Friday, July 5, 2013

The Welfare Matrix




The Welfare Matrix; a modest proposal



          What becomes of society’s losers? Jared Diamond asked a similar question; what becomes of the losers of tribal warfare? He found three solutions. For sparcely-populated hunter-gatherer societies (politically-incorrectly called ‘savage’), the losers are driven off the land, to starvation or more marginal land or dispossessing someone else. For middling-density pre-state agricultural societies (‘barbarians’), the losers are exterminated, down to the last woman and child.  And for high-density state-dominated farming societies (‘empires’), the losers are enslaved.
          These three solutions translate to the modern criminal code. The savage ‘Jacksonian’ solution is exile; the barbaric ‘Hitlerian’ solution is capital punishment; and the imperial ‘Pharaonic’ solution is imprisonment. But are these the only alternatives?
          The Romans experimented with another solution; bread and circuses. The idea was to keep potential trouble-makers too well fed and entertained to desire revolt. It’s a drain on the imperial economy, but less than revolt is, so it’s a sound insurance policy; an investment in public order. How would this translate to the modern age?
          I propose the “Welfare Matrix”. It would work this way: when one of the losers of society's internal wars needs Welfare money, he has to put on the virtual-reality helmet and go into the Matrix, where the Welfare Bureaucracy resides. So instead of standing in endless lines in a brick-and-mortal building, you stand in endless lines in a virtual building. There will be video-game characteristics built in - you have to zap demon attacks, first-person shooter stuff like that - just to keep people busy and venting their frustrations. The Matrix is hard enough that you have to work all day for the Welfare, and the Welfare is stingy enough that you never get off the Matrix.
             This suggests the question; are we already in the Welfare Matrix without knowing it? Given endless virtual work for virtual pay? 

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Cat Kings



          Cat Kings, A Vision Realized

          Consider the following passage, from “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court”, by Mark Twain, chapter XL:
   ***
          … Clarence was with me as concerned the revolution, but in a modified way. His idea was a republic, without privileged orders, but with a hereditary royal family at the head of it instead of an elective chief magistrate. He believed that no nation that had ever known the joy of worshiping a royal family could ever be robbed of it and not fade away and die of melancholy. I urged that kings were dangerous. He said, then have cats. He was sure that a royal family of cats would answer every purpose. They would be as useful as any other royal family, they would know as much, they would have the same virtues and the same treacheries, the same disposition to get up shindies with other royal cats, they would be laughably vain and absurd and never know it, they would be wholly inexpensive; finally, they would have as sound a divine right as any other royal house, and "Tom VII, or Tom XI, or Tom XIV by the grace of God King," would sound as well as it would when applied to the ordinary royal tomcat with tights on. "And as a rule," said he, in his neat modern English, "the character of these cats would be considerably above the character of the average king, and this would be an immense moral advantage to the nation, for the reason that a nation always models its morals after its monarch's. The worship of royalty being founded in unreason, these graceful and harmless cats would easily become as sacred as any other royalties, and indeed more so, because it would presently be noticed that they hanged nobody, beheaded nobody, imprisoned nobody, inflicted no cruelties or injustices of any sort, and so must be worthy of a deeper love and reverence than the customary human king, and would certainly get it. The eyes of the whole harried world would soon be fixed upon this humane and gentle system, and royal butchers would presently begin to disappear; their subjects would fill the vacancies with catlings from our own royal house; we should become a factory; we should supply the thrones of the world; within forty years all Europe would be governed by cats, and we should furnish the cats. The reign of universal peace would begin then, to end no more forever.... Me-e-e-yow-ow-ow-ow--fzt!--wow!"
          Hang him, I supposed he was in earnest, and was beginning to be persuaded by him, until he exploded that cat-howl and startled me almost out of my clothes. But he never could be in earnest. He didn't know what it was. He had pictured a distinct and perfectly rational and feasible improvement upon constitutional monarchy, but he was too feather-headed to know it, or care anything about it, either.
   ***
          So Mark Twain wrote; and now a town in Alaska is putting his vision into effect! Meet Stubbs, honorary mayor of Talkeetna for 15 years:

See also Morris the cat, running for mayor of Xalapa, Mexico:



Wednesday, July 3, 2013

On Political Security



          On Political Security


             Teller used to say that failure to have internal circulation of information is always worse than the damage from leaks, since the enemy is going to spend as much effort as needed to find ways to get the information he want: then he knows it and vital parts of your establishment do not.

