Gates of Tomorrow, Problems of Yesterday

"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." -Friedrich Nietzsche

--

Sometimes, stupidity is a non-survival trait. From Darwin Awards to idiotic politicians to would be neofeudal overlords, stupidity and incompetence seem to rule the roost. This is not due to the individuals necessarily being stupid, not at all. There are very good professionals and clever people employed by governments, universities, and corporations. The problem is, the institutions they work for either ignore, misinterpret, or perform the wrong responses.

For example, climate change is reported to pose a grave threat to human civilization. The "brilliant" response? Send intelligence agencies and cops after environmental protestors, despite the fact it would make more long term strategic, economic, and political sense to encourage a shift to relocalized food, utility, and power sources. Now, such a movement would cost money, but given the titanic costs of maintaining a failing infrastructure, tax loopholes for fossil fuel exploitation, and accounting tricks to rig the stock market, it pails in comparison. Politicians expertly cater themselves to short term interests at almost a  complete and total ignorance of the long term.

This may be the tragic result of human awareness, which focuses mainly on immediate gratification. As the Boomer generation used to living beyond its means shuffles off this mortal coil, they're leaving a political, legal, economic, and environmental trainwreck behind them.

Each generation likes blaming their own youth for their own problems, but also uses every dirty trick to maintain their dominance. If immortality were made practical and cheap for the masses, one wonders if a gerontocracy run by Boomers would be a fusion of 1984's surveillance state and Brave New World's mindless hedonism. Tomorrow's problems have their roots today, all because of lacking the urge to be a good ancestor.*

*=Not necessarily an ancestor in the sense of having a family, but being an ancestor in the sense of leaving a positive contribution to the world for the future.

The Distributed Republic

While the rotting husk of civilization is devoured by writhing maggots, many despair there is no alternative. This is untrue, as the failure of one mode of civilization often heralds the arrival of another. Does this mean that the developed world will collapse into a Mad Max-style scavenger world? Given the amount of engineers, technicians, and mechanics alive today, nothing short of a near-total extinction event would set do that. A widespread loss of technical knowledge is a rare event historically, and often is more a pressure to develop (or redevelop) technologies in new directions. Even with a catastrophic and sudden collapse of imports, a significant amount of materials can still be scavenged from landfills, wreckage, and other detritus. 

 

However, political and economic institutions have not kept pace with other technologies. As encrypted cyber-currencies, desktop manufacturing, home renewables, and mesh networks continue to spread, reliance on centralized infrastructure continues to decline. Laws and regulations on such technologies can only delay or hinder the inevitable. Climate change and resource depletion can easily strike at fragile global logistics changes. The status quo aims to sustain the unsustainable for as long as it can, and it will fight like a cornered animal. What could fill the void as a financial, rent-seeking kleptocracy over-expands its grip?

 

 The parasitic plutocrats would tell you that you need to surrender more rights, despite that approach not working. A smart “successor paradigm” would be able to navigate the laws of the “old order,” allow people to produce locally, and connect globally. It would be (at least somewhat) self-sufficient with regards to food, power, water, and manufacturing. In the event of a physical threat, it would have defenses and armed security. In the event of a legal threat, it would have access to lawyers and expert witnesses. Given the directions and trends of relevant technologies, a mostly self-contained enclave would not be out of the question.  

While the Seasteading Institute and Blue Seed projects attempt vaguely similar goals, my proposed approach retrofits existing infrastructure at a fraction of the cost rather than rely on capital-intensive construction of offshore platforms. While such an enclave could be a fortress, it could network with other enclaves like it to share policy, technical designs, and other information. Even if one enclave was under “attack,” it would be assisted by its peers. Now, how might such an organization be set up? First, you need perhaps a few dozen people around the world and the financial resources behind it (perhaps crowdfunding and clever deployment of volunteers, PR, and donations could help with that). A related concept is to sell “shares” in the community, in the spirit of co-op housing. Each shareholder in the community is a voter and offers to share within the social contract. A social contract and constitution would be composed, although it may be altered later. 

The next step would be acquiring real estate in various places around the world. Decrepit urban slums, rural land, or devalued suburbs could all be good places to start. Construction of new buildings or retrofitting of existing structures would occur, perhaps using tools like Open Source Ecology’s Global Village Construction Set or 3D printed building components.

