Jefferson: "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing"

A friend of mine saw this note from Thomas Jefferson and thought I may have something to say about it:

"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it's evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." - Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787

I think the American Experiment has shown that even a well-defined, limited set of powers will be expanded and abused by those who gain power (whether in a republic or a democracy).  This country has become become oppressive and violent.  So it's good to see that Jefferson recognized the need for a little rebellion.

But dismissing anarchy (ie. no government, option #1) shows a lack of imagination.  I might actually agree with him that it may not support the kind of society we have... I don't think we'd have atomic energy (or bombs) nor would we have the space technology we have today, and maybe we couldn't support such a large population, either.  However, I see that as an upside: power would not be concentrated in so few people's hands, families and communities would be more connected (out of necessity), and lives would be richer (in the spiritual sense, not an economic/comfortable sense).

It can be hard to see how to apply it, and it requires a massive rework of our social conventions.  For example, how can we get to where people will not be driven by fear to hire mercenaries to "protect our interests" in other people's lands (or states or even nearby cities)?  I'm afraid it'll require massive education before it'll work... probably spanning generations.  But it's really cool to think about it all... for example, the basis of possession as opposed to private property: http://dbzer0.com/blog/private-property-vs-possession/

Anyway, back to Jefferson's point: a little rebellion is a good thing.  I wholeheartedly agree.  And I think we're overdue for one.

How do we get a voluntary society?

In my previous post, I put the word "let's" in the title, as if the achievement of anarchy were something that we could do in any of our lifetimes.  However, when I think of the two routes for our future, the outlook is grim:

• If we have a quick collapse, I imagine people are going to want to set up local governments and gather armies to preemptively "defend" their homeland and rights (eg. to water) because they're afraid for their future.  (In contrast, members of a voluntary society will depend on persuasion rather than force to get what they want.)
• If we have a gradual decline in central authority, the outlook could be better because people will slowly have to get used to working out their own solutions, but as I look at the trend in America (and other nations) it seems that people are choosing more authoritarianism the more they feel uncertain, so they spiral down the whirlpool of feeding the beast.

Basically, people's biggest argument to me is that "people cannot handle it," and I think they're not far off, but not for the reasons they think: people would do better than we suppose, but most are afraid of the idea that someone's not "in charge" or "doing something" and so they'll try to put up another government... even the ones that are self-sufficient would join the gang -- not because people wouldn't handle it but because of their fear that other people wouldn't handle it.

So maybe we'll never get there.  But I've gotta try.

Basically, it'll be a lot of work to show examples and change the majority mindset over time.  (Hm... I wonder if society will stay stable enough for these ideas to propagate!  Well, I've got to act as if they will.)  Seems I've got company in this opinion: here are calls for "gradualism" and for "methodology (not creeds)".  (Although I, like Rothbard, would gladly jump to the final goal if given the chance.)

So let's get pragmatic: let's spread around the activities that'll help us get there.  Join me there, and I'll join with you.

Let's Achieve Anarchy. (Seriously!)

OK, I'm just going to come out and say that I'm an anarchist.  I don't know that we'll be able to get to a stateless (ie. governmentless) society in my lifetime, but I'm now convinced that it's not only possible but actually desirable: I believe that a world of anarchy -- meaning a world where there is no hierarchy of government force and all associations are voluntary -- will be overall a better world for us.  This conclusion has been a long time coming; many of you know that I've been pretty libertarian for many years now... I didn't seriously think that a society was possible without a government... but the more I study and look around the more I see that most everyone would benefit.  It may require smart people with good plans to pave the way, plus a lot of dedication and attention to the cause and a ton of luck... so I'm going to do all I can to help everyone see the benefits of voluntarism and the evils of "the state".

Let me reiterate something: anarchy doesn't mean chaos or no social order; political anarchy just means no enforced political hierarchy.  We'll still have police, courts, roads, welfare and all kinds of other things that government currently does... they just won't be owned by government and backed by aggression... they'll be done they way they've always evolved: naturally, and appropriate to the societal conditions.  I know, you may be worried that those with the biggest guns will own everything and the environment will be trashed, so read on.

Let me give the best argument I have for anarchy: "look around."

