The background of anarcho-capitalists

The following is in response to "Isn't anarcho-capitalism a contradiction?"  However, I found I was answering a different issue so I decided not to post it.

Thanks to /u/AnCom9 and /u/figgycal for some recognition of potentially murky waters with respect to the term "property".  I'd like to expand this a bit, because even Proudhon used "property" in a positive way:

"Where shall we find a power capable of counter-balancing the... State? There is none other than property..." (found at http://www.anarchy.no/proudhon.html )

"Property" rights in (my US) culture may be looked at either way:

1) It is a weapon of control or self-centered accumulation.

2) It is a foundation of respect for the possessions of others.

This second viewpoint is the viewpoint of most ("good") people around me; our education system expands property to an unnatural application in social organizations, so it's hard to get people to draw the appropriate lines and value that idea of possession rather than the absolute ownership of shared resources, but that foundation isn't a bad start.  It's very hard for me to understand and apply... it takes real focus to adjust our conceptual models.

BTW, one thought on that education: it's thought-provoking to fight property in private conversations, but it's mostly unhelpful to just declare that property is totally evil in a one-sided forum without the back-and-forth.  (... for people with my background, of course.  Always a caveat!)

I work in the computer-programming arena where there is a strong sentiment that we should all be rewarded for our contributions (as opposed to rent-seeking).  This even extends into the community (of makers) where we want to share freely the fruits of our labor so that others can benefit.  So I believe the underlying sentiment is there, and people just need the extended education about the problems extending these ideas to capital.

In short: anarcho-capitalism has many things wrong, but most anarcho-capitalists (with whom I interact) are, at heart, sympathetic to the the large-scale capitalist problems while dedicated to a respect for the small-scale freedoms... and motivated to help find solutions.

DeseretCoin and altcoin decentralization +/- centralization

When I learned about DACs, it opened my mind to some of the possibilities for this technology applied to rewards and organization/management approaches.  Then a few weeks ago at the Utah Bitcoin Meetup someone introduced DeseretCoin where the coin would be for local Utah businesses, so they would be distributed by some trusted local person (non-governmental, thankfully).  This just brought to light in my mind how any aspect of an altcoin network can be centralized by their creator.

So many possibilities!

Another scheme for control -- from the winner of this year's TED Prize

Summary: To fight corruption, she is proposing even more draconian control of free trade, targeted at companies instead of government... and she just won the TED Prize for it.

I'm scared.

I saw the blurb about this TED talk on "openness" in business by Charmian Gooch, and I avoided it until I was in the right frame of mind for something political and inflammatory... and I finally watched it this morning and my fear was confirmed.  She claims it's much too easy to set up a company right now, so people can do it at-will and then hide behind layers of companies when doing nefarious things; the solution is a global (!) requirement that requires that we know exactly who is the responsible party behind each and every corporation created.

It looks like Charmian has done some impressive work on tough problems happening in some of the most unstable and poor places in the world, and furthermore she has founded an organization Global Witness which now has 80 people who are investigating these situations and all the surrounding corruption.  Magnificent!  I've just added their RSS to my watchdog list.

But let's look at why her plan is wrong-headed.  She's right that people can use these structures to hide; however, how can anyone believe that someone using it for this purpose is not going to find another way?  If this were ever implemented, I have a simple solution for anyone wanting to avoid responsibility: find someone you can pay to be the responsible party.  There are always people willing to do this kind of work... heck, TaskRabbit has created a business where you can hire people do do things for you like stand in line for the new iPhone... and even in the halls of Congress you'll find people who are paid by lobbyists to stand in line on their behalf.

So, let's talk about all the additional rules and regulations that need to be added (and enforced) to ensure that this scheme accomplishes her goal of stamping out corruption...

No way.  It makes me tired just thinking about it.

So let's skip ahead to the evils if we were ever to just take the first step she proposes.

