State of my Research

Encroachment of the military police state

2005-09-29T11:57:00.000-07:00

It seems that another disaster is being leveraged to help shoe-in a military police state. Although denying the military any authority domestically is a long-standing safe-guard, it seems that the current administration is looking into changing all that. The military is already permitted to do domestic emergency relief, but they cannot do policing, searching, or arrests. Apparently that's not good enough, even though what was needed after katrina was prompt emergency relief, not policing. The 'looters' didn't start causing trouble 'til AFTER they were starving and abandoned, and there weren't really all that many of them.

Followup:
Pentagon begins review
Questions asked

Trusted Computing

2005-08-01T15:01:00.000-07:00

So, this trusted computing crap. It puts a little PKI system into the hardware of every computer. The chip builds keys, authenticates keys, and such on chip. The most secure keys never leave the chip, and its memory is secure and encrypted, so no program can get at it. At first this seems like it might be good. We all like the PKI system, it's great. It gives us SSL and GPG and the like. I like those things. Make no mistake about it, this is not friendly for those of us who like computer security!!!

First off, it puts control of those function on-the-chip, in hardware, in such a way that you cannot alter them without losing all functionality it provides. Think of it as your key generator being on-chip. That's what it is. But it's more than that, as one of the critical keys is known by the manufacturer and the chip only, not by you. It can be used to identify your machine no matter what.

This means that security related things can be handed off to this hardware function, meaning you don't need encryption software. Apple might call such a thing CoreEncryption or CoreSecurity. It can be billed as a time-saving feature, especially if it's cross-platform. Then commerce and, banking sites will come to require such things 'for your own protection from evil identity theft'. Soon the government will pass legislation requiring the same thing of ALL vendors 'for your protection' and 'stop terrorism'.

Now step back and see what has been created. There is a separate, top-down controlled, quite possibly government back-doored -- think I'm being paranoid, think of the newest revelation that the printer manufacturers have been embedding secret codes in your printouts that the government uses to track the author of documents -- encryption system that can handle all the problems that big-business and government have an interest in letting you solve. They control the whole thing. Now all they do is make software encryption, or anything BUT this trusted computing, illegal. Boom, one-fell swoop, it's all over. That's the end.

Mark my words, this is how it'll happen. The government doesn't want us to have encryption, but they can't do anything about it now because we use it for banking and commerce and the economy depends on it. With this system they get their back-door -- possibly without our knowledge like with the printers -- stupid consumers don't know the difference, and the big-businesses that implement it get some really useful cartel powers and lock-in tools.

Peace and Injustice in Iraq

2005-07-19T12:24:00.000-07:00

We've all heard of the insurgent hotbed that was Fallujah for a great while. However, I was surprised to learn of some of the events which led to Fallujah's violence. This article does a good job explaining how killings of innocent civilians touched off the violence that cost so much.

A quick, interesting read

2005-06-28T15:36:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately I don't have long to post on this. It's a very concise, well-written and well-referenced article on the neo-con hawks that are trying for U.S. Hegemony worldwide. Don't read it right now if it's not a good time to get pissed off. Bastard Bush and Co., grumble mumble, %&#& ...

YAIT (YetAnotherIdentityTheft)

2005-06-20T15:39:00.000-07:00

Now, in what is the largest breach ever, some 40 million credit card numbers have been stolen by hackers, proving, yet again, that scattering this sensitive information all around is just asking for identity theft, and that we need a better system.

Hopefully I'm not the only one who sees this.

Defense spending

2005-06-10T15:21:00.000-07:00

I found this link today. The story is good. It's not really new, but it is always good to be reawakened to such things.

It's stuff like this that contributes to my growing hunch that the U.S. might suffer a very significant economic collapse (and I mean collapse, not depression, recessions, or any other such pansy economis term). We're going to be in some very big trouble soon if things don't change, and there are few options for such change. This sort of excess spending only hurts us.

However, on the other hand, when the government runs us into the ground, we'll default on our loans.

It also makes me think about the dollar and the best way to invest these days. As Buffett has made all too clear, the stock market isn't all it used to be. The dollar is currently taxed at what, something like 2%/year, but if shit starts hitting the fan that'll go up. Maybe we should actually all get into debt up to our armpits and then wait for the dollar to devalue. Then we'll be able to pay off our loans in a hurry, once bread costs $100/loaf.

