On Nov 27, 2010 9:06 AM, "Paul D. Fernhout" <pdfernhout@kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
> On 11/24/10 11:32 AM, Thomas Fledrich wrote:
>> A strong state means less freedom for the
>> individual, be it in education (like a ban on home schooling),
>> artificial scarcity in the size of available land by declaring most of
>> it a non-housing zone or en even stronger states making it very
>> difficult to get the means to communicate to the outside world and
>> voice an opinion that is not in line with the state-endorsed way of
>> thinking.
> >
>> On the other hand, a weak government means wealthy people might just
>> take their place and do the same based on property laws.
>
> Yes, and we have a lot of that now, and it is a problem with
> Propertarian libertarianism. Although some libertarians argue that
> without a state enforcing lots of laws, it is hard for any one entity to
> accumulate a lot of property and power.
> http://www.google.com/search?q=libertarian+concentration+of+wealth
>
> From:
> http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2262075548&topic=5192&_fb_noscript=1
> "There is an important difference. Liberal egalitarians hold that both
> genetic talents and society's resources may be redistributed to achieve
> a particular pattern of equality. Left-libertarians hold that give each
> person is a self-owner and thus has a natural right to profit from the
> exercise of any talents which he or she has. However, the right to
> genetic talents does not extend to a right to a greater share of
> undeveloped, natural resources. Consequently, all people should be given
> an equal share of these resources. Any inequalities which develop from
> this distribution of unowned resources are perfectly justifiable from a
> left-libertarian perspective. In contrast, a liberal egalitarian would
> say that we should continually redistribute to preserve a pattern of
> equality. Left-libertarians set up an initially equal distribution of
> resources but then accept any inequalities which flow from that initial
> distribution."
>
> Note by the way a "genetic" model of ability here that ignores
> parenting, the effect of class and family wealth (which may be inherited
> generations back to original land "thieves"), and so on.
>
> Also from there: "The other, potentially bigger issue, is wealth
> concentration. As even more capitalisty left-libertarians like Roderick
> Long admit, corporate capitalism is a result of rent-seeking by
> concentrated special interests. Thus, we need to be concerned about
> eliminating the potential that any aristocracy can form. Thus, we can't
> scoff at progressive taxation. We also need to build organizational and
> technological models that allow for effective decentralized organization
> to prevent concentrated wealth from overpowering an apathetic masses.
> However, the decentralized structures will even crumble if the
> concentration of wealth grows too much.... and when radical life
> extension starts that potential problem grows even larger."
>
> But then another reply is:
> "There aren't any guarantees, in any system, whether statist or
> anarchist, but any potential for plutocracy can only be magnified by the
> state."
>
> Which brings one back to a question of what sort of state? What sort of
> constitution? Or what interpretation of the constitution we already have
> in the USA (or some other country)?
>
>> One solution
>> for this is to keep the means for defense distributed in the whole of
>> society, so no elite group will be able to enforce their demands past
>> a certain point where people become really upset. So if they're any
>> smart they won't try to.
>
> I can see how you can't talk about "ownership" without talking about the
> means (cultural or military) by which "ownership" will be enforced.
>
> It's actually a common criticism of people advocating for social change
> that they often assume some part of the old order when talking about a
> new one. So, for example, people implicitly tend to assume the phones
> keep working and the police keep showing up for domestic violence
> situations the way they currently do when talking about anarchism. :-)
> It's hard to think about how basic social processes in a different
> paradigm without slipping into just assuming past processes continue,
> like ignoring copper thieves.
>
> Historically in the USA what you suggest has been part of the culture --
> things like the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US
> Constitution to keep the potentially tyrannical power of government in
> check.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
>
> But personally I do not feel that small arms or whatever other locally
> violent things people may try to use to "resist tyranny" are an
> important aspect of this social process anymore in the 21st century
> (especially given how outgunned and out-organized the general public is
> by professionals), and so I think a Gandhi-like approach to focus on a
> shift in social consciousness to go with a different notion of the
> economy is a better idea.
>
> One can make a different sort of argument as well, that a lot of these
> issues get decided by who the professional military and police
> ultimately decides to support in a widespread social conflict, but I
> think it comes down to the same thing -- a shift in social consciousness
> among that leadership, a shift which will likely lag by a decade or more
> what is going on in the rest of the society. Ultimately, when the police
> force or military is made up of people who have solar panels on their
> roofs (or maybe Mr. Fusion in their basements) and a 3D printer in their
> kitchen, then they just are not going to be as inclined to want to die
> in wars over oil in the Middle East and they will be less likely to want
> to imprison people for talking about new useful things to print out in
> 3D printers. And also, with solar panels and 3D printers, such people
> are going to be less dependent on their jobs for "income" and so will
> feel they have more options for dissent (even within a hierarchy there
> are degrees of compliance). We don't quite see that with music sharing
> (police who grew up listening to downloaded music may still enforce RIAA
> demands), but I think that ultimately, with changes related to 3D
> printing and robotics and so on, we may see a bigger paradigm shift.
> Maybe that is more of a hope than a certainty (some people may always be
> martinets), but it's the best hope I can offer.