Once the settlement is ready and population is moved in, you would need to hold elections. A security expert, legal expert, medical expert, technical expert, and the like might be selected, as well as an executive committee for leading. From here, the town could begin conducting business with its neighbors and/or its counterparts across the world. Legislative democracy could be handled in the manner of the Swiss, with a bicameral legislature consisting of direct democracy and another being a more “conventional” parliament or congress or senate (although term limits of some kind may be a prudent idea). Any citizen could propose legislation, and if it does not pass, the legislative body may propose counter-legislation as a compromise (or vice-versa). An Anglo-American styled Bill of Rights would serve as another layer of protection of civic rights. To prevent against kneejerk style legislation, legislation could be revived later after a “cool-down” period. A supreme judicial analog could assist with that. 

 

There could be a division between the rights that the distributed republic allows and the legal rights the “host country” allows. Say, there are differences in weapons policy. The distributed republic allows for a particular type of firearm to be held within its enclave that the host country does not. A “solution” could be for the distributed republic to “technically” own the firearm and complete whatever paperwork/permits/etc. for the person in question. (This likewise ensures the distributed republic is particular over who they hand out similar firearms to.) Likewise, this is why self-sufficiency is an admirable goal, being able to produce much of what they need in the event of an “embargo” or isolation from infrastructure.  

However, such a structure could also be used for “evil.” Imagine some of the kleptocrats jumping ship to small gated enclaves as everything else falls apart (as is common in cyberpunk literature). Or worse, imagine a mad cult (such as Aum Shinrikyo 2.0) with a similar structure spreading across the world in a similar way.

Keep in mind that less-savory nations exist today, but that does not prevent their neighbors from taking precautions. The old fashioned method of conquest becomes much harder against a distributed republic, as you must conquer or destroy every enclave around. Some historical cultures (often religious and ethnic minorities) would employ similar tactics across history. The distributed republic merely brings this concept into the present.

Boiling Frogs

A popular analogy for the public in many formerly-democratic states is a frog in a pot of boiling water. If the pot is heated too fast, the frog jumps out. But if the temperature is gradually raised, the frog will remain unaware as it is cooked alive. A wise evil overlord, therefore, does not start off with obvious displays of power. They start off maintaining the status quo, and gradually introducing more insidious bills, laws, and extra-legal practices. Ideally, their predecessor(s) may have started these programs, so continuing them is expected of them. 

This is nothing historically novel. One hallmark of such practices, however, is they often occur in states rapidly centralizing power. Such centralization is often a desperate, last-ditch maneuver. The Roman Emperors gradually assumed more and more power, until the Empire collapsed on its own weight. It appears that the US government is hell-bent on repeating this, independently of the legal justifications (or lack therefore of) for each program. The drone assassination program is a perfect example of one, as detailed elsewhere. 

Take, for instance, the contempt of public wishes by politicians. Last year, CISPA was a “cybersecurity” bill that gutted online privacy (amongst other things). An internet outcry caused it to be dropped. Recently, the President has issued an executive order that essentially does the same thing. The icing on the cake is that CISPA has been regurgitated, copied word-for-word from its original incarnation. Worse than that, this comes as the government clamps down on the few rights that are left. 

The metaphor of the boiling frogs is even more appropriate when you consider climate change. The methane clathrates rising from the ocean floor like a Great Old One threaten to deep fry the world and turn the oceans to acidic stew. Whether the world economy, environmental factors, or political structures will collapse first is uncertain. Far more important is to find a way out of the pot.

Secession Season: Breaking Up Is Hard To Do

“If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying “let us separate.” I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture.” -Thomas Jefferson

We may be in for a wild ride, given my surprise by recent events in the US. Unless you’ve been completely isolated from the outside world, you likely have heard of Europe’s economic woes. When the ill-planned Eurozone was being rushed through political channels, the books were cooked regarding the peripheral countries (Greece, Italy, Spain, etc.). Said manipulations were performed by many of the same characters who are now calling for austerity, privatization of public assets, and similar measures. While Iceland offers a clear solution on dealing with corrupt financial institutions, the same has not occurred in the rest of Europe. Many countries had their elected governments replaced by former bankers (such as Italy and Greece). Referendums and democracy are shoved out the window to benefit the same group of kleptocrats who caused the crisis in the first place. This is the very definition of regulatory capture, oversight agencies taken over by individuals who compromise their function. In this case, regulatory capture extends to several layers of the EU bureaucracy, US politics, and countless other places.  