Ah well, it'll be interesting, and people who speak english still have good marketability, and likely still will, even after a collapse, although speaking other languages will definitely help. Maybe I'll have to brush up on my Hindi (the language, not the religion, although that wouldn't hurt either. The transition might be stressful...)

Hopefully the U.S. collapse will be analagous to the dotcom bubble bursting. It wasn't the end of the internet, it was just a day of reckoning for excess zeal. We're overvalued and largely insolvent. So we must go burst.

Principle #1

2005-06-10T15:08:00.000-07:00

I believe I've finally discovered what my primary goal is in my work. I wish to eliminate the monopoly of force that is possessed by governments.

It may seem odd that such an obvious issue has taken me this much time to discover, but that misses the point I think. I have known that I had a problem with the monopoly of force. However, there were lots of other issues to contend with as well. What about decision-making? What about hierarchies? What about representation? Which is most important.

I have found that I respect the goals and the results of many movements/causes/organizations, etc., even if they weren't in some way 'ideal'. Sometimes ideal is impossible, and sometimes it simply doesn't exist yet. Either way, I still am pleased when something 'better' comes along.

This has led to various situations where I've wondered, though, what the difference is between a possible 'ideal' solution and a government program.

Just the other day I was debating with a friend about Government social services. She was talking about Social Security in particular. She was saying how she didn't think a 'private' solution would be better.

I don't claim to know what would work and what wouldn't with any certainty. However, I have a few ideas, and I'd prefer that the government didn't have a monopoly on the issue. Also, it seems to me that if you can't imagine ways of doing a better job than the government at solving social problems you suffer from an extreme lack of imagination. I have little patience for fearful, unimaginative nay-sayers. (Not that they don't have their usefulness.)

I've created a new thought-tool, too, in the form of a question. As the single distinctive element of the government is a monopoly on physical force/violence, the logical question is, does implimenting this require force/violence? Considering that social security is sort of a combination of a retirement plan and a general emergency/accident insurance plan, the answer seems to me to be 'no'. Private solutions to retirement plans and insurance are the norm, and they're at least as reliable as social security. So it doesn't seem necessary to use force to impliment that solution. So why do we?

Additionally, this monopoly on force allows for the service to suffer. People aren't happy with it? Tough. Pay your taxes or go to jail. Worried that you won't get any money, that your payout is cut? Tough, you're stuck with it. Complain all you want.

Using the force monopoly (the government) is like using root in linux/unix. You don't want to use it for everything. You want to use it only when you have to, and even then you do your best to find a new way to NOT have to. Why? Because if those with malicious intents manage to get access to it they can do very bad things. Using it when not necessary can lead to 'accidents', too. Accidents in this context would be any situation where, just by having this excess power a solution was implimented which used the power needlessly and then had significant negative implications that wouldn't have existed if a different implimentation was chosen.

So, first priority should be to make the overbloated existing governments obsolete and reduce them to some sort of 'night watchman' state. Then, hopefully, we'll be in a position to eliminate them entirely.

Apple's switch to intel chips...

2005-06-06T11:27:00.000-07:00

They did it. They really did it. That is the craziest thing. The timing? So weird...

However, the cell processor isn't ready for computers yet, so maybe that's part of it. With the new universal binaries they'll be able to fairly easily span both worlds, and maybe they'll keep it that way, or go to the cell later? Who knows

Better still, imagine wine on OS X... Apple could integrate wine, spruce it up a bit, and kill windows dead. Just a thought. This may be a very offensive move... They wouldn't need to announce this feature now. They could announce that feature with OS 10.5, or with the intel-based macs, or whenever. That would be killer, though. Absolutely killer. Then buying a Mac would be VERY Tempting indeed. Spend a little bit of premium (you know macs will still cost a bit more) and be able to run all your favorite apps, plus all the mac apps, on a mac. Make it possible to dual boot into windows? You could... although you might not need to. Heck, since apple's designs are so slick you might see pc users buying macs just to run windows on them because the macs are cooler looking, just like they buy mac monitors and such. I think this is VERY aggressive....

Another example of information insecurity

2005-05-27T14:50:00.000-07:00

I just ran across this. Turns out the University of Chicago wasn't adequately protecting its students (and faculty?) information, including social security numbers. Why do Universities need SSNs? I know that at least some universities have been getting away from using SSNs as student numbers, but they still keep them.