>
> Why do I think a Gandhi-like movement is a better idea?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi
>
> To begin with, I agree with this:
> "Social Movements and Strategic Nonviolence"
> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence.html
> "For current-day egalitarians, a commitment to the freedoms and
> democratic procedures won by past egalitarians can provide the primary
> foundation for the practice of nonviolence, although some of them also
> draw upon their religious values as well. This democratic commitment has
> the added virtue of narrowing the gap between egalitarians and
> mainstream liberals. In addition, a nonviolence orientation can be
> sustained by the knowledge that it helps to keep the egalitarian
> movement itself more democratic; it ensures that violence-prone
> dominators will not take over the movement and subvert its democratic
> aims. As many historical cases suggest, the most violent people soon
> rise to the top once the possibility of violence is introduced, and they
> often use their loyal followers to intimidate or kill rivals.
> ... Violence-prone activists sometimes like to claim they are merely
> retaliating against violence by the police, which they think people will
> understand and even applaud as justifiable self-protection. Some
> activists also believe that standing up to the police will inspire
> others to join them because they have shown they are serious about
> challenging the system. However, as polls taken after such incidents
> show, most people do not accept these rationales. They do not like to
> hear of extreme reactions by the police, but they tend to blame the
> demonstrators, even when the police are the primary instigators. Thus,
> it is not a matter of who is right and who is wrong, or about which side
> started it. It is a matter of whether physical confrontations are
> effective in gaining adherents, and it seems clear that they are not."
>
> So, if your main goal is to bring as many people into a movement like
> open manufacturing as possible, including people involved in law
> enforcement, the intelligence services, the military, and so on, then
> killing lots of people (or threatening to do so), especially killing the
> buddies of professional security people, seems like a really bad idea.
> Violence is just going to harden the opinion of law enforcement and, in
> general, turn the bulk of the population away from any movement.
>
> Even I get squirmy when I see some activist being impolite at some
> political event or some board meeting even when I totally agree with the
> point being made -- it just feels wrong in our society. Sure, it's good
> that there are people standing up for something, telling past-President
> Bush or whoever that he has done illegal things for oil profits or
> whatever, or telling a town planning board it is selling out to Walmart
> or whatever, but ultimately, it's not really moving us forward as a
> country. It just becomes a big focus of energy, with often not much
> results but a hardening of hearts (based on cognitive dissonance).
> "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs,
> Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts"
> http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0151010986
>
> What might make more of a difference than protests is people getting to
> know their neighbors and talking about alternatives to oil use like
> helping each other insulate their homes better or discussing EVs like
> the Chevy Volt vs. the Nissan Leaf or talking about vegan recipes, and
> people getting elected to town planning boards, and things like that.
> More ideas in that direction by me:
> "Rebutting Communiqué from an Absent Future (was Re: Information on
> student protests)"
> http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-November/006005.html
>
> Even in Iraq, what have, say, IEDs really accomplished as far as making
> Iraq a better place? They seem to just be used to justify further
> occupation by the USA. Some soldier sees his (or her) buddy get blown up
> just driving along and then feels emotionally justified in killing lots
> of Iraqis as pay-back -- that's only human, even if it might violate the
> code of war. Eventually, years from now, the violence in Iraq will end
> when everyone gets tired of the death and bloodshed, some sort of civil
> order will be restored, and non-violent cultural change processes will
> reassert themselves, and the US power structure there will eventually be
> rejected. If Iraq was "peaceful", how long would the mandate last in the
> USA for having a lot of expensive soldiers there? A couple of months?
> Obama would declare victory, pull most of the troops, and in a couple
> years Iraq would go its own way. Same for Afghanistan.
>
> A lot of politically-motivated violence in the USA, given the fragmented
> partisanship of Blue and Red, might also potentially make it like Iraq,
> or like Northern Ireland in the past. We would be much more likely to
> see Democrats vs. Republicans instead of the "elite" vs. "the people".
> (That's part of a "divide and conquer" strategy to begin with to the
> extent an elite is organized.) Clearly there is little social consensus
> in the USA about some of the basics of government as far as some
> policies (even if most people want single payer health care, or relief
> for the poor, and organic food, and the end of overseas wars, and so
> on). One might point to decades of propaganda (by a variety of sides)
> that have made it that way, as well as, through industrialization and
> bad policy, decades of malnutrition and vitamin D deficiency (as well as
> exposure to toxins from poorly made products) that have made the bulk of
> the US population crazy or depressed. But if that's the way it is,
> that's the way it is, and adding widespread violence to that mix
> probably is not going to make anything better IMHO.
>
> What will make things better?
