brief and clear set of laws. The executive would need to give some lawbreakers a warning on their first offense. Judges could throw out cases based on incomprehensible laws. And good citizens could actually be expected to know the rules of the game.
I'm not sure it relates directly, but I want to toss this in: Reserve violent punishment for violent offenses. Let the punishment fit the crime.
The legislature would need to produce a brief and clear set of laws. The executive would need to give some lawbreakers a warning on their first offense. Judges could throw out cases based on incomprehensible laws. And good citizens could actually be expected to know the rules of the game.
I'm not sure it relates directly, but I want to toss this in: Reserve violent punishment for violent offenses. Let the punishment fit the crime.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
comment on UPB page 44-45 universality
In mid page 44, Molyneux begins discussing universality. A moral theory "must be applicable to all people." So no one can be exempt. He makes no mention of different circumstances. Can a "universal" moral principle specify circumstances where different sorts of behaviour are required or prohibited?
Molyneux often uses physical metaphors. He makes analogies with "all rocks must fall down." But what about the behaviour or state of water, which is a solid at low temperatures, a gas at high temperatures, and a liquid in between? A complete physical theory would explain all these phenomena in combination, and in some sense be universal. But the theory must predict/explain different sorts of results for experiments regarding water performed at different temperatures and air pressures. Can a moral theory include descriptions of different prescriptions and proscriptions that depend on the circumstances of the persons involved?
If I used logic to derive a moral rule, and nothing in the derivation referred to circumstances or specifics other than that the rule applied to a human, we could generalize it to all humans. Actually, a moral rule would need to refer to the moral agency of the subject, since moral rules cannot apply to babies or incapacitated persons.
What sorts of circumstances might change the application of a moral rule? Ownership? Can I use deadly violence to defend someone else who is in danger from an aggressor? In another part of the book, Molyneux states that moral rules should apply to persons in a coma, yet not to persons with diminished intellectual capacity.
Is there some transformation that we can perform on my imperftect, circumstance driven rules, to turn them into universal rules, in the way that we might consider a universal theory of water to include information about ice and steam?
Molyneux often uses physical metaphors. He makes analogies with "all rocks must fall down." But what about the behaviour or state of water, which is a solid at low temperatures, a gas at high temperatures, and a liquid in between? A complete physical theory would explain all these phenomena in combination, and in some sense be universal. But the theory must predict/explain different sorts of results for experiments regarding water performed at different temperatures and air pressures. Can a moral theory include descriptions of different prescriptions and proscriptions that depend on the circumstances of the persons involved?
If I used logic to derive a moral rule, and nothing in the derivation referred to circumstances or specifics other than that the rule applied to a human, we could generalize it to all humans. Actually, a moral rule would need to refer to the moral agency of the subject, since moral rules cannot apply to babies or incapacitated persons.
What sorts of circumstances might change the application of a moral rule? Ownership? Can I use deadly violence to defend someone else who is in danger from an aggressor? In another part of the book, Molyneux states that moral rules should apply to persons in a coma, yet not to persons with diminished intellectual capacity.
Is there some transformation that we can perform on my imperftect, circumstance driven rules, to turn them into universal rules, in the way that we might consider a universal theory of water to include information about ice and steam?
what happened to the cypherpunks?
I hope they all went underground on a darknet, or something. Kinda boring if they just quit.
EFF is still plugging away.
The TOR project is trying to make it possible to browse the web without getting tracked.
In Europe you may be able to vote for one of the pirate parties. We need one in the US - does the LP count?
The crypto project seems to want to pick up the cypherpunk torch.
I2P is an anonymizing network.
News from Bruce Schneier.
crypto.is has an irc channel for discussion of crypto/privacy.
https://www.calyxinstitute.org/
Bitcoin may realize David Chaum's dream of digital cash, but that phenomenon deserves its own post.
Second Realm is an online mini book PDF inspired by TAZ, crypto-anarchy, and agorism, but trying hard to be more practical.
EFF is still plugging away.
The TOR project is trying to make it possible to browse the web without getting tracked.
In Europe you may be able to vote for one of the pirate parties. We need one in the US - does the LP count?
The crypto project seems to want to pick up the cypherpunk torch.
I2P is an anonymizing network.
News from Bruce Schneier.
crypto.is has an irc channel for discussion of crypto/privacy.
https://www.calyxinstitute.org/
Bitcoin may realize David Chaum's dream of digital cash, but that phenomenon deserves its own post.
Second Realm is an online mini book PDF inspired by TAZ, crypto-anarchy, and agorism, but trying hard to be more practical.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
"Workers of the world, Avakian!"
I finally had a chance to listen to Cornell West's interview with Bob Avakian. (http://www.smileyandwest.com/this-weeks-show/take-em-to-task-from-russia-with-love/#more-4775) I enjoyed it much more than I expected I would. I suppose that is because Avakian stuck to complaining about actual problems, only briefly pretended to care anything about science, and avoided explaining what he thinks the cause and cure of the problems might be, other than "put Bob in charge". If you put the word 'crony' in front of 'capitalism' every time he said it, I could agree with nearly everything he said. I am curious how many police home invasions per day and nonviolent people in prison would be enough to convince him that fascism has arrived.
