Cold Constructs Blog

credit: unknown

By far the biggest hurdle that grand innovations have to jump over is the law. The internet is the most recent grand innovation as it has changed the way we work, live and play. It’s more than a new frontier though since it not only freely gives individuals some of the productive powers previously held by commercial enterprises, but it also provides everyone with communicative powers that were previously impossible. So of course it’s going to break new ground on a scale that bares no precedent and change the rules of civilization entirely. Yet the problem is not public acceptance of the change — it’s the government that must be forced to accept it.

It is believed that the government makes laws and the people follow them. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Governments were actually established to formalize existing rules that spontaneously emerged from the day-to-day interactions of people holding common ground. Communities didn’t suddenly decide they wanted a few of their members to boss them around — they simply wanted to enforce their existing unwritten rules in order to prevent disputes that arise from a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of those rules. They needed a formalized set of laws that were clear to everyone. (This worked so well that they expanded the laws to encompass everyone of their culture. Voila, the nation-state.)

So when something as disruptive as the internet comes around, it is the government’s job to mediate the progress and, when the new patterns of behavior emerge and settle, to finally formalize those patterns as laws.

Unfortunately no one in office quite understands this historical process and so people continually have to fight the very government they established themselves in order to get it to do its job properly.

A nice article by Timothy B. Lee over at Ars Technica details this process by comparing the development of the internet with the development of property rights. Abundant land was a disruptive condition that current laws could not handle. But instead of adapting to the new conditions, the government fought to preserve old laws that clearly no longer applied (they’re just doing what they were told). Eventually the gov had no choice but to adapt to the people’s informal arrangements. It only took a few decades.

If we are to keep pace with the river of creativity and inventiveness that flows through our society, we will need to establish a political system that is just as swift and flexible. It’s a matter of trusting the ‘wisdom of the crowds’ and seeing patterns as quickly as they emerge — not acting brashly but at least be understanding of the process. If there’s a new medium that undermines almost every industrial-era business model, it should be pretty easy to spot. If you can’t see it, you should at least see the massive paradigm shift it’s leaving in its wake. In the case of the internet, it’s all of the court hearings being brought onto people who are simply acting the way that made the most sense to them — eg “I bought this CD, but I’d like to listen to it on my mp3 player or computer, so I’ll rip it.” Now it’s turning into “fuck CDs, I want download everything because it’s easier and even better.”

The onslaught of court cases should be the tell-tale sign of the shift, telling business and its laws that it needs to change because, quite simply, it’s the ‘common person’ who writes the rules and we’ve already done so. They can either catch up or we’ll force them to adapt. It’s kind of weird though, talking about ‘us’ and ‘them’ — they’re members of this society too, right? So what’s their problem?

Update: Probably this.

I played my favorite game (devil’s advocate) on a fun subject (empires). Turns out that the only times when civilizations made great strides (both technologically and culturally) were during times when there was an empire that ruled the known (civilized) world. The ancient Greek and Romans (who were ruined by “savages”, interestingly enough), Persia, east Asia, and the British empire. Since then the human society has converged into a global CAS–worthy civs are now surrounded by other civs with only tribes at the fringes. This CAS is quite violent, in fact it appears to be in a state of nature not unlike Hobbes’ vision of such a situation. There were many wars, but with every war there is a winner. The two World Wars determined this–it was to be the United States, the new world empire. Since then it’s been relatively quiet and the global CAS has seen developments we could not have imagined before the World Wars, with the US leading the way. The US has her armies spread across Earth, arms extended, holding back other would-be powers from causing a ruckus. And so the US is humanity’s police.

From this I gathered that we do, in fact, need an empire to keep things cool. Looking back I can see that technology has allowed this global empire to emerge–how else could you handle bouts in the Middle East while sitting in Washington DC?

Take another look. How has technology changed since this emergence? That is, how have we progressed in the past half-century? Clearly we’ve come a long way. Our communication systems most of all have gone from centralized, wired telephones to peer-based wireless computers. The question is, does this make a difference? Do we still need empire?

Depends on what you want. If it’s technological advancements, then yes, there needs to be a nation-state powerful enough to invent new stuff. Yes, we can innovate without industry, but only with things we already have–in other words, new spins on the old. If you want something as powerful as plastics, mass production, global communication systems and all that… you need a comparably powerful infrastructure to build it.

But again, look at the situation now: we have tech that allows us to communicate across the globe in mere seconds. The empires of yore didn’t have this capability. Modern empires (ones with telephones, radios, networked computers) can expand their empire much more easily while retaining solid coherence. Old empire posts essentially reverted back to the local culture, so the only difference after they were conquered was that they paid taxes to someone far far away.

This same capability can be used in the opposite way: a decentralized coalition of nations can fill the power vacuum that the empire used to, so an empire is no longer needed for progression. Of course I must point out that no progression at all is probably our best bet for survival at the moment. But I’m having too much fun, so we’ll leave that point aside. You see, an empire provided protection for her colonies, but this network of smaller nations can have an ad hoc military–one that exists only when needed (ie citizen’s army). If there’s a threat, they use the badass comm tech we’ve grown to take for granted and amass a force powerful enough to eliminate the threat, then disband. The beginnings of such a force are forming in the European Union–Britain and France are actually building three aircraft carriers which will roll out sometime in the next decade. They’re not doing this as an official EU thing, but it’s still significant as a inter-European venture, but probably not the first.