>
> I think we need to get at the roots of some of these issues, and that
> connects back with "ownership" issues and open manufacturing. So, we
> need to get the population healthier (eating more vegetables and fruits,
> more exercise, better sleep, adequate vitamin D, adequate omega-3s,
> enough B vitamins, etc.) in part more engagement with their local areas
> and home gardens and local farmers and creating local walking paths (see
> "Blue Zones" for some ideas). And we need to have better products and
> infrastructure with less toxins (in part through open manufacturing or
> broader initiatives like NIST's SLIM project). And we need to have
> people see a better paradigm as to what is possible both by theory and
> practice (open manufacturing, open source software, 3D printing, open
> content, a bigger gift economy, and so on). And the wonderful thing is,
> it is indeed all happening, even if it would be hard to tell if you only
> watch the mainstream media:
> http://www.blessedunrest.com/
>
> A basic income would help too, and as I suggest here we already are
> spending enough on welfare to have one in the USA with not new taxes:
>
> http://econfuture.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/will-a-college-education-be-worth-the-investment-in-the-future/#comment-438
> "Essentially, between schooling and social security and welfare, about a
> third or so of the US population is already having the equivalent of a
> "basic income" worth of money spent on their behalf. From
> usgovernmentspending.com it is for the 2010 fiscal year $1026 billion
> for education, $762 billion for welfare, and (from Wikipedia) $678
> billion on Social Security. Together, that is $2466 billion. That is
> enough for a basic income (with no needs test or age requirement) of
> about US$8,000 per year per person for about 310 million US citizens.
> Health care for all could be covered by the additional trillion dollars
> or so already spend in the USA for Medicare/Medicaid by switching it to
> a less costly single-payer model or some other universal coverage
> system. For a family of four, that would be US$32,000 a year to live off
> of (in addition to full sick care benefits). That would be tight, but
> such people could also do other things in their spare time (take jobs,
> run a business, save money by making things themselves including with 3D
> printers or organic gardens, and so on).
> Also, without a need for a job, people could live in a cheaper rural
> area with more access to land for a garden and so on. Many families of
> four in the USA do already live off of about this level of income — but
> usually they are working multiple minimum wage jobs to do so, so having
> this income but not having to work 80 hours a week for it would free up
> a lot of time to make other improvements in their life. People could
> also plan with more confidence, knowing they would always have that
> basic income, so they could do things like work towards becoming
> artists, or mimes, or novelists, or free software developers from a
> young age, without their parents saying, how are you going to make a
> living at that? [fixed typos]"
>
> We might then wan to think about making our rural areas prettier:
> "Rural Area Depopulation is in part Due to Lack of Surrounding Natural
> Beauty"
> http://bigpictureagriculture.blogspot.com/2010/11/rural-area-depopulation-is-in-part-due.html
>
> As well as maybe having better to recycle stuff:
> "Burkhard Bilger, A Reporter at Large, "Nature's Spoils""
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/22/101122fa_fact_bilger
>
> I've recently been reading parts of Treasure Island, the Algebraist, and
> a Bolo story (where a bolo defends "Camelot" from pirates) to my kid
> (who has a current interest in armed conflict and pirates), plus I've
> been rereading some parts of Iain Banks's Culture Novel "Excession" to
> myself.
>
> If you think about the meaning of some of those sorts of stories, with
> some sort of violent conflict woven into them, as well as a book like
> Voyage from Yesteryear, they do tend to make a point that a group of
> people collectively can be powerful. They usually make that point by
> saying the group can make or use weapons. What wins in some such stories
> tends to be either extreme individual effort or broad collective effort.
> In some, there is a swashbuckling fanatical Robin Hood-like commitment
> to the common good by one individual or a small group of such
> individuals (usually aided by some personal friends in indirect ways).
> This is as opposed to the what happens to those committed to greed or
> cruelty, where such advocates have poor communications and commitment
> among their subordinates who all go skulking off in the end because they
> can't take the heat or are just lazy. The champions just happen to be
> really good soldiers in some way (Luke Skywalker practiced shooting
> "Womp rats"). Or, alternatively, what wins is the fact that a whole
> bunch of people (the general populace) who have banded together for a
> common cause and who essentially intimidate a small number of elite
> rulers, usually lead by some charismatic individual or group. Of course,
> that is often how big groups go bad, too -- charisma (think Hitler who
> was very charismatic for his time and place).
>
> Those make good stories, but I can wonder if the reality we face today
> is very different. In the 21st century, we face a reality where the
> central problem is that we already devote so much of our society to
> guarding (like Bob Black mentions in "The Abolition of Work"). If we
> want to move beyond that guarding paradigm, it would seem that violence
> will just increase the amount of energy going into excessive guarding.
> As long as the general populace believes in the value of widespread
> guarding as a great use of public energy, then not much will change. But
> how do you convince people of excessive guarding as a waste by making
> them more afraid? I won't argue that we need no "security" (even if that
> means some guarding), but certainly we can discuss the amount and the
> approach -- like intrinsic security vs. extrinsic security, and mutual
> security vs. unilateral security.
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
>
> One might argue that a major reason for open manufacturing in the USA is
> precisely because it makes us more secure. That is because it most
> effectively mutually and intrinsically guards our life-support systems
> to have them, say, in the hands of local communities than people living
> in China (manufactured goods) or the Middle East (energy) or Africa (raw
> materials). So, I think one can have productive discussions about open
> manufacturing and how it relates to national security, but those are
> going to be different discussions than ones about, say, printing guns.