In addition to the philosophy (and there's to plenty to study), I will continually gather arguments:

• There are more and more P2P, voluntary, contractual, community, distributed solutions popping up all over the world: use RSS to subscribe to my bookmarks (see past ones here) or follow my future posts
• There is plenty of evidence every day that governments at every level oppress 99.99% of the people for the benefit of the politically well-connected: use RSS to subscribe to my bookmarks (see past ones here)

Just a quick note to my friends who may lean toward one side or other of the major US political parties:

• Republicans: I believe most of you value liberty, so keep your eyes open for evidence that the large corporations and large bureaucracies have the most access and favors from our politicians, so they are creating a system that weakens individual and small-scale power.
• Democrats: Since you value civil liberties, watch for how government force and policy can be changed at a whim; and since you value social good, watch for how the big corporate, political, and military players are always getting their own policies injected into the process.

Government is actually our enemy.  My hope is to kindly but directly demonstrate it to everyone, with philosophy, with real solutions, and by living it more and more in my life.

Cheers!

Projects Similar to P2P Docs

See other projects that seem related to mine.  It's kinda cool to see similar work going on.

I'm outraged at Turing's treatment, but it seems many haven't learned from it.

Most everyone agrees that the persecution of Alan Turing (for homosexual activity) was wrong.  However, I want to point out a mindset that I consider dangerous, and which will lead to more of this kind of oppression.  In explaining the House of Lords' rejection of a posthumous pardon, Lord McNally stated on Feb 2 that:

Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offence. He would have known that his offence was against the law and that he would be prosecuted.

Improper laws should not be supported.  We should not only abolish them, but also decry their creators and enforcers and declare that it was never right to support them in the first place.  Lord McNally's statement shows an opinion I see all too often: the support for laws just for the reason that they're laws.  I'm sorry, but I reject the idea that it is good to uphold oppression just to maintain order or just because it was decided by a group of so-called representatives; there is no virtue in unquestioning support of government rules.

Let's make it more popular to disobey bad laws (especially when done openly!).

RootsTech Presentation: Collaborating with Mom via P2P

Well, my presentation is done.  I'm happy to say that I finished enough of my tools to show off the essential parts:

• A tool where users can watch their shared file-system folders for changes from others
• ... which (diffs) can be reviewed and then accepted or rejected
• ... and where users can record their identity (from IDs in GEDCOM files and HTML files with microformat markup) and be notified when items of interest in their own ancestry get updated in their shared data files.

However, I'm sorry to say that my whole presentation was misguided:

• The user stories were too broad and ambitious to really fit the simple thesis implied by my title (where I originally aimed to make it a very simple, easy-to-use tool).
• The technical elements I reviewed and combined were more suited toward more advanced developers (and not the audience I attracted... which was small, by the way).

Basically, I still have a lot to learn about giving an effective presentation.  Well, it's been a good learning experience.  I've put online the syllabus and the final presentation, for what they're worth.  Let's hope I get a chance to refactor/reformulate/resurrect this again.

Tools and Intro to P2P Collaboration

OK, after researching, experimenting, and building, I can report on collaboration via P2P.

First, to restate the goal: I want to share family histories and other files, some with just my family and some with the whole world, and do it in a way that we all share the benefits as we each work on our own copies.  Yes, I said "copies": everyone should be able to play with all their data, on their own machine, with whatever tools they choose.  For more sample uses, see familyhistories.info.

Now, a single paragraph for this year in review: after failing to create a workable plugin for one P2P program, I found that all file sharing is not equal, but it's close enough... so it seemed a good idea to make something to cooperate with most file-sharing tools/models.  Thus began P2P-Docs, a program to keep track of your file libraries as well as the other copies of similar content that other people might be working on.  You point it to the files that others are sharing with you ("incoming") and the files that you are sharing with others ("outgoing"), and it will assist you in reviewing and reconciling changes as they get passed around.  It's wrapped with a simple search program, mostly to make it attractive bait for my relatives to be able to search for stories in our shared family histories.  So it feels good to have a deliverable as well as more instructions for actual use.

I've started inviting family and friends to share files.  I hope to have some back-and-forth collaboration before RootsTech 2012.  If you'd like to test out some sharing, contact me.

So... you can see there's a bunch of items that are "not done yet" in my project README.  I want to make these tools and instructions more useful for transferring files.  I'm most excited to give my peeps good tools to search through their information; I love the idea of organizing content by assigning semantics.  It's meaningful work (ha!).  But seriously... someday I assume our computers will parse through all our content and understand it completely enough that it can find everything for us... but even then, we determine what is interesting and important, and we'll apply these values as we search for answers and/or meaning in the electronic records being gathered.  Anyway, if you're interested in any aspect of this, well, interest is what drives what I do, so let's talk.  :-)