Interestingly, there is another trend that could serve to counter this. If a state government is compromised, why not start fresh from a new state? Likewise, in weakened states, prosperous regions do not wish to “foot the bill” for the less prosperous regions. Regionalism can become a nascent nationalism unto itself. In regions that formerly were nations, nationalism can re-emerge in times of crisis. The drawbacks are that it can lead to racism and discrimination against immigrants and minorities. There are, however, discrete benefits beyond merely saving money in taxes. Downsizing a political regime to a smaller level makes it more responsive to popular pressures. The EU’s bureaucracy is ill-prepared to handle several different countries and cultures. Attempts to force them together result in tensions and instability. The less removed a particular group of people feel from decision making, the greater the potential for unrest. Add in an economic crisis unrivaled since the Great Depression, changing demographics, and you have potential for quite the mess. Is it any wonder why Scotland, Catalonia, and Venice wish to leave their respective countries?

Just imagine that. Scotland is about to hold a referendum on independence, and perhaps remove the “United” from the “United Kingdom” (especially if Wales gets some ideas). Catalonia has a history of political unrest during the Spanish Civil War and Franco dictatorship, and there’s still quite a bit of tension there. Venice was once its own empire, and perhaps we shall see the return of ‘Juditha triumphans,’ as its national motto. While affluent, I imagine a Second Venetian Republic’s most pressing concern would be climate change and sea levels. I can imagine the status quo and its beneficiaries, such as governments, businesses, and perhaps even covert operatives, using dirty tricks galore. They might ensure referendums fail, ignore them, or barring that, move in like opportunistic parasites via the normal backdoor deals and regulatory capture (although that would definitely take time).  

What I am surprised, about, though, is that secessionism made its comeback in the EU before the USA. It took yet another charade of an election between two cardboard cut-outs to get people talking secession again. Also unsurprisingly, there are many of the old Confederate states. How much of this is serious talk, and how much is partisan inspired post-electoral posturing remains to be seen, however. I have a feeling this is much more that latter than the former (at least at this stage). 

Interestingly, though, these secession petitions are not merely “Blue” or “Red” states. We’ve got some “swing” states in there, as well as both. The total list includes: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.   

There is a backlash against this as well, a petition calling for anyone who signed such a pro-secession petition to be stripped of US citizenship and exiled.

I wish I was making this crap up. A lot of this just seems to be regular posing, but what remains to be seen is how much momentum or lasting appeal it actually has. There are a number of reasons outside political partisanship for preferring secession (or at least more “states rights”): the failures of FEMA compared to Occupy in the wake of Sandy (even with Bloomberg having the NYPD brutally evict them), the decrepit and decaying American infrastructure (with no one talking about fixing it), dislike of Federal overreach (such as giving away public lands to oil companies or bank bailouts with taxpayer cash), the NDAA (indefinite detention for everyone for any reason), the drone assassinations of US citizens (no due process), the warrantless surveillance, privatized prisons in league withgangs, disillusionment with the Drug War, and others. I believe local decision making would resolve many of these issues in a way politically acceptable even to the majority of people within a state.

I could see the USA possibly coming apart in a few ways, although a new era of “states’ rights” might give the polarized country the breathing space it needs. Under such a scenario, the Feds lease land for military bases and handle the major inter-state infrastructure (and a few other tasks), while most other issues are handled locally. (I had a secession attempt being averted by such a political bargain in a fictional setting.) There’s also the possibility of a military misadventure backfiring, detailed in another fictional scenario.

Still, there are benefits in the form of ending the “culture war.” Imagine, the Red States get their guns and family values, and the Blue States get their birth control and socialized medicine. There might even be unintended environmental benefit due to less carbon emissions from less frequent driving and lower demand for military manufacturing. Perhaps if the Southern States were more pragmatic than proud, they might've continued a political secession course instead of a militaristic one. There's also the fact that despite stereotypes, the "Red" states get more Federal money than they collect, so any new CSA probably would be in economic dire straits.

Apart from “Confederacy 2.0,” I could see even the “West Coast Blue” states and “East Coast Blue” states having cultural differences. (Compare San Francisco to New York City, and see what I mean.) California also has some cultural differences with Hawaii and Cascadia (Oregon and Washington), and was also once its own country. If this is more than posturing, maybe it will be again.  