>
> Of those stories, Voyage From Yesteryear might be the healthiest take on
> all that. I think, if anything, like in Voyage from Yesteryear, or Iain
> Banks' writings, one might see that war making in an advanced culture is
> something some people might be good at, but generally in a hobbyist sort
> of way incidental to the mainstream bulk of what the culture does (by
> hobbyist I don't mean unprofessional -- a lot of hobbyist can be more
> serious than professionals).
>
> That situation is certainly not what we have in the USA at the moment
> where so much money is shunted into "Defense" (which is really defense
> of privilege as a "racket" according to Smedley Butler). And it's a very
> different situation where individuals with small arms (even in small
> groups) are very focused on the notion that their guns can somehow
> protect them as individuals or small groups from huge bureaucracies
> backed by millions strong police and military who would glory in the
> chance to do battle as a unit against someone they though of as a wacko
> or wackos with handguns, and who also would not rest until there was
> vengeance done against somebody if one of their own buddies falls.
>
> Anyway, there is a "war" going on in a sense even right now. It's just a
> more subtle one than one waged with bullets. :-) And "war" is not even
> the right metaphor, because it is more about transcending conflict than
> triumphing at it. Related:
> "James P. Carse, Religious War In Light of the Infinite Game, SALT talk"
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-962221125884493114#
>
> As Isaac Asimov had his character Salvor Hardin say: "Violence is the
> last refuge of the incompetent."
>
> The fact is, refusal to cooperate with certain mainstream trends as well
> as cooperation to bring about alternative other trends would be far more
> effective than any gun play that just justifies more invasive body
> scanners at airports, or now, as is proposed, train terminals, bus
> lines, subways, and so on.
>
> Consider:
> "Next step for tight security could be trains, boats, metro "
> http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/130549-next-step-for-body-scanners-could-be-trains-boats-and-the-metro-
>
> See also the racket aspect of promoting fear:
> "Fear Pays: Chertoff, Ex-Security Officials Slammed For Cashing In On
> Government Experience"
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_n_787711.html
>
> Which is just another aspect of this:
> "War is a Racket"
> http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
>
> So, we as a society ironically take all the material resources and
> social energy that could go into building a better world of abundance
> for everyone and use them to implement a security state with scanners
> everywhere implementing artificial scarcity. All the social energy that
> could go into building a better world instead just goes into opposing
> all that, and then if the conflict descends into gunplay, we just see
> more scanners, and so on.
>
> So, I'd suggest that more violence is only going to accelerate that
> trend. Even the threat of it just justifies more trouble. As I suggest here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/ae28e8971f8f9669?hl=en
> "My advice to people here is to build movements in such a way that the
> CIA can be proud of them :-) as well as so Smári and Bryan and others
> here can be proud of them too. :-) And, given the CIA is hiring
> machinists, build a movement where, in a good way, you assume everyone
> in it is working for the CIA, :-) but where you still get important
> stuff done in moving the world towards a post-scarcity open future. Just
> like people should assume Google is a division of the NSA and/or CIA.
> :-) An impossible task? Well, consider it more like a creative
> challenge. :-) "
>
> Some recent stuff I've written along that line, too:
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-dealing-with-social-hurricanes.html
>
> I'm not saying that, say, the current airport gropedowns and irradiation
> are not a problem. I've already turned down chances to go and talk at
> two conferences in the past year (where someone else would pay my way)
> because it would entail flying. I think the security theater there is an
> embarrassment for our society.
>
> Ultimately, this will only change when we all rise up and... *vote* for
> different policies either in the voting booth, with our dollars, or with
> our time and other resources. Even if electronic voting machines were
> rigged, we can still vote with our time and volunteerism. Let's just
> skip the whole "and now everyone shoots everyone else bit" and move
> straight "and what do we do now that the shooting is over bit?" :-)
>
> Ultimately, we need to wage the peace. :-)
>
> And ideally, that is what open manufacturing, FOSS, and so on as a broad
> movement is mostly doing. :-)
> "Study Reports On Debian Governance, Social Organization"
> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/14/1349202
>
> I don't think an elite is that worried about, say, 3D printers printing
> out handguns or even DIY-Bio making disease stuff, because it all just
> justifies a stronger national security state, which means their role in
> this world is strengthened further.
>
> From that Huffington Post article:
> "Chertoff, who is a frequent guest on cable news, often touts security
> proposals and technologies that align with the interests of or are
> manufactured by his clients. He recently told CNBC that he'd like to see
> "more investment in bio-security" because "I think we are beginning to
> lag a little behind in terms of being able to respond to biological
> threats." The Chertoff Group has invested in BioNeutral, a biotech
> startup based in New Jersey that is developing technology to combat
> dangerous microorganisms. In a relatively rare disclosure, Chertoff
> acknowledged in the interview that "we do represent companies that make
> sensors and technology of that sort.""
>
> It is only when we use all those post-scarcity technologies to build
> some positive optimistic abundant healthy alternatives with all that
> technology that we will see those forces of greed and fear fade away.
>
> And the biggest issue there is people taking ownership of their own time
> to use it for worthwhile post-scarcity ends.