The problem is, massive military structures like those carriers are not needed and in fact a waste of resources since their upkeep is ridiculous. But then again, these carriers will be highly automated. Ah, technology to the rescue once more. If they use even more technology (say, harvest the H2 from the ocean, harness the wild winds, strong currents, and elastic waves to use as fuel for propellant and power or all of the above) those leviathans would suddenly disappear on Gaia’s radar, generating energy as it needs on its own without disrupting its environment.

So. We used to need empires to prevent random outbreaks of violence. But now… we still do. In order for a global CAS to function properly (the one with an ad hoc defensive mechanism), its agents have to share equal interest. This means you can’t have religions blowing things and people up all the time–the agents have to mind their own businesses. From there the CAS emerges as trade routes are established for cultural goods. Each agent must be entirely self-sufficient, but to spice things up (variety is the spice of life and always in demand) they trade one unique cultural product for the others’, and good times are had. So until the Middle East blows itself up for just grows up, the human world needs someone at the top to keep the flames at bay. Sometimes that means we have to use our own flames to prevent a bigger disaster. It’s the same concept as controlled burns in forests. Of course we’re only human so we make mistakes, like the US invading Iraq (yeah they had WMDs, but they were moved long before we got there). So shit happens, deal with it, move along, mind your business, have fun, and good luck. In that order.

We don’t need to conquer the world. We don’t need to kill people in other countries.

We can learn from history. The Swiss didn’t have a standing army–they had an armed citizenry. Every man was issued an assault rifle which he used to shoot as many bullseyes on paper targets as quickly as possible at sporting competitions. They managed to not get conquered during both world wars because they had this brilliant idea to stay neutral. Plus they were known to be excellent marksmen, resilient, and numerous (every man had a gun). Despite the fantastic resources the Swiss controlled, Hitler wasn’t about to mess with an armed citizenry.

Know this: the day you let others protect you is the day you lose your freedom. Now they control you, and you have no means to defend yourself from them.

Besides, what does any government agency care for your freedom? They care, by their very nature, for their power and their ability to increase that power. We put too much trust in these men who learn the motto of “Duty, Honor, Country” at West Point yet produce no men who will refuse an illegal order.

The result of this process is that we as a country have become the arms merchants our grandparents hated so much that after the First World War they called them “merchants of death.” When you wonder why the mythical “peace process” does not work in the Middle East just think about what kinds of weapons the various armies are using. The Russians can no longer keep up and their weapons showed up poorly in the Persian Gulf War so now it’s time for guns, tanks and planes stamped “Made in USA.” We are sponsoring the very wars about which our political leaders and diplomats claim to be so “concerned.” We are responsible in fact, for murder on a global scale.

Source. He gets a little carried away in the end, but nevertheless I stand by his words as truth. The articles I linked to said what I wanted to, so read them. Here’s more info on the Swiss and their citizenry.

Our forefathers knew that every nation that disarmed its citizens, and who ceased to depend upon militias for its defense, relying instead upon standing armies, inevitably embarked upon an imperialistic policy abroad and authoritarian rule at home, and eventually destroyed itself. [Another good read.]

If you like quotes from our founding fathers, check out what Jefferson thought: There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.

It’s common knowledge that in a large group of people, most are idiots. Herd behavior takes over and suddenly everyone turns stupid. It is also true that power corrupts. Put the two together and you have the structure of a business - a large group of people and one powerful person at the top. Now, do you think that this entity should be granted the same rights as you and me? This stupid, corrupt, and powerful entity?

Corporations have a lot of money, and since our government runs on money, corporations have proven to be very influential indeed. This needs to stop.

For-profit businesses should not be allowed to fund any government campaign. Their interests are strictly monetary, this much is obvious, so of course they’re going to get anyone in power that will give them the market edge. They should not be able to set up a non-profit arm and fund campaigners that way either. Every corporation, no matter who is in it, should be examined thoroughly to make sure they have no connections to any businesses.

This is only the beginning of the kind of reform business law needs. I’ll keep editing this post with more suggestions, but I need this up now for the above post.

The RealID Act passed unanimously, not because it was a good idea (horrible idea, actually, and several Senators voiced their concerns, but it wasn’t allowed any debate), but because it rode on a bill titled “Emergency Appropriations for the War on Terror and Tsunami Relief” (HR1268). Any opposition to something like that would mean no re-election, no matter what was attached to it. This is a Very Bad Idea. People from both parties (and any other party, and independents) recognize this fact and agree.

The solution to shit like this is so unbelievably obvious that I have become paranoid about secret societies threatening officials if they were to rid the system of such a flaw. The solution is thus: Only make laws on one matter at a time–absolutely NO amendments or additions of any kind are to be attached to a bill. If this happened, HR1268 wouldn’t have passed, even if there were any attached language, because the title itself points to two completely different things: defense and foreign aid. Granted they’re both about receiving funds (”emergency funds” no less, meaning “don’t even think about this bill, much less debate–just pass it or we’ll all die!”). However, money is not an end, it’s a means, so any bill about money can only be about money going to one specific thing, and nothing else. Thus, “Emergency Appropriations for the War on Terror and Tsunami Relief” would have been split up to be “Emergency Appropriations for the War on Terror” and “Emergency Appropriations for Tsunami Relief,” with no other language in it–it would simply state how much would be appropriated and where that money would come from. That’s it.

Requiring bills to be so incredibly simple and minimalistic would make it difficult to sneak in self-serving legislation. That, and they need to be written in plain English. Not political bullshit.