• It leaves the fundamental corruption in place: without the support of people in state institutions (eg. lawmakers, police, bureaucrats) these kinds of abuses would be much fewer, much less heinous, and much harder to instigate.  This fundamental oversight makes her message sound like the RootStrikers initiative, which is focused all on a single issue of campaign finance while ignoring all the other spheres of power operating in government; at least they recognize the origin of the problem in the state institutions, but neither Charmian's talk nor the Global Witness issues say anything about that problem, so they're not even touching the core of the problem.

• Her proposal restricts trade and personal liberty.  Hong Kong has had phenomenal growth in prosperity primarily due to to the economic freedom there, where it's even easier to create a company that in the US.  Again, crooks will always game the system; however, it hurts society much more when more restrictions are thrown onto small-time operators who are trying to create prosperity.  As a small business owner, I can tell you how onerous it is to try and run a legitimate business while trying to understand the requirements, much less try to comply and force others to comply; I can also tell you the uses of creating multiple companies, so more requirements would definitely compound the burden.  Add to that the ways that incorrect filings and incompetence can affect you (with no repercussions to the responsible bureaucrats), and you've got a high bar to clear before you can prove that the costs outweigh the benefits.

• As I've pointed out, it'd be easy for criminals to get around this... meaning that the next step will be yet more regulations and barriers added.  Maybe everyone has to go into an office and talk face-to-face with a screener before getting approved to start any organization dealing with money; many already know where I'm going with this: it's a real burden to be forced to report in to a bureaucracy.  And of course this opens the door to even more interlocking requirements with agencies like the Treasury or the DMV where you cannot accept electronic money for work or your company car will be impounded if any of the responsible parties owes something to another bureaucratic arm.

• Even in "free" countries, state workers have proven their tendency to pursue individuals (eg. Catherine Engelbrecht) and whole industries (eg. payday lenders) that the governing party or leader just doesn't like.  I'm sure they would like nothing better than even easier access to every one of our business relationships.

• That last point shows how evil it would to give the state institutions even more access to our relationships; now let's point to some good reasons for anonymity.  The easy answer is as a counter the authority of a rogue state apparatus who can crack down on all individuals they deem as competition.  Come to think of it, most of the cases I can imagine are to avoid malicious state activity... and I personally distrust most states in the world today!  But another valid case is a truly democratic advocacy organization (eg. a DAC) where the individuals don't want everyone to know their membership for any number of reasons.  (I happen to believe the future belongs to more democratic and decentralized organizations.)

I believe we can get to a world where most of this information is open because it truly fosters trust and humanity, and I am an optimist.  However, when we entrust the state to enforce this kind of behavior, it's misplaced trust... and very dangerous.

How about this: let's make every single state relationship and transaction 100% transparent.  Once we have that, we'll great progress with the issues she described... and then we can talk about businesses.  Once we get rid of the politics-based influence and make all businesses more accountable to us the people, most of the large-scale evil simply cannot be supported; take a look and see how many of these abuses are obviously supported the state, and then ask me sometime about examples where those companies leverage their state influence more insidiously and secretly.

And now we get to why I'm so sad: she was awarded the TED Prize this year... and she got a standing ovation.  People really have so much faith in government that they applaud this power-grab.  Is that really the opinion in the world today?

Our kids are in trouble.

"I just do not trust other people."

• Synopsis: If you believe we need government to watch the other people you don't trust, you're giving extra authority to exactly those other people... and, worse, their bureaucratic organization.

Talking with my brother about getting rid of the state, he said he just couldn't go along because "I just do not trust other people."  (Or maybe he said that "people are stupid and selfish"... yeah, that sounds more like him.)  I have a typical response but forgot to use it: I'm much the same as you, and that's exactly why I don't want to give extra authority to other people... specifically lawmakers, and the military and police they control.  To me, it is much scarier to have a small set of people who have monopoly power over a police force and taxing authority and water management.

Isn't it much safer to have everyone watching out for everyone else?  It goes against many of our cherished ideals of a benevolent leadership.  We should be able to make the right kinds of laws and put the right kind of people in charge to make good decisions!  Everyone (including myself) believes that we know some of the right things to do and we have good ideas about things that should work well for everyone, and I think that leads us to have faith in rulers.  But the fact is that absolute, codified laws cannot cover all situations and human conditions... and the intended beneficial consequences that are claimed by politicians mask an iceberg of costs and unintended consequences that are hard to see but which drag down so many other parts of our communities.