>
> --Paul Fernhout
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/
> ====
> The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies
> of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
>
> On 11/24/10 11:32 AM, Thomas Fledrich wrote:
>> A strong state means less freedom for the
>> individual, be it in education (like a ban on home schooling),
>> artificial scarcity in the size of available land by declaring most of
>> it a non-housing zone or en even stronger states making it very
>> difficult to get the means to communicate to the outside world and
>> voice an opinion that is not in line with the state-endorsed way of
>> thinking.
> >
>> On the other hand, a weak government means wealthy people might just
>> take their place and do the same based on property laws.
>
> Yes, and we have a lot of that now, and it is a problem with
> Propertarian libertarianism. Although some libertarians argue that
> without a state enforcing lots of laws, it is hard for any one entity to
> accumulate a lot of property and power.
> http://www.google.com/search?q=libertarian+concentration+of+wealth
>
> From:
> http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2262075548&topic=5192&_fb_noscript=1
> "There is an important difference. Liberal egalitarians hold that both
> genetic talents and society's resources may be redistributed to achieve
> a particular pattern of equality. Left-libertarians hold that give each
> person is a self-owner and thus has a natural right to profit from the
> exercise of any talents which he or she has. However, the right to
> genetic talents does not extend to a right to a greater share of
> undeveloped, natural resources. Consequently, all people should be given
> an equal share of these resources. Any inequalities which develop from
> this distribution of unowned resources are perfectly justifiable from a
> left-libertarian perspective. In contrast, a liberal egalitarian would
> say that we should continually redistribute to preserve a pattern of
> equality. Left-libertarians set up an initially equal distribution of
> resources but then accept any inequalities which flow from that initial
> distribution."
>
> Note by the way a "genetic" model of ability here that ignores
> parenting, the effect of class and family wealth (which may be inherited
> generations back to original land "thieves"), and so on.
>
> Also from there: "The other, potentially bigger issue, is wealth
> concentration. As even more capitalisty left-libertarians like Roderick
> Long admit, corporate capitalism is a result of rent-seeking by
> concentrated special interests. Thus, we need to be concerned about
> eliminating the potential that any aristocracy can form. Thus, we can't
> scoff at progressive taxation. We also need to build organizational and
> technological models that allow for effective decentralized organization
> to prevent concentrated wealth from overpowering an apathetic masses.
> However, the decentralized structures will even crumble if the
> concentration of wealth grows too much.... and when radical life
> extension starts that potential problem grows even larger."
>
> But then another reply is:
> "There aren't any guarantees, in any system, whether statist or
> anarchist, but any potential for plutocracy can only be magnified by the
> state."
>
> Which brings one back to a question of what sort of state? What sort of
> constitution? Or what interpretation of the constitution we already have
> in the USA (or some other country)?
>
>> One solution
>> for this is to keep the means for defense distributed in the whole of
>> society, so no elite group will be able to enforce their demands past
>> a certain point where people become really upset. So if they're any
>> smart they won't try to.
>
> I can see how you can't talk about "ownership" without talking about the
> means (cultural or military) by which "ownership" will be enforced.
>
> It's actually a common criticism of people advocating for social change
> that they often assume some part of the old order when talking about a
> new one. So, for example, people implicitly tend to assume the phones
> keep working and the police keep showing up for domestic violence
> situations the way they currently do when talking about anarchism. :-)
> It's hard to think about how basic social processes in a different
> paradigm without slipping into just assuming past processes continue,
> like ignoring copper thieves.
>
> Historically in the USA what you suggest has been part of the culture --
> things like the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US
> Constitution to keep the potentially tyrannical power of government in
> check.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
>
> But personally I do not feel that small arms or whatever other locally
> violent things people may try to use to "resist tyranny" are an
> important aspect of this social process anymore in the 21st century
> (especially given how outgunned and out-organized the general public is
> by professionals), and so I think a Gandhi-like approach to focus on a
> shift in social consciousness to go with a different notion of the
> economy is a better idea.
>
> One can make a different sort of argument as well, that a lot of these
> issues get decided by who the professional military and police
> ultimately decides to support in a widespread social conflict, but I
> think it comes down to the same thing -- a shift in social consciousness
> among that leadership, a shift which will likely lag by a decade or more
> what is going on in the rest of the society. Ultimately, when the police
> force or military is made up of people who have solar panels on their
> roofs (or maybe Mr. Fusion in their basements) and a 3D printer in their
> kitchen, then they just are not going to be as inclined to want to die
> in wars over oil in the Middle East and they will be less likely to want
> to imprison people for talking about new useful things to print out in
> 3D printers. And also, with solar panels and 3D printers, such people
> are going to be less dependent on their jobs for "income" and so will
> feel they have more options for dissent (even within a hierarchy there
> are degrees of compliance). We don't quite see that with music sharing
> (police who grew up listening to downloaded music may still enforce RIAA
> demands), but I think that ultimately, with changes related to 3D
> printing and robotics and so on, we may see a bigger paradigm shift.
> Maybe that is more of a hope than a certainty (some people may always be
> martinets), but it's the best hope I can offer.