The identity theft problem is the perfect platform from which to launch an attack against invasive privacy violations, nosy companies, and opaque data sharing. There is a need now for an organization to spearhead this issue.

I'm going lulu!

2005-05-20T17:07:00.000-07:00

I don't have time for a long post, but I've discovered another empowering new piece of infrastructure that's been created. People win out with this, as it allows anyone to publish anything for free!

lulu.com allows you to setup an account for free. From it you can publish books, calendars, images, and audio. Lulu makes money IF you charge money. If you give your stuff away for free, they charge no commission. They print and distribute the items AT COST!!!

Better still, it has a comprehensive search/browse mechanism, so your works aren't buried in a sea of other stuff. But wait, it gets better. WHat is the best book distribution system thus far invented? Yes, amazon.com. Well, lulu lets you distribute through amazon, barnes and noble, borders, and somebody else, I forget. Do you see what this means!!! Finally the publishing world has been freed of the chains. It isn't controlled by the publishing companies! You don't have to be a famous author! And better still, using amazon, your work can be found! The is truly revolutionary.

I will be signing up, and maybe even publishing. What are you waiting for? prior article on identity theft avoidance, I've found that there may be some steps that you can take now to help.

Stored Value Cards (Gift Cards

General stored value cards (like visa or mastercard ones) are a great way to protect your privacy while maintaining the flexiblity of a credit card. With one of these you can pay most, if not all bills without having to disclose your personal information. You can pay cash and then use it anywhere Visa is accepted. It's great. Also, if stolen, no-one can take any more of your money than what is on the card.

This doesn't address the problem of service insecurity (here and here) but it's a start. It can help alleviate credit card fraud, credit bureau mistakes (identity theft leading to a bad credit rating which is HARD to reverse) and so forth.

Prepaid Cellular Service

You can avoid celluar service provider insecurity, like that which I suffered, by using a pre-paid cellular plan. By far the biggest problem with this is that it is still far more expensive than competing service plans. However, the price gap is narrowing and I wouldn't be surprised to see it become competitive eventually. It may never match, but it could get close enough.

Others?

If you know of any others please tell me. Also, if you know of any common stores where you can buy Visa Gift Cards tell me, too. So far I don't know which local stores I can buy them at with cash. You can buy them online... but then THAT store has your credit card information, thus leading to the risk of their being hacked and getting your credit-card info... The ideal would be using cash to buy a gift-card, so you didn't have to open a security hole in the process.

An idea for collaborative document review

2005-05-13T11:01:00.000-07:00

Start with a post. It could be editable (like a wiki) or static (like a blog or forum entry). For this explanation I'll say we're discussing the U.S. Constitution.

Using fancy cutting-edge web-technologies (ajax anyone?) allow people to enter a 'commenting' mode (hit 'comment' button) and select words (not letters, words). They could select one rule, for example. We'll say they select the part that says the executive shall be one president. Then they can rank this part. Let's rank it low. We really don't like this part. Then we go through and rank other parts, too.

We highlight all the words in the first amendment and rank them high. We select the words "a well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." and give it a mediocre rating, and add the comment "confusing. What do you mean?"

We can go through and rank any combination of contiguous words and give them a rating. We can also add comments.

When we're done rating and commenting we click 'Done' or whatever, and we see the article again. The only difference is that now the text we've commented on is colorized (or something that is a finely adjustable change that is easily visually recognizable). For example, text we rated highly is more green, text rated lowly is more red. The higher the rating, the brighter green, the worse the rating, the more red. Comments don't show up at all. Then

Here's where the fun part begins. Let's say that now you go and do the same thing, except you add different comments and ratings. Some of yours overlap with mine, some don't. Then more people do it, then more, then more, then more. What happens? Scores are averaged per word. I selected the entire second amendment. You select just the second half and say "NOOOO!" and rate it badly. Others select the whole thing and rate it well. The average rating of ALL ratings goes toward the color. The NUMBER of ratings could affect the size of the word.

I can also select some words and click 'view comments' or some such thing. This will, surprise surprise, show, perhaps, an excerpt of the total text containing the words I selected, and then all comments that apply to the words, perhaps with the precise set of words selected for each comment.

Uncommented words would appear with default color and normal size. There would be an obvious difference between commented/rated words and uncommented/rated.

This is just a preliminary idea. It could definitely be expanded. I like it because it would provide instant visual information about the most contentious or problematic areas, so you could immediately focus your efforts at revising.