             Julian Assange agrees with Teller, and has said so:

             http://iq.org/conspiracies.pdf

             The difference is that Assange wants to maximize, not minimize, self-defeating bureaucratic self-censorship. His theory is that Wikileaks poses a Prisoner’s Dilemma to any conspiratorial institution; either open up internal communications and become vulnerable to a whistleblower, or censor away both leaks and efficiency. Since they cannot trust themselves, they must censor themselves, and therefore dumb themselves down. Thus freedom of the press works against corruption.

             Therefore press freedom is opposed by corruption’s beneficiaries. They will say, for instance, that releasing the information endangers National Security; but what is at stake is not national security; it is “Political Security”, which I define as the job security of the political class. Political security is the corruption of national security.

             Political security is often confused with national security, especially by the political class; but in truth they are not the same. Political security and national security are two, not one, especially when the political class thinks they are one, not two.


Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Two Related Dilemmas



          Two Related Dilemmas


          American education poses a dilemma for those who run the political system, namely; shall the people learn or not? If the people do not learn, then they become unproductive and the economy collapses; but if the people do learn, then they become productive but uncontrollable. Indeed, the more they learn, the more they want to take over!

          Recent history gives vivid illustration of this dilemma. In the 60's, we saw the post-Sputnik initiative. What was the result? By the end of the decade, Americans were walking on the moon, and rioting in the campuses! In 1980, an anti-intellectual was elected President, and a different attitude towards education took hold. The result? Much more political stability, but 40 years of stagnant median income. 

          Explosion or collapse? The ideal solution, from the 1% point of view, is a kind of golden mediocrity, where education teaches the masses just enough to work, and not enough to make trouble. The trouble is that the lines sometimes cross, and you need to know more to work than you need to make trouble; then mediocrity gives everyone trouble but no work.

          60s or 80s? In the 60s, America went to the Moon. In the 80s, America went to Hell. All in all I prefer the Moon.

          Snowden and Assange have taught us that there is a similar dilemma concerning secrecy. If internal communications of secretive agencies are not censored, then the agency risks exposure by leak; but if internal communications are censored, then the agency becomes stupid. As in the education dilemma, the operators and owners of the system face a choice between controlled collapse into stupidity and uncontrolled ascent into rebellion; and as in the education dilemma, golden mediocrity fails when the lines cross, and it becomes easier for a disgruntled agent to rebel than to report.

          In both cases information flow is a problem. From the 1% point of view, information is a kind of explosive lubricant; if it doesn't flow, then the system seizes up, but if it does flow, then the system blows up. Golden mediocrity fails when revolt is simpler than labor.

          There is a deeper problem, and it is political. Why the revolt of the informed public? Because knowledge gives power, and ends excuses.

Monday, July 1, 2013

Three Whistleblowers



Three data points are enough for a rudimentary analysis, so let us compare Manning, Assange and Snowden. They are alike in that they all have Uncle Sam on their cases. They differ in planning and outcomes.

Manning was naive; he confided in a fellow officer, and now he is in custody and under court-martial. Assange knew better than to blab to a man in uniform, but he thought he could manage on his own wits. He is now in an improvised prison cell of his own choosing. Snowden knew from the first that he was in for a world of trouble; so he planned ahead. He flew to Moscow, and planned to go from there to Havana, and from there to parts unknown.

The message is clear:

* If you diss the Man, then do not trust the Man.
* Plan your parry to their counter-attack before they know you exist.
* You can't rebel alone. Seek rich friends, powerful allies and independent sanctuaries.
Snowden’s subsequent troubles suggest also:
* There is no such thing as a free lunch, a fair fight or an unmixed motive.