>
> Why do I think a Gandhi-like movement is a better idea?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi
>
> To begin with, I agree with this:
> "Social Movements and Strategic Nonviolence"
> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence.html
> "For current-day egalitarians, a commitment to the freedoms and
> democratic procedures won by past egalitarians can provide the primary
> foundation for the practice of nonviolence, although some of them also
> draw upon their religious values as well. This democratic commitment has
> the added virtue of narrowing the gap between egalitarians and
> mainstream liberals. In addition, a nonviolence orientation can be
> sustained by the knowledge that it helps to keep the egalitarian
> movement itself more democratic; it ensures that violence-prone
> dominators will not take over the movement and subvert its democratic
> aims. As many historical cases suggest, the most violent people soon
> rise to the top once the possibility of violence is introduced, and they
> often use their loyal followers to intimidate or kill rivals.
> ... Violence-prone activists sometimes like to claim they are merely
> retaliating against violence by the police, which they think people will
> understand and even applaud as justifiable self-protection. Some
> activists also believe that standing up to the police will inspire
> others to join them because they have shown they are serious about
> challenging the system. However, as polls taken after such incidents
> show, most people do not accept these rationales. They do not like to
> hear of extreme reactions by the police, but they tend to blame the
> demonstrators, even when the police are the primary instigators. Thus,
> it is not a matter of who is right and who is wrong, or about which side
> started it. It is a matter of whether physical confrontations are
> effective in gaining adherents, and it seems clear that they are not."
>
> So, if your main goal is to bring as many people into a movement like
> open manufacturing as possible, including people involved in law
> enforcement, the intelligence services, the military, and so on, then
> killing lots of people (or threatening to do so), especially killing the
> buddies of professional security people, seems like a really bad idea.
> Violence is just going to harden the opinion of law enforcement and, in
> general, turn the bulk of the population away from any movement.
>
> Even I get squirmy when I see some activist being impolite at some
> political event or some board meeting even when I totally agree with the
> point being made -- it just feels wrong in our society. Sure, it's good
> that there are people standing up for something, telling past-President
> Bush or whoever that he has done illegal things for oil profits or
> whatever, or telling a town planning board it is selling out to Walmart
> or whatever, but ultimately, it's not really moving us forward as a
> country. It just becomes a big focus of energy, with often not much
> results but a hardening of hearts (based on cognitive dissonance).
> "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs,
> Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts"
> http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0151010986
>
> What might make more of a difference than protests is people getting to
> know their neighbors and talking about alternatives to oil use like
> helping each other insulate their homes better or discussing EVs like
> the Chevy Volt vs. the Nissan Leaf or talking about vegan recipes, and
> people getting elected to town planning boards, and things like that.
> More ideas in that direction by me:
> "Rebutting Communiqué from an Absent Future (was Re: Information on
> student protests)"
> http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-November/006005.html
>
> Even in Iraq, what have, say, IEDs really accomplished as far as making
> Iraq a better place? They seem to just be used to justify further
> occupation by the USA. Some soldier sees his (or her) buddy get blown up
> just driving along and then feels emotionally justified in killing lots
> of Iraqis as pay-back -- that's only human, even if it might violate the
> code of war. Eventually, years from now, the violence in Iraq will end
> when everyone gets tired of the death and bloodshed, some sort of civil
> order will be restored, and non-violent cultural change processes will
> reassert themselves, and the US power structure there will eventually be
> rejected. If Iraq was "peaceful", how long would the mandate last in the
> USA for having a lot of expensive soldiers there? A couple of months?
> Obama would declare victory, pull most of the troops, and in a couple
> years Iraq would go its own way. Same for Afghanistan.
>
> A lot of politically-motivated violence in the USA, given the fragmented
> partisanship of Blue and Red, might also potentially make it like Iraq,
> or like Northern Ireland in the past. We would be much more likely to
> see Democrats vs. Republicans instead of the "elite" vs. "the people".
> (That's part of a "divide and conquer" strategy to begin with to the
> extent an elite is organized.) Clearly there is little social consensus
> in the USA about some of the basics of government as far as some
> policies (even if most people want single payer health care, or relief
> for the poor, and organic food, and the end of overseas wars, and so
> on). One might point to decades of propaganda (by a variety of sides)
> that have made it that way, as well as, through industrialization and
> bad policy, decades of malnutrition and vitamin D deficiency (as well as
> exposure to toxins from poorly made products) that have made the bulk of
> the US population crazy or depressed. But if that's the way it is,
> that's the way it is, and adding widespread violence to that mix
> probably is not going to make anything better IMHO.
>
> What will make things better?