There could be open comments/ratings and a select set of people authorized to revise. You could even allow for different versions (perhaps with a limit) for each section such that sections with multiple versions appeared as layered text, one version closely right on top of another, with the top-X # of versions displayed only, not all of them if there were lots. This is just another idea. If that was implimented then it would make sense for everyone to be able to write AND rate/comment.

You could even set a threshold such that once the text reached a certain acceptability and held it for X period of time it was accepted or something, or had some weight.

This system could be very useful to internet-based decision-making systems.

Privacy is NOT for the paranoid

2005-05-13T10:33:00.000-07:00

I am so sick of people saying that privacy advocates are just paranoid, and that if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide. Honestly, though, you don't hear that anywhere near as much as you used to.

These days, with identity theft at epidemic levels, everything I hear is 'guard your personal information'. That's great, but service providers still ask for SSN, drivers license, credit card, and often won't take no for an answer.

Within the last 10 months 2 of the handful of service providers I subscribe to, my cellular provider and my ISP, have lost information about lots of their customers. T-Mobile was hacked last summer. The hacker had access to millions of customer's data, and it is known that he tried to sell it. I may have suffered from that leak of information as my account was compromised a couple months back, leading to additional handsets being added and hundreds of dollars of extra charges. I'm hoping that nothing else will come of that, but I don't, and can't, know.

My ISP lost user information on 1,200 LOCAL accounts recently. I don't believe I was one, as the news blurg I heard on it said they'd notified those whose information ahd been lost.

So, the question becomes, why can't we have anonymous accounts? Why can't I setup a secure, anonymous money account (think paypal or egold) that is NOT attached to my name. Then if it is compromised I will at most only lose the money in that account, and hopefully even that will be refunded by the service provider.

As it stands, if any one source leaks my information, ALL of my accounts can potentially be compromised. With anonymous accounts, only ONE would be.

In this high-tech age I should be able to sign up to receive cell-phone service. I'd request a number. I'd buy the handset. I COULD provide a p.o. box (or real address if I wanted to) to them for a bill, or they could provide an electronic account number into which I can deposit my monthly payment. All payments are initiated on MY end, not on theirs. They don't have account numbers of mine, no name, no SSN, no drivers license #. They would pretty much only have my phone number. They'd receive payments for my account each month.

In order to retain the convenience of automatic bill-pay my anonymous bank account would be able to make monthly deposits automatically. This is called bill-pay and most banks offer it already.

Due to the fact that some charges vary from month to month, it would be helpful if my bank account could automatically send the correct amount each month. A simple solution to this would be for a standard query method to be built which allows my bank account to connect to my cell-account and ask how much I owe. Authentication could be based on SSH, SSL, anything fairly secure. If someone exploited this all they could get from my bank account is how much I owe. But, they wouldn't know who "I" am. At most they could do a reverse telephone lookup, and maybe get a name and address (if that info wasn't also harder to come by). So they'd know who I was, my phone number, and how much I owe. And that would be it. That's a gargantuan improvement over current vulnerabilities.

If someone tried to hack the bank account through the query method they'd have to wait for the bank account to make a query, intercept it, and then send false information. However, all the query would be able to do is set the amount. It couldn't change the account where the money went to, it couldn't query my account, nothing.

There would be no common identifiers linking my various services and accounts. The services wouldn't even need to know what account was sending funds if the process were properly arranged. My anonymous online bank could send anonymous money transfers. It could shield my account number entirely. What does my account number have to do with anything?

The other catch is credit checking. In some ways this is the root of our problem now. There are a few ways of addressing this problem.

No credit? No problem

We could opt to have no credit check whatsoever. As a result we may not be eligible for certain deals, rebates, or freebies. Perhaps our service provider wouldn't give us a free phone with the plan. Or, perhaps they'd give us a rebate on the price of the phone after 6 months or so. This would work with just about all services, but not loans and other lines of credit.

Anonymous Credit

Perhaps we could have anonymous credit accounts. There would be various levels of anonymity available. The first step, however, is outlining the new credit method at its broadest outline.

Credit would flow both ways. Think eBay. You leave feedback for your service provider, they leave credit for you.

Anonymous Retrival

A credit provider allows you to create an account. It is given an account number of some sort. This number, in conjunction with an authorization password (or other, more secure method) that only you provide allows a service provider to query the credit provider and receive your credit info. They'd be able to see overall statistics (positive/negative) and read the details. There would, however, be no personal info in there, as no-one who commented would have HAD any personal info to disclose.

Both you and the service provider also receive a token of sorts to add feedback to the other's credit account. Nothing in this token would give away any information about you or them. It could simply be a random number/password (or certificate, etc.) that allowed them to submit feedback. Think ebay. If you buy something from someone you have the opportunity to provide feedback: once. And the user has the opportunity to comment on the feedback, too, and leave feedback for the buyer.

That's it. This credit provider has your personal information. If it gets hacked, your info is compromised.

It must be noted, in a system where personal information ISN'T used to creat accounts, it becomes less valuable. So you know someone's name and address? You still don't have their anonymous bank account password or account number or even the bank, or whether or not they have one or pay via some other method. You can't use that information to get information from their cellular provider because the cellular provider doesn't have the info and can't cross-reference with it. They couldn't use it to access your bank account because that doesn't have your personal info, either.

If you stop making payments then they'd leave bad feedback and your rating would go down.

Full anonymity

This is almost the same as the above system except not even the credit agent would have your information. Why should they? You authenticate a credit account, show them the info, and if it's good enough they accept. You could even authenticate someone else (it'd be similar to co-signing). You'd put your own credit account at risk to vouch for someone else.

Risks

The risk in all this is that if your authorization is compromised, someone can hose your credit by using it for themself.

However, they still wouldn't have your personal info and couldn't get into your other accounts, AND your bank account could STILL be completely separate.

Hurdles

There are, unfortunately, some obstacles to implimenting a system like this. One of the biggest is the government. They currently REQUIRE that various service providers and banks gather your personal information. The information that institutions are required to gather is actually going UP, justified by homeland security. Ironically, identity theft is a much greater threat to our security than whatever supposed benefit to security is gained by harvesting all our information. In fact, it has been shown and admitted time after time that our intelligence agencies are glutted with information, and their problem is making heads or tails of it all.

The potential good news is that with the internet it is quite possible that these services can be internet based and operate out of countries without information-harvesting requirements. Unfortunately, some services can't be handled this way, such as utilities, cell-phones and the like, because infrastrucure must exist within the country, thus requiring the company to follow US laws in conducting business there. Banking and online commerce, however, can all be handled anonymously, and we should move in this direction. Also, we should push government to loosen up these requirements in the interest of national security. The bastards.

In conclusion

These are just ideas. I know it needs more thought, but what I'm trying to show is that with just a tiny bit of thought, better, more secure systems can be designed. Things are getting ridiculous, and something has to be done.

www.conversate.org

2005-05-09T14:32:00.000-07:00

Conversate is a new web service provided by the delightful folks at Participatory Politics. They are making some very cool stuff and I need to write an entire article about their work, but I haven't yet.

To me, Conversate seems like a distributed blog that is topic-based, not person-based. You make a list of friends and you find something to talk about. Any old thing will do. You then create the conversate (it's easy) and it invites them. Anyone can control how they receive updates, whether it's email or rss (and in the future other methods such as aim/jabber).

What's so big about that? Why post about it on a political blog?

This sort of thing is the kind of out-of the box, bottom-up sort of infrastructure that NEEDS to be built before a successful, anarchistic/panarchistic society can function well. It is a SIMPLE way for information to flow. It allows us to tell people about something and they can immediately be brought up to speed. Whereas the blogsphere has a bunch of different blogs blogging about the same subject, that means you have to click all over the place to read them all. Talkback/pingback make that easier, but it is still not terribly convenient. Conversate is TOPIC based, and that's crucial. It is free association. It is people-power. It is affinity groups. It is uncontrollable from above. However, unlike lots of other mass-things like blogs, these aren't centralized around a person. They're fluid, and could easily spread as fast as people can say "Check this out". PLUS, if they're based on invites, there's LESS risk of obnoxious trolls and such. (Certainly they could show up, but the chances are slimmer.) It may not seem like a big thing, but it destoys many barriers to efficient communication, and builds walls in more logical places.

I foresee this becoming VERY successfull, and potentially very powerful.

Political/activist uses aside, this could be a great way to spontaneously organize things from birthday parties to going out in the evening to discussing the problem with the newest Star Wars movie.

US Concedes: No evidence of weapons of Mass destruction

2005-04-29T16:00:00.000-07:00

This should come as no surprise to some of us. The US has finally given up even looking for evidence of WMDs in Iraq. That is tantamount to admitting that the war was illegal, because the only legal basis provided was the WMDs.

Another thought, what's up with Saddam? Haven't heard THAT name in awhile... anyone know?

Problems

2005-04-15T15:49:00.000-07:00

Okay, so, obviously this has its problems...

See, I read the instructions, they said if I put the little end thing at
the end (I won't put it in again because who knows, it might pay
attention this time...) but it still put up my signature and
cryptography stuff... damnation.

If anyone knows how to fix this, please tell me...

#end

Test Post

2005-04-15T15:37:00.000-07:00

This is just a test of posting via email. I didn't think I'd want to do
this, but not I think I do.

header 1

header 2

paragraph

#end

The problem of cars... and one good alternative!

2005-02-25T20:41:00.000-08:00

Well, if you don't know, I have a thing against cars. I don't like them as a transportation system, due to their being horribly destructive, directly and more importantly indirectly, and their being subsidized. I hate having them interrupt me as I walk through my town. But, I do realize that they are impossible to avoid for some people and situation, although less situations than most would admit, IMHO.

A large problem with cars is the sheer number of them out there. Mass transit is imperative for denser cities. The site of a Ford Expedition with one Laura Bush driving pisses me off. Taxis are one alternative, and they're possibly better than personal cars, because they mitigate the need for as large of parking garages and at least there's at least 2 people in the car at a time. However, I ran across a really great alternative I had no idea existed.

Flexcar!

I had even thought of something like this on my own a little while back. There's the white bicycle program in some country, I forget which (I think it's white bicycle.... some colored bicycle....) where you buy all these simple bikes, paint them white, and they're public use. You ride it to where you need to go, then park it. Someone else takes it, rides it, and the cycle continues. As long as there's lots of them it's no problem. Considering the bicycle theft problem here, it's not a bad idea. We'll just ALL 'steal' bikes all the time. None will be locked up, damn it, and screw you, bike thief. But I digress.

So, flexcar. It's not free, but it's a very similar idea. You reserve a car, either via phone or internet, pick it up at a designated location, drive it for your reserved time, and drop it off. Now, there's a few different rate plans, but get this: The annual fee is $35. $35!!!! After that there's either subscriptions, which include X many hours (kinda like a cell-phone plan) or you can pay $9/hour. That's not bad, I must say.

You don't pay:

Insurance

Maintenance

For the car(!!!!)

You do pay:

tickets

I must say, sign me up!!! This is what I've been waiting for. Currently it's only available inter-city, so you'd have to use a traditional rental-company for inter-city travel. No biggy. The point of this is to provide a rental service on your time. Nearly as convenient as owning a car. Much less expensive. Much less hassle. This is what I'm talking about.

Perverse Patriotism

2004-12-13T15:46:00.001-08:00

I just ran across this while browsing around the web. I must say, glorifying war and death and all in the name of "country" really flabbergasts me. How can people think this way seriously? Although that damned Toby Keith song about "stick a boot up their ass, it's the american way" was insanely popular, too. I just don't get it.

On military murder

2004-12-13T15:46:00.000-08:00

This story does a good job of showing the kinds of monsters that can be created by war, the military, and nationalism, out of once normal people (presumably). If this isn't the perfect example of the absurdity, coldness, hatred, and inhumanity that can result from (is a part of) the military, nothing will. It makes my stomache turn. If you're in a situation to destroy your own soul, get out.

Interesting Theory on Election

2004-11-08T23:54:00.000-08:00

Now, I've said something along these lines for awhile now. Kerry was the wrong candidate. Some of the points in this article I disagree with, but it also makes some good ones.

Election Results Maps

2004-11-08T23:38:00.000-08:00

The election is done, but what can we learn from it? We look at the maps of red and blue states but those aren't very informative as they're binary. We don't see which states were close and which were a landslide. We don't see how the size of the state compares to the population. Here are some maps that help visualize the facts and figures. Take a minute to look them over. It's interesting.

Protest against Indymedia HD confiscations

2004-11-08T16:58:00.000-08:00

Witty protest against confiscation of Indymedia drives

2004-10-25T17:45:00.000-07:00

Damn Patriot Act II

In case you've been living in a hole, the Patriot Act is vile. Here's why.

Make it stop!!!

2004-10-25T05:15:00.000-07:00

Is Choice more important than the Vote?

The long term solution for governance does not include top-down governments. I believe that their monopoly on government structures stifles innovation in politics and is one of the largest obstacles to a better world. However, I do not believe in forcing any structure upon anything. A truly open market will allow the best solution to be found. It is also incorrect to force people to follow and join these things we call nations and follow their laws with no way to really escape. We claim that people can always leave, but where are we to go? Nations blanket the earth. For the truly radical stuff, read my entries on a decentralized, bottom-up government. That is the future. However, before that can be reached, we may need a solution such as the following. Do not mistake this as a change in my ideas. I simply believe that we must look forward to the long term, and also the short-term. We cannot jump straight to the end. Pragmatism demands steps.

It came to me, in discussion with a friend, that one of the biggest, if not the biggest forces allowing governments to ignore the wishes of their citizens is the difficulty involving immigration and emmigration.

As has been expressed in my other articles, all current governments can be seen through the lens of our future better self-rule, with a few minor modifications to todays governments. We would have to have originally signed to our governments in order to see things that way (and of course we wouldn't sign) for that to work. However, we can still gain some insight by attempting this without these changes.

The governments of the world are a set of methods for creating a society in which people live. We could call them "law-plexes" to use my normal language. Law-plexes are simply collections, plexes, of laws. Fundamentally all a government is is a bunch of laws, using a broad definition of "law".

These law-plexes offer us different solutions to help us live our lives. We could compare them to see which we prefer, which works better, which makes happier people, etc. There's one major obstacle preventing that. In a normal market, we can look at the available products and pick which we want to buy. However, with governments we get no choice. We are defaulted to receiving whichever one our parents belong to. Worse still, changing to a different "product" is incredibly difficult. If I decide that the Kenyans, the Germans, the Indians, or anyone else has a better system, a better law-plex, than the U.S., I can't simply move there. Now, there are more obstacles than simple immigration. There is language, custom, and all of the usual challenges of relocation. However, the immigration one is typically a deal-buster, at least for the average person. Many languages speak english. It is the most widely accepted language. Many people speak other languages, and many cultures are similar enough to not pose a serious deterrent to adaptive people. But, I can't simply move there and begin living under their system because they won't let me buy their product!

We have set our governments up as exclusive groups where no-one else is allowed in unless we have damned good reason to. We see newcomers as inherently bad. In actuality, though, they needn't be seen that way. Just as a company selling a product doesn't hand over decision-making power to its customers, a nation wouldn't need to scatter voting privileges to every newcomer. That could still be a privilege granted to whomever they decided to grant it to. The point is, opening up a base level of immigration, analogous to opening up your product for public sale, would put nations, law-plexes, in competition with one another in such a way that bad, unresponsive, wasteful, corrupt government could be dropped as quickly as a bad product. It would force them to be responsive or face mass emmigration.

Hold on, you say, this is crazy! Not allow voting? What kind of f^&#ed up idea is that? That's the most important thing we've fought for in the last several centuries! Well, I reply, maybe we messed up. In all honesty, opening up immigration/emmigration in this sense could have a much more "democratizing" effect than broad voting rights. Right now we're stuck in these arbitrary groups. If one group comes up with a good idea, we may or may not be able to institute the same idea in our group, but more likely than not we won't. And, we will have different groups pulling different ways. It would be as if you took a random sample of customers all with completely different needs, told them they would receive all their services/products from a single company, and then fight for what services/products those would be, with limited resources, methods, etc. It is asinine. However, we don't bat an eye when the same happens with our governments. We receive much better satisfaction from the evil corporations than we do from our governments in most regards. They tend to be more responsive than government, because they don't have to meet everyone's needs, they just meet the needs of those who choose their service. They look for a need and fill it. Imagine if governments sought out our needs? Ha! Ridiculous! Although we'd like to reform our companies so that they were more democratic, they still perform better than government, because they are subject to market forces. The reason state-capitalism (aka (mistakenly) communism) failed is because people had to choose the state product and there was no competition.

Just imagine, governments could specialize. One might do its best to appeal to technophiles, another to woodsy-folk, another to families, another to seniors. It could become logical to move from one nation to another at different parts of your life, just as we move around our nations. Florida is a senior hot-spot now. In the future it could be Mexico, Spain, or Ecuador. The best internal system, as regards who gets to vote, etc., would be sorted out in the process.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Make a nation for me and I'll come a knockin, if only you let me in!