And history has shown us how even the American government with the most noble of founders and foundational concepts can easily be corrupted, in every generation... and not only do we give improper power over our lives to corruptible people, but more critically we see how the system becomes self-serving to the point where bureaucratic incentives do not serve the public good.

A romp through contrary ideas of government's role

Woke up around 2 and couldn't sleep, so I came down and broke out some Ted talks.  This morning, what appealed to me were the government ones that showed a view contrary to mine:

• Mariana Mazzucato: Government -- investor, risk-taker, innovator

I'll grant that government funding and support has pushed advances in many fields.  However, the market-shaping that government does is inappropriate, driven mainly by bureaucratic and political interests; there are only so many good examples of innovation because government has been involved in every aspect of our lives!  The negatives and unintended consequences of so much intervention far outweigh the positives.  I believe we would be much better off without some of our current technology (including space and medicine and computers and atomic energy), growing at a pace that is supported by voluntary investment.

I'll agree, too, with the proposition that government-funded innovations and research should yield a return.  There is no excuse for privatization of resources that have been forcibly taken from taxpayers.  Of course, I recommend a slightly different take: the results of these investments should be made available to all, without restriction, rather than being employed privately by anyone, neither in a company boardroom nor in a government office nor in a military base.

• Michael Sandel: Why we shouldn't trust markets with our civic life

He's totally focused on the market of dollars and cents.  That's the market I trust the least.  So I guess I agree with him there!  But there are other markets that make appropriate foundations for our "civic life."

I was going to add this comment, but Steve already did... and I couldn't resist the prompt to expand on it:

• Steve Gottschalk

  Oct 21 2013: There is a prevalent assumption in this talk that the only kind of market there can be is a monetized one, which is a bit like saying age is the only way to measure a child's progress.

  • Nick Vahlkamp

    Nov 8 2013: your comment is completely opaque. could you elaborate? Markets mean money in this here USA.
    Are you referring to indulgences from the 10th century?

    • Trent Larson

      I believe he is talking about a broader meaning of market, eg. "one of the many varieties of systems... whereby parties engage in exchange" (Wikipedia). Any social exchange becomes a market, so we can talk about the market for singles to find a good time and even a mate; for students to find a fitting educational environment; for workers to find an appropriate job; for social change-makers to find fertile ground for their ideas; and even for children to find the place where they will be loved and accepted. All these are exchanges, and I think we'd agree that there are many more dimensions than raw money that influence these trades and implicit contracts.
      
      This is my complaint with Sandel's talk as well: he only discusses the market of money/currency... meaning, in the USA, the system of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Treasury (and the supporting laws regarding tracking, lobbying, etc). I believe that particular market is rather unjust... so I guess I'd agree with him on that one. But there are so many other motivators that drive people to exchange their time and attention and effort, and it would be great if we paid more attention to those markets... markets which will always be voluntary... markets which give genuine, lasting rewards to the participants as opposed to artifacts generated by organizations.
      
      And I'll go further: I trust the aggregate choices driven by our common humanity much more than I trust the military-industrial-financial complex that currently serves as our civic governance in the US. I believe that we can build civil systems based on these other markets, contracting with one another rather than with a police-enforced government. (Unfortunately, I also believe it'll take a few generations.)

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.  :-)

A Private Network of Data and Events (used to share family histories, and more)

I'm very excited about the future of sharing information.  Now, there are many projects that help distribute and share your stuff, but there aren't too many that allow you to keep it all to yourself but also share it selectively if you want.  I feel that nuance of private ownership is important: it may not seem like a big deal to let Facebook and Yahoo and Flickr host your data, until they shut down services or delete your account or send your info to the FBI.  I've been motivated by this interview of Eben Moglen published by the P2P Foundation... it really opened my eyes to the possibilities if we were to take charge of our own data on our own machines.