Add into this confusion the possibility of Puerto Rico trying to join the USA. Still, I don’t think anyone would be sad to see New Jersey go. If the US wishes to save money on making 51-star flags, perhaps they should merely expel that toxic waste dump and promote Puerto Rico in its place. 

Seriously, though, I believe secessionism and separatism as a cause around the world will only continue to gather steam. Relocalization of agriculture, manufacturing, and energy production is likely to occur (legally or not) as the global economy continues to crash. The technologies and techniques for such methods continue to improve, a side effect of the consumer and military industrial complexes’ own developments (ironically enough). The militaries of the world realize local manufacture and production of fuel and supplies simplifies their logistics chains (which any commander will realize as key to success). Technology in the military sector will eventually make it to the civilian market, legally or not. Social change is a self-organize system, so it is logical to guess relocalized decision making will become more politically relevant. 

The corrupted political regimes will use every trick to prop the old economy up, up to and including assuming even more despotic powers. Even if they do this, there’s a limit to how much you can centralize things before they crash. “Bailouts” and wishful thinking are no substitute for your own local social safety net to fall back on. Your brain literally evolved to prefer your local contacts over some distant folks you've never met personally, after all. This isn’t just about “doomsday preppers” (a form of false security and magical thinking onto itself all too often). Rationed supplies cannot last forever, and small families/individuals without support can fail pretty quickly. Ironically, even the more savvy “survivalists” realize this, and deride the Mad Max/Rambo-esque fantasies for what they are. David Brin’s “Postman” is a good depiction of how much you’d miss being a part of a functional civilization.

At the same time, though, it is important to realize the global system’s current incarnation has no decent future. There is more debt than the world’s GDP. Median household incomes are falling across the developed world. Even the BRICs, whose development propped up the system a bit longer, seem to be sputtering out. Solid nations may splinter into smaller chunks. The climate’s going mad, and the easy to get fossil fuels are increasingly depleted (despite magical thinking and PR). Even if some genius physicist comes up with a viable fusion reactor or the like, innovation-unfriendly patent laws and a lack of investment in new infrastructure projects would hinder deployment.

Relocalization is coming, regardless of what the zombie governments want. Some may wise up on the transition, and others may not. Still, a multipolar world of several small states is preferable to a neo-feudal corporate socialist world system. The cyberpunk dystopia will give way to a postcyberpunk one, if we can manage it.

That is why this secessionist wave will be interesting to watch. Even if they fail, they could easily remerge in a few years. Once something has become mainstream politics, there’s a good chance it will last until it passes (or something close to it does).  

Of course, it could all take us down with it. It’s not hard to imagine the governments of the world using war to distract people from domestic troubles, and if nuclear superpowers get involved, things can get real ugly rapidly. Likewise, there is a remote chance of a catastrophic collapse that makes Mad Max look utopian. However, I believe the current batch of separatists will continue to use legal and political methods for the foreseeable future. Sit back, buckle up, and enjoy the ride.

The Septic Tank

It's the week of the US Presidential election, and a perfect time to cover some political topics. The American political system is one of the great tragic comedies of the era. Countless blogs around election season complain about the lamentable state of the superpower's politics, but for wildly differing reasons. I find myself becoming increasingly apathetic to the entire affair. Professional wrestling and reality TV seem to offer more intellectual substance than the horse-race between Obama and Romney. The rest of the world sees the Presidential Freak Show in the same manner that Americans see shows like "Jersey Shore" or "Jerry Springer," a grotesque spectacle of human bilge rats to gawk at. American politics has become a septic tank, where the biggest turds float to the top. You need only look at the Democratic and Republican frontrunners. 

The 'debates' (a term I use loosely) between Obama and Romney have the questions agreed upon and the answers given in the form of a campaign speech. Pepsi and Coke have more differences than Robamney.  The only real policy debates occur between candidates the system is rigged against on a non-mainstream Russian network in the USA. The elections, though, do offer a great look at supervillainy in action, to a degree that Blofeld would envy.

Guns, abortion, environment, education, gay rights, and other 'swing issues' are used to keep an increasingly irate public divided. The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have been coopted by the status quo or purposefully ignored. The Demicans and Republicrats run a two headed system, rigged to benefit them, as well as the defense contractors, oil companies, mega-banks, and other corporations that rely on corporate welfare and no-bid contracts from the government. If this is the best government money can buy, I can easily imagine wanting a refund.

