Supervillain State

If any single nation state today has completely dropped the pretense of a social contract, North Korea counts. The fact it's a got state-sponsored organized crime syndicate or two is just the tip of the iceberg.

Merry Christmas from Supervillainy

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Finance and geopolitics offer plenty of supervillainy potential this year. It'll be a wild ride.

Abuse of Authority

One of the trademarks of supervillainy, as opposed to mere corruption, is the institutionalization of what we typically call abuse of power. Power becomes exercised for its own sake, rather than any constructive or even feigned positive use. Case in point: abuse of eminent domain to benefit real estate developers at the expense of locals. Given the trends around the world, this can and will continue to get worse. 

Lockdown

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." -Ike Eisenhower

It is no secret many places in the US and abroad are starting to resemble the old Soviet Union. Legalized theft is not merely for well-connected firms, nor has been for a while. Warrantless surveillance expands into domestic law enforcement due to 'mission creep' and post hoc justification. Combining this with a predatory prison industrial complex, political momentum can easily lead to an open air gulag that easily surpasses North Korea.

When everyone is an outlaw, the most ruthless tend to dominate. Interestingly, there was a part of the (long dead) US Bill of Rights known as the Tenth Amendment. The 10th Amendment was intended to allow states and individuals rights that were not officially stated under the 'standard' Bill of Rights. Today, some activists have considered using "nullification," against policies they consider illegal. They were employed by civil libertarians, drug legalization activists, gun activists, and so on in various ways.

The fundamental theory, however, is a solid one for a free society. Instead of "Why should we let you," the question was "Why shouldn't we let you?" The idea of WHY NOT instead of WHY would you need something (applied from drugs to weapons to automobiles to other things) appears largely alien to the politics of the 1970s through the present. Perhaps the Boomers were used to bureaucracy, and hoped to create a system to prevent individual suffering. There are cases where it is understandable (particularly dealing with, say, radioactive materials and handling dangerous pathogens), but some where it gets rather arbitrary. Some laws are often drafted in ignorance of the subject matter at hand, but others are not. The problem of a security state where EVERYTHING is banned by default is that anyone can go to jail for spontaneous behavior, and it is not particularly conducive to creativity. It is, of course, a boon for those who wish to make the world into a prison with themselves as the warden. 

Rising Supervillainy vs. Sousveillance

The recent revelations on X-Keyscore come at a time when the English speaking world is putting the final nails in the coffin of individual rights, the basis of civil society. While the latest surveillance system raises more questions as to the nature of its implementation and infrastructure, its existence is proof of the absolute contempt for citizens' rights that the "Free World" once prided itself on.

This is not an isolated trend. From the US to even New Zealand, politicians are eager to justify increasingly unpopular spying. Part of me wonders if the rush of these bills are not intended for future implementation, but rather post-hoc justification for questionable activities that have been going on for some time. Given the communication between the 'Five Eyes' intelligence agencies (especially in the post-9/11 chaos),  this may not be totally out of the question.

However, an interesting dynamic remains. What if the public were given access directly to these tools? Not merely knowledge of their existence (as Snowden and other whistleblowers had provided), but allowed to view politicians and their own requests/demands for information? Imagine a bill allowing public recognition of an administration's information demands, requests, and the like disclosed after they leave office. Of course, the statue of legal limitations regarding certain crimes would definitely be a point of contention. The surveillance infrastructure exists (and can break common types of encryption), so why not allow taxpayers to turn it against the would be kleptocrats that currently control it?