So I'm trying to make my own private network, where my friends share my data and can get updates if they like.

The first use case is for family histories:  I've started collecting histories of my ancestors, and I'm part of an organization with a large family database.  Now, I've put up a search where someone can find histories for people in their own ancestry.  The next step is to enable a text search through those histories, and also allow people to add other histories to the collection... but I've realized that, rather than build a central internet service where people go, I'd like to make it easy for people to have their own copies and use it all in their own private network.  I plan to share history (or even personal) files such that friends will get updates easily, then allow for tagging the history files with genealogical identifiers so that people can pull the ones of interest... and maybe even just pull pieces of data, such as small bits of data that might be part of my own ancestral database.

Does this kind of stuff already exist?  If so, please send me pointers.  If not, this may deserve a name... maybe P2P with events..  P2P3.  :-)

Here are some some other projects and people I'm watching closely:

• anything about the "personal data store/locker"
• Pull by David Siegel
• VRM, information cards
• Google's Data Liberation Front
• Phil Windley, Doc Searls, Dave Winer
• Diaspora (a distributed social network)
• something Sam Curren is doing (dunno what yet)

...

(Wow.  I started writing this to share some concrete ideas, and it just devolved into a general overview with no details; I even published that stuff above, forgetting my original intent.)

Here are my requirements:

• Share files with selected people
• Share groups of files with groups of people
• Share between individuals without the need of any central server
• Notify me about changes to files, and show me just those changes
• Notify me about new files someone has added, and let me choose whether to add it to mine
• Ideally: do the same for bits of information, such as ancestor data found in a history
• Install easily on Windows, Mac, Linux

I don't envision this as a platform for all types of information; it will most likely be less convenient than Facebook and Google... but I hope to help this type of technology mature such that people find it easy and important to store some of their info this way.

So here's my somewhat-more-concrete plan:

• Find some P2P program to leverage for sharing files (AllianceP2P looks interesting)
• Build plugins or something that defines which files to share and with whom
• Manage additions, eg. when a history file is added then my network will be notified of the addition
• Manage updates, eg. when a blog file is updated then my network will be notified of the update and be able to review the change
• Manage changes to linked data (and this part could be really fun), eg. have an ancestor database that notifies me when there's a change to the dataset (RDF?) in the histories in my ancestry while ignoring changes to branches that aren't in my line

Next step:

1. I can use AllianceP2P to define my own network of people and files to share.  Use that as the transport to sync files, and write a local app to detect changes to files and allow me to see the updates.

I'd love to hear your impressions.

Financial Collapse: It's both Wall Street AND Main Street

Lawrence Lessig is promoting the film Inside Job.  I'm glad; it looks like it'll be informative (and hopefully not just emotional).

However, Lawrence says, '... it is crazy—literally crazy—to point to "the losers" as the cause,' where "the losers" are everyday people being bailed out by government programs.  No, it's not crazy: a large part of our financial mess is due to a culture of greed in America, one where people are looking for quick, high returns without looking at the underlying process.  Stocks, securities, banks, and even government bonds all have some kind of risk.  It is unreasonable (an unsustainable) for our society to expect to close their eyes and give their money without understanding the businesses.  There is no guarantee of the future in any aspect of life, and there is definitely no way for everyone to get rich quick.

The only way to build a stable life is to work hard, be committed, and learn constantly.

OK, so not everyone who has lost is guilty.  But it is the prevailing culture in America... or it has been of late.  Let's hope we put that period behind us, rather than blaming some easily-identified targets and leaving it at that.

I'd love to have a local museum! But I'd rather it be voluntary.

A friend of mine just wrote encouraging me to participate in an event that will help raise money and awareness of a local museum. I asked if the museum would be built or supported with taxpare funds. They wrote back:

"For your information, it is mandated in the Bountiful City code that we, yes the people, we have a right and responsibility to record, archive, preserve, and disseminate the history of our community. It is not only proper that we use tax payer money for this purpose, but it is our duty and our heritage to let our children and grandchildren know where we came from and how we got here. All across America we have buildings and lands bought and paid for by tax dollars that tells of the sacrifices of each generation in making America what it is today. If you don't believe this, then don't take your children to a National Park, museum, National Cemetery, or monument, because all of these were and are funded by tax dollars."

My response:

"You are absolutely right: we have many, many buildings, museums, monuments, and lands that are funded with taxpayer money, and I agree that these add to our heritage.

"However, I think even you must admit that our government (especially at the federal level) has frequently spent our money on these things inappropriately. For the sake of one goal (eg. "building heritage"), they benefit the few at the cost of many, and they use government force to do beneficial things which weakens the efforts of those who do good work on a voluntary basis. We can build a much stronger, more resilient community through projects that accomplish these things without force.

"For example, the South Davis Recreational Center and the Rogers Memorial Theater are good examples of burdens that our local Davis county government(s) have imposed or might impose on taxpayers and local businesses, affecting either the free use of their income or the freedom to compete fairly for people's attention.

"Feel free to keep me in the loop. I would love to be part of any voluntary initiative that improves our community like this!"

FYI: I promised to contribute to the next local, voluntary project my friend brings to my attention. Hold me to that. :-) I can't promise that to everyone, but I'll appreciate knowing any of these you send my way!

Clever, Constructive Conversation (About Technology)

Come join us in an open-ended forum about technology.  This is modeled after Phil Windley's CTO Breakfast.  You can see the results of previous discussion here with my event reports.

The difference is the location: we'll do this at venues in Salt Lake City.  Fri Jan 17 2013 is at the Gateway above Jason's Deli, 2nd floor.  (Past incarnations: Max at about 70th S and 13th E; Newmont U at downtown SLC.)

You can count on bagels. (At least, you can at this location; someday we may do it in a cafeteria or restaurant, so be sure to watch the location and confirm whether food is provided or available for purchase.)

As for dates, here is the calendar and here is the iCal info. (For you real-time watchers, follow me on Twitter.)  Afterward, you can see any notes I took in this feed.

If you're interested, you're invited. Cheers!

---

Motivation: amazing things happen when you get together with smart people who speak their minds freely! I've had a great time at Phil's CTO Breakfast events, where many intelligent and well-networked people sit and talk in an open forum about current events and interesting projects and even crazy ideas. In the same vein, the Kynetx conferences have been eye-opening (and mind-blowing), partly because smart people come but mostly because they encourage conversations; they even had 2 "unconference" sessions where the topics and conversations were run by attendees, chosen dynamically (15 minutes before they happened). The experience is always memorable.

I disagree that IP rights are essential.

I disagree that IP rights are essential to growth, at least if they mean strong IP laws like in the US, since those are more often simply used by large companies with lawyers to bully newcomers rather than really building value. Technology nowadays is allowing us to focus on services and reputation, making distribution cheap; to continue to control the ownership of ideas and their delivery is to undermine the foundation of sharing, which is the foundation of the industry addressed in this article.

As an example, technology is enabling artists to spread their art around the world and make money from performances and other more personal approaches. The RIAA fights this with lawyers, which is their right for existing contracts; however, they have yet to show that it affects their business, and the system has also hamstrung many legitimate, innovative uses due to the heavy-handed approaches supported by government force.

Microsoft spread NOT because of IPR but rather due to effective pricing. And today’s service-oriented networks need freedom of open access, not artificially restrictive “property” rights.

There may be a way to create a rational IP system, but needs to be much more narrow and focused than any system in use today.

Why is mandated health a bad thing?

A friend was telling me how they like this health care bill because the insurance companies "can no longer deny anyone with preexisting conditions insurance, something myself and multiple friends have had to deal with. In my eyes, it's completely unfair."

I'm confused... why is that unfair? It's saying we all have the right to force someone else to insure us no matter what our condition. Living is risky and it can be expensive. Government can pass a law for anything, but it doesn't automatically mean there's suddenly enough resources to cover everyone... unless it tries to simply print money, which has it's own set of consequences.

Let's imagine a politician suddenly says, "Everyone has a right to look good," and then passing a bill requiring everyone to go to salons, and requiring every salon to provide a basic cut to everyone who asks. By ignoring the actual needs of consumers and salons, we get imbalance in the stylist economy. Some clients will be happy that they get subsidized cuts; some clients will be overjoyed because a salon is forced to work with them; and some salons will even be happy because they'll give basic cuts at an effective price.

But we can see how the majority of clients as well as most salons will lose out in the long run. We get things like fewer great stylists because there are so many basic cuts required; less salon business innovation for the same reason; and customers who don't even want cuts must still spend time and money for something they don't want. Will we enjoy that society if we're the ones forced to cut people's hair and we cannot control our own business (how much to charge, who to accept as clients, etc)?

The economics of this (ie. forcing all companies to cover everyone or forcing people to buy insurance) skew the reality of supply and demand; in the end they create bigger booms and busts. So we'll be like a friend from New Zealand explained: everyone has basic insurance, but it takes a year to see a doctor... except for the super rich (and politicians) who can afford to pay extra (or get them into elite circles).

Actually, I believe many people would appreciate that kind of society.

I don't buy the "Buy American" motto.

I just got a note from a relative with a long article about buying American-made products first, and finishing with: "buy as many articles as possible that are made right here in the USA!"

I disagree.

I do agree with buying things locally first... and not just because of the money. When your community works together and trades together, not only do you support your local resources, you increase the bonds of trust and cooperation, both of which can help you in the future.

However, once you get outside your "community" (maybe 5-20 miles?), you might as well be dealing with another country. Unless they're someone you plan to do business with again, you're just dealing with another anonymous supplier, so you're not building any meaningful relationship. Any why not support workers in other countries? I love how Americans have helped build up communities and infrastructures in other countries just because they need the help... and the very best way to get aid to our brothers and sisters worldwide is to buy their goods, rewarding their work. (Now, many of these products actually help corrupt governments instead of communities, so you've got to be smart about buying internationally as well. Dunno how. It's all hard.)

So, no, I don't buy the "Buy American" motto.

PS: Note that when you're a business you do create long-term relationships with people located further away, so a business "community" may be much broader. But it's still about the relationships.

Let's stop Monsanto.

I am alarmed by the spread of genetically modified (GM) foods, especially by the Monsanto company.

For the record, I am all for freedom of choice, and I look forward to the creation of more "effective" and less expensive foods.

However, anyone involved with GM foods must accept the responsibility for its spread. Monsanto aggressively protects its patents and pursues anyone who might be growing it's product, which is fine unless they and their growers are allowing it to get out into other areas they don't control. Of course it's very difficult to protect other areas, especially with large borders on the edge of your crop, but that should be one of the costs of doing business with this type of product. It is unacceptable for growers to allow this patent-protected food to bleed into other farms which a company can then pursue and charge that someone is illegally using their patent. The rest of us should be allowed to be free from that threat of contamination.

It's not just a patent issue, either: we've seen how the spread of non-native plants and animals can devastate local ecosystems. If there aren't yet any civil lawsuits regarding this, I would help to establish this kind of law.

Monsanto and its leaders are not acting ethically. They have pursued a seed cleaner named Maurice Parr, charging that it's his responsibility to make sure all his clients respect Monsanto's rules. They say in their page about seed saving, "Mr. Parr can honor the patent by informing customers it is illegal to save Roundup Ready seed and requiring his customers certify their seed is not from a patented product and providing samples for testing." It is certainly not fair or right that they can require others to enforce some company's licensing rules; even if supported by law (which should be changed, starting with patent law), Monsanto is showing that they are not a good social citizen. It sure seems that they deserve to be dead last in the ethical rankings of 581 multinational corporations.

If you care, here are a couple of ways to learn more and take action:

• Send your comments directly to the federal regulators on the recent issue. (The docket ID is APHIS-2007-0044.)
  
• Add to this other petition site.
  
• Write Monsanto. See the link on the bottom of this page. I'll be interested in their answer if they reply.