Now, where did it go wrong? You could go back decades, perhaps Nixon going off the gold standard (amongst other things), perhaps Reagan doubling the government deficit (turning the USA from the world's largest creditor nation to world's largest debtor nation), perhaps Clinton repealing Glass Steagall (allowing banks to become casinos), perhaps Bush Jr and Cheney launching the War on Terror (accelerating the trends towards an imperial police state).

Obama came to power promising change, and unlike his predecessor, was able to string together coherent sentences and had a professional veneer. He was, however, a professional lawyer and machine politician, as much a part of the system as Dick Cheney. His campaign promises about 'change' and 'hope' sounded convincing and he certainly had the power to repeal and end many of the excesses and abuses of the War on Terror. The PATRIOT Act, Gitmo, Iraq, the drone wars, and many of the other things could've been ended by a President with a majority in Congress and increasingly imperial powers.

Instead of stopping them, he expanded them and added his own. Obama's declaration to close Gitmo had little to do with freeing those who where indefinitely detained there and more about transferring them to the US mainland, the so called "Gitmo North." Obama eagerly expanded the drone strikes, including into countries where Al-Qaeda had less than a token presence.

If anything, drone warfare and due process-free assassination will be Obama's legacy. He used them against a US citizen and his 16 year old son (as well as countless bystanders who were re-labeled as 'militants' after death and even against medics and firefighters who'd arrive to help victims after a drone strike). And that's just the few targets we know of due to journalism and leaks. Anyone could be added to Obama's 'disposition matrix' without their knowledge, without evidence, without charges, and without ever knowing you're on a list to be disposed of. The fact these matrices are generated partially automatically could become fully automated in time, essentially removing even the need for conventional death squads and assassins. Drone technology is getting cheaper, more lethal, more precise, and can be controlled by a smaller number at the top. The perfect weapon for a single emperor or ruler.

There's also Obama's eagerness to rush questionable legislation through. Need I bring up the charming National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law on New Years and allowing the military to indefinitely detain ANYONE (even US citizens on US soil) on suspicion alone? Or how about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a "free trade" agreement that reduces national sovereignty to the whim of corporate lawyers. Or perhaps his rush to war in Libya without consulting Congress and eagerness to arm questionable militants (including a previously listed terrorist group, MeK in Iran)? It's not like the USA arming questionable militant movements has ever backfired, right? The cherry on top of the mess is Obama's whistleblower prosecutions, aimed at cowing dissent in the ranks. Let's not forget some other incidents, such as using taxpayer money to arm Mexican drug cartels in a botched "Fast and Furious" operation, giving away public land for fracking (amounting to a taxpayer funded subsidy for oil and gas firms), love for Citizens United (allowing corporations to donate infinite amounts of cash to any politician), or failure to prosecute criminal bankers like John Corzine (who 'misplaced' a billion or so dollars worth of investors' money).

I'm sure many of these incidents are merely symptoms of a larger systemic crisis. There is no political solution for much of these problems, especially at the Federal level. The fact Romney is eager to assume most of these powers is telling the 'alternative' is little better. Romney shifts his positions to whatever is most likely to get him elected. As a vulture capitalist, seeking out and devouring other people's assets is his trade. The Presidency means access to even more resources to hoover up.

Getting back to Obama, I actually believe he fulfilled his campaign slogans, just not in the way most people think. He brought 'change' to a centuries old tradition of Anglo-American common law. He brought 'hope' to all those who desire to use the government to execute anyone they want, anywhere, anytime. Eventually, the precedents Obama sets could easily be used to bring dictatorship to the US, or at least drop the facade of representative government once and for all. I find it rather tragic that many Democrats, "progressives," and so-called "liberals" perform elaborate mental gymnastics to justify his actions. These "Obamapologists" are rather sad to listen to, as their justifications often smack of wishful thinking. Politicians (such as Obama and Romney) lack substance so their followers project what they want to see in them. The problem with repeatedly electing those soulless husks is eventually, that's all your political system is reduced to.

The empty spectacle is increasingly irrelevant to many, even in the USA. In the East Coast, many without power or warmth dread the coming of another storm. Across the country, the economic lag continues. Whoever "wins" the election will probably continue to pretend the status quo is fine, but the reality on the street will become increasingly distant. Obama and his ilk will continue to thrive in their own isolated enclaves of unreality. Still, you have to give the man some credit. He's established himself as a supervillain in his own right, using nothing but a silver tongue and honeyed words. I'm certain whoever comes next will also be.