>
> I think we need to get at the roots of some of these issues, and that
> connects back with "ownership" issues and open manufacturing. So, we
> need to get the population healthier (eating more vegetables and fruits,
> more exercise, better sleep, adequate vitamin D, adequate omega-3s,
> enough B vitamins, etc.) in part more engagement with their local areas
> and home gardens and local farmers and creating local walking paths (see
> "Blue Zones" for some ideas). And we need to have better products and
> infrastructure with less toxins (in part through open manufacturing or
> broader initiatives like NIST's SLIM project). And we need to have
> people see a better paradigm as to what is possible both by theory and
> practice (open manufacturing, open source software, 3D printing, open
> content, a bigger gift economy, and so on). And the wonderful thing is,
> it is indeed all happening, even if it would be hard to tell if you only
> watch the mainstream media:
> http://www.blessedunrest.com/
>
> A basic income would help too, and as I suggest here we already are
> spending enough on welfare to have one in the USA with not new taxes:
>
> http://econfuture.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/will-a-college-education-be-worth-the-investment-in-the-future/#comment-438
> "Essentially, between schooling and social security and welfare, about a
> third or so of the US population is already having the equivalent of a
> "basic income" worth of money spent on their behalf. From
> usgovernmentspending.com it is for the 2010 fiscal year $1026 billion
> for education, $762 billion for welfare, and (from Wikipedia) $678
> billion on Social Security. Together, that is $2466 billion. That is
> enough for a basic income (with no needs test or age requirement) of
> about US$8,000 per year per person for about 310 million US citizens.
> Health care for all could be covered by the additional trillion dollars
> or so already spend in the USA for Medicare/Medicaid by switching it to
> a less costly single-payer model or some other universal coverage
> system. For a family of four, that would be US$32,000 a year to live off
> of (in addition to full sick care benefits). That would be tight, but
> such people could also do other things in their spare time (take jobs,
> run a business, save money by making things themselves including with 3D
> printers or organic gardens, and so on).
> Also, without a need for a job, people could live in a cheaper rural
> area with more access to land for a garden and so on. Many families of
> four in the USA do already live off of about this level of income — but
> usually they are working multiple minimum wage jobs to do so, so having
> this income but not having to work 80 hours a week for it would free up
> a lot of time to make other improvements in their life. People could
> also plan with more confidence, knowing they would always have that
> basic income, so they could do things like work towards becoming
> artists, or mimes, or novelists, or free software developers from a
> young age, without their parents saying, how are you going to make a
> living at that? [fixed typos]"
>
> We might then wan to think about making our rural areas prettier:
> "Rural Area Depopulation is in part Due to Lack of Surrounding Natural
> Beauty"
> http://bigpictureagriculture.blogspot.com/2010/11/rural-area-depopulation-is-in-part-due.html
>
> As well as maybe having better to recycle stuff:
> "Burkhard Bilger, A Reporter at Large, "Nature's Spoils""
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/22/101122fa_fact_bilger
>
> I've recently been reading parts of Treasure Island, the Algebraist, and
> a Bolo story (where a bolo defends "Camelot" from pirates) to my kid
> (who has a current interest in armed conflict and pirates), plus I've
> been rereading some parts of Iain Banks's Culture Novel "Excession" to
> myself.
>
> If you think about the meaning of some of those sorts of stories, with
> some sort of violent conflict woven into them, as well as a book like
> Voyage from Yesteryear, they do tend to make a point that a group of
> people collectively can be powerful. They usually make that point by
> saying the group can make or use weapons. What wins in some such stories
> tends to be either extreme individual effort or broad collective effort.
> In some, there is a swashbuckling fanatical Robin Hood-like commitment
> to the common good by one individual or a small group of such
> individuals (usually aided by some personal friends in indirect ways).
> This is as opposed to the what happens to those committed to greed or
> cruelty, where such advocates have poor communications and commitment
> among their subordinates who all go skulking off in the end because they
> can't take the heat or are just lazy. The champions just happen to be
> really good soldiers in some way (Luke Skywalker practiced shooting
> "Womp rats"). Or, alternatively, what wins is the fact that a whole
> bunch of people (the general populace) who have banded together for a
> common cause and who essentially intimidate a small number of elite
> rulers, usually lead by some charismatic individual or group. Of course,
> that is often how big groups go bad, too -- charisma (think Hitler who
> was very charismatic for his time and place).
>
> Those make good stories, but I can wonder if the reality we face today
> is very different. In the 21st century, we face a reality where the
> central problem is that we already devote so much of our society to
> guarding (like Bob Black mentions in "The Abolition of Work"). If we
> want to move beyond that guarding paradigm, it would seem that violence
> will just increase the amount of energy going into excessive guarding.
> As long as the general populace believes in the value of widespread
> guarding as a great use of public energy, then not much will change. But
> how do you convince people of excessive guarding as a waste by making
> them more afraid? I won't argue that we need no "security" (even if that
> means some guarding), but certainly we can discuss the amount and the
> approach -- like intrinsic security vs. extrinsic security, and mutual
> security vs. unilateral security.
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
>
> One might argue that a major reason for open manufacturing in the USA is
> precisely because it makes us more secure. That is because it most
> effectively mutually and intrinsically guards our life-support systems
> to have them, say, in the hands of local communities than people living
> in China (manufactured goods) or the Middle East (energy) or Africa (raw
> materials). So, I think one can have productive discussions about open
> manufacturing and how it relates to national security, but those are
> going to be different discussions than ones about, say, printing guns.