I suspect that power would corrupt him instantly. He clearly thinks Stalin and Mao got it mostly right, and if he had a chance he would improve on their examples in a way that would never allow those pesky artists, democracy advocates, or entrepreneurs to disrupt his prison world. He has no credible cure for the ills he diagnoses. He worships equality and sees markets as sacrilege, and anyone who opposes him is in for some trouble. I wonder what he thinks of the Scandinavian social democracies?
One thing I should learn from his negative example - don't stick to the same old strategies for 40 years, if they don't work. Of course, maybe they *are* working for him, and he's actually quite happy with the status of his revolution - not enough partisans to start building barricades, but a sufficient number to pay for his lifestyle.
comment on UPB page 125 appendix A
This is UPB in a nutshell. It should probably have been put somewhere earlier in the book. It doesn't really help me. There are 12 points, which summarize Molyneux's definitions and arguments. Except the conclusion is left out?
At this point, I can almost make an argument that I think restates Molyneux's ideas. I'm frustrated because I'm still not really sure that I am even close.
One thing has become very clear. Molyneux regards someone who uses language in the ordinary way, especially to argue for or against general propositions, to have affirmed some additional propositions simply by engaging in this activity. His best example of this depicts someone trying to argue that he himself, the person arguing, does not exist.
For me to argue that I do not exist, I must argue. To argue, I must exist. So however brilliant my argument for my own non-existence may be, it entails a contradiction, which indicates that at least one of my assumptions is wrong and my conclusion cannot follow from my argument. Since the contradiction arises from what I am doing rather than what I am saying, it is called a 'performative contradiction.'
Molyneux seems to believe that he has discovered a number of additional propositions implied by the activity of arguing, and he bases his argument largely on these.
Molyneux writes:
"Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false."
Is this the heart of UPB? Is this all he wants to say? Then, armed with his battery of performative contradictions, he can set about confirming or contradicting various moral theories.
I should review some of his critiques of various theories, to try to understand what sort of performative contradictions he is using and what it is about the defective theories that he finds illogical or contrary to evidence.
One approach I remember, was that in his discussion of murder he took the approach that the only two rules that UPB would allow on ground of universality were "always kill" or "never kill," and he eliminated "always kill" by pointing out that it was impractical, failed the coma test, etc. What I still don't understand is why he expects us to be willing to consider only those 2 options. He further confuses me by using "murder" instead of "kill", but this is begging the question, since the definition of 'murder' is "wrongful killing." (I saw this point on the internet, I wish I had a link to the original.)
At this point, I can almost make an argument that I think restates Molyneux's ideas. I'm frustrated because I'm still not really sure that I am even close.
One thing has become very clear. Molyneux regards someone who uses language in the ordinary way, especially to argue for or against general propositions, to have affirmed some additional propositions simply by engaging in this activity. His best example of this depicts someone trying to argue that he himself, the person arguing, does not exist.
For me to argue that I do not exist, I must argue. To argue, I must exist. So however brilliant my argument for my own non-existence may be, it entails a contradiction, which indicates that at least one of my assumptions is wrong and my conclusion cannot follow from my argument. Since the contradiction arises from what I am doing rather than what I am saying, it is called a 'performative contradiction.'
Molyneux seems to believe that he has discovered a number of additional propositions implied by the activity of arguing, and he bases his argument largely on these.
Molyneux writes:
"Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false."
Is this the heart of UPB? Is this all he wants to say? Then, armed with his battery of performative contradictions, he can set about confirming or contradicting various moral theories.
I should review some of his critiques of various theories, to try to understand what sort of performative contradictions he is using and what it is about the defective theories that he finds illogical or contrary to evidence.
One approach I remember, was that in his discussion of murder he took the approach that the only two rules that UPB would allow on ground of universality were "always kill" or "never kill," and he eliminated "always kill" by pointing out that it was impractical, failed the coma test, etc. What I still don't understand is why he expects us to be willing to consider only those 2 options. He further confuses me by using "murder" instead of "kill", but this is begging the question, since the definition of 'murder' is "wrongful killing." (I saw this point on the internet, I wish I had a link to the original.)
proportional budgeting
What if we switched to a form of proportional representation that put a portion of the budget under the control of each party? When I fill out my income taxes each year, I also register my political party, and the taxes I pay go into a separate budget under the control of my party? People could be entitled to government benefits (or not entitled) depending on their party membership. So the Democrats could produce whatever handouts they liked, and Republicans could build fences. If I'm a centrist, maybe I could start a centrist party, or just split my taxes between R & D.
Other government revenue would be split proportionately among the parties.
Hayek described something vaguely similar in his "Constitution of Liberty" if I recall correctly. I think he had a separate body determining the amount of the budget, and then a parliament could wrangle over how to spend the budget.
Government debts? Okay, I need to think about this a while. Any suggestions?
Other government revenue would be split proportionately among the parties.
Hayek described something vaguely similar in his "Constitution of Liberty" if I recall correctly. I think he had a separate body determining the amount of the budget, and then a parliament could wrangle over how to spend the budget.
Government debts? Okay, I need to think about this a while. Any suggestions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)