>
> Of those stories, Voyage From Yesteryear might be the healthiest take on
> all that. I think, if anything, like in Voyage from Yesteryear, or Iain
> Banks' writings, one might see that war making in an advanced culture is
> something some people might be good at, but generally in a hobbyist sort
> of way incidental to the mainstream bulk of what the culture does (by
> hobbyist I don't mean unprofessional -- a lot of hobbyist can be more
> serious than professionals).
>
> That situation is certainly not what we have in the USA at the moment
> where so much money is shunted into "Defense" (which is really defense
> of privilege as a "racket" according to Smedley Butler). And it's a very
> different situation where individuals with small arms (even in small
> groups) are very focused on the notion that their guns can somehow
> protect them as individuals or small groups from huge bureaucracies
> backed by millions strong police and military who would glory in the
> chance to do battle as a unit against someone they though of as a wacko
> or wackos with handguns, and who also would not rest until there was
> vengeance done against somebody if one of their own buddies falls.
>
> Anyway, there is a "war" going on in a sense even right now. It's just a
> more subtle one than one waged with bullets. :-) And "war" is not even
> the right metaphor, because it is more about transcending conflict than
> triumphing at it. Related:
> "James P. Carse, Religious War In Light of the Infinite Game, SALT talk"
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-962221125884493114#
>
> As Isaac Asimov had his character Salvor Hardin say: "Violence is the
> last refuge of the incompetent."
>
> The fact is, refusal to cooperate with certain mainstream trends as well
> as cooperation to bring about alternative other trends would be far more
> effective than any gun play that just justifies more invasive body
> scanners at airports, or now, as is proposed, train terminals, bus
> lines, subways, and so on.
>
> Consider:
> "Next step for tight security could be trains, boats, metro "
> http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/130549-next-step-for-body-scanners-could-be-trains-boats-and-the-metro-
>
> See also the racket aspect of promoting fear:
> "Fear Pays: Chertoff, Ex-Security Officials Slammed For Cashing In On
> Government Experience"
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_n_787711.html
>
> Which is just another aspect of this:
> "War is a Racket"
> http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
>
> So, we as a society ironically take all the material resources and
> social energy that could go into building a better world of abundance
> for everyone and use them to implement a security state with scanners
> everywhere implementing artificial scarcity. All the social energy that
> could go into building a better world instead just goes into opposing
> all that, and then if the conflict descends into gunplay, we just see
> more scanners, and so on.
>
> So, I'd suggest that more violence is only going to accelerate that
> trend. Even the threat of it just justifies more trouble. As I suggest here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/ae28e8971f8f9669?hl=en
> "My advice to people here is to build movements in such a way that the
> CIA can be proud of them :-) as well as so Smári and Bryan and others
> here can be proud of them too. :-) And, given the CIA is hiring
> machinists, build a movement where, in a good way, you assume everyone
> in it is working for the CIA, :-) but where you still get important
> stuff done in moving the world towards a post-scarcity open future. Just
> like people should assume Google is a division of the NSA and/or CIA.
> :-) An impossible task? Well, consider it more like a creative
> challenge. :-) "
>
> Some recent stuff I've written along that line, too:
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-dealing-with-social-hurricanes.html
>
> I'm not saying that, say, the current airport gropedowns and irradiation
> are not a problem. I've already turned down chances to go and talk at
> two conferences in the past year (where someone else would pay my way)
> because it would entail flying. I think the security theater there is an
> embarrassment for our society.
>
> Ultimately, this will only change when we all rise up and... *vote* for
> different policies either in the voting booth, with our dollars, or with
> our time and other resources. Even if electronic voting machines were
> rigged, we can still vote with our time and volunteerism. Let's just
> skip the whole "and now everyone shoots everyone else bit" and move
> straight "and what do we do now that the shooting is over bit?" :-)
>
> Ultimately, we need to wage the peace. :-)
>
> And ideally, that is what open manufacturing, FOSS, and so on as a broad
> movement is mostly doing. :-)
> "Study Reports On Debian Governance, Social Organization"
> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/14/1349202
>
> I don't think an elite is that worried about, say, 3D printers printing
> out handguns or even DIY-Bio making disease stuff, because it all just
> justifies a stronger national security state, which means their role in
> this world is strengthened further.
>
> From that Huffington Post article:
> "Chertoff, who is a frequent guest on cable news, often touts security
> proposals and technologies that align with the interests of or are
> manufactured by his clients. He recently told CNBC that he'd like to see
> "more investment in bio-security" because "I think we are beginning to
> lag a little behind in terms of being able to respond to biological
> threats." The Chertoff Group has invested in BioNeutral, a biotech
> startup based in New Jersey that is developing technology to combat
> dangerous microorganisms. In a relatively rare disclosure, Chertoff
> acknowledged in the interview that "we do represent companies that make
> sensors and technology of that sort.""
>
> It is only when we use all those post-scarcity technologies to build
> some positive optimistic abundant healthy alternatives with all that
> technology that we will see those forces of greed and fear fade away.
>
> And the biggest issue there is people taking ownership of their own time
> to use it for worthwhile post-scarcity ends.
>
> --Paul Fernhout
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/
> ====
> The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies
> of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
>
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment