Re: Who are you?
Subject: Re: Who are you?
From: Inverted Vantage <invertedvantage@gmail.com>
Date: 3/20/11, 18:44
To: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>

In order to co-opt it's functions, you would have to be able to provide the same basic necessities that nation states provide - and the nation-states are already at an advantage since, by necessity and history, they exist in the physical world. How would you replace an office where you can talk to a person whose job is ostensibly to help you get help, with, say, a forum community? There's going to be  a lot of people that don't consider a digital entity to be as..."important" as one based in the physical world - and of course there is still the problem where you're going to need to find a way to use your system to provide for the very real physical needs of the people that are a part of it.
What are your thoughts on how these problems may be overcome?

One last thing - "deserve and command" is a rather harsh tone. You're going to run into people, like me, who automatically bristle at that sort of language. Now of course I'm willing to give everyone a chance, but at the same time, that makes me a little warier.

Looking forward to your thoughts,

Jordan


On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
I can tell you that what you propose is very much in accordance with the voluntarism-based structure we have in mind for the near future. How we get there is up for debate, although I and others have been thinking about the problem and we believe the first step is to end the nation-state monopoly on human organization. This can be done by co-opting its functions and setting up new institutions that will actually deserve and command loyalty - entities that ethical people can be truly proud to join. Virtual republics are a component of the solution; best of all, they are within reach.


On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Inverted Vantage <invertedvantage@gmail.com> wrote:
At first glance, it allays many of my issues. If a network purports to strive for any sort of equality or freedom of information, then it must necessarily allow for all to participate - if the principles of that network are correct, then there should be a counterbalance - after all, any attempt to shut out a different opinion would naturally violate the tenements of that network and thus, cause it to either collapse or organically defend itself.

I'm sure I'll read about what you folks find when you're finished, you don't need to tell me anything else about it at the moment. :)

As for our debt, I focus on the international and the student. As I wrote to a classmate of mine;

"One of the problems with the US right now is that there is no other system of acceptable exchange except money. I would say many other countries have a barter system running in parallel, whereas here, we do not. If there were a government program to send volunteers overseas, and in exchange they get their family taken care of back home and their needs taken care of overseas, however spartan, well, let's see;

Joe and Bill need a job. Joe volunteers to go overseas to help out - Bill doesn't want to, he wants to work in the US. They both go to a public program and, upon signing their name on the dotted line, Joe goes off to help and Bill gets a list of things he could do to help support Joe and his family - be it farming, house construction, research, etc. So while Joe is off rebuilding, Bill makes the decision that he wants to help maintain Joe's family's electricity. So he helps to install new, energy efficient wiring, and helps to hook it up to a much more ecologically friendly power grid.

But wait, you ask - what about Bill? Now he's just doing this all for free! What about his family?

Well, Bill also signed up and is also granted the same protections as Joe. Rebecca comes along, and needs work too, so she signs up for the program. But you might say - well, this will go on forever, and eventually someone will be at the end of the line. Not so. With ecologically friendly ways of doing things, it's feasible that if, theoretically, everyone has only one task to do and completes it, when everyone is done we will have a functioning, sustainable society. This works better if you break it down to a local level. Say here in Rochester, we have 1 million people.

250,000 decide to build new wind farms.
250,000 decide to build new financial institutions.
250,000 decide to rebuild the city
and 250,000 decide to do general maintenance tasks.

By the end of it, Rochester would become a self-sustainable city. After everything's built, all of those things are going to require maintenance - so there are further jobs. I'd like to pose the question though, at this point - where people are working for food, shelter, and things, such as in a trade-based system, how important is money? I'm not saying get rid of it, I still think there's a place for it in many transactions, but how important does money become if people are working for things instead of thepromise of purchasing power to buy those same things?"

to which he replied;

"So instead of getting paid, everyone just works and gets taken care of? That's communism. Which, because its only a subset of the country participating, and voluntarily, might work, as long as those that don't voluntarily join are not affected."

wherein I said;

"Well, that's why I said a monetary system would exist at the same time - those who don't join would still be able to find work and get paid - money would still be a part of daily life. There are a lot of things that money is necessary for, especially with the net. It's also not like those who didn't join wouldn't be affected - their water would be clearer, their air more pure, etc etc - all the side effects of a more ecologically friendly society. I guess I'm proposing that we as Americans be given the freedom to choose whether or not we actually have to use money in our society."

Thoughts?

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure whom I'm "forcibly" shutting out of a network I designed and am having built, and I'd ask you to rethink your definition of "force." Incidentally, I've changed my mind about keeping social conservatives out of my proposed network; the nature of the schematic is such that I think that even the most degenerate of people can be given the same chance to participate as anyone elsewithout fucking up the information flow, and this is explained in one of my more recent videos. So, basically, I strongly considered not letting people who oppose gay marriage and support consensual crime laws participate in something that I and other people put our sweat into with no prospect of monetary gain - at a loss, actually - but then decided against it and will now allow even those who think I am going to hell to use something I built. I hope that addresses your concerns. At any rate, the network may never get built; I've moved on to something bigger that I think will help to provide even better alternatives to those who  are unhappy with the current, force-based system.

I can tell you that I have a very stern set of values myself, which is why I'm putting myself at considerable risk for this cause. As for the rest, I can't tell you much at this point because we're being probed by a number of state agencies as well as contractors and other third parties and we are meanwhile conducting an investigation into "metal gear" software that involves some heavy players. The action is all around; we've got a piece of it.

As for paying back our debt, I think I know to what you are alluding but I'd like to hear it from you.


On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Inverted Vantage <invertedvantage@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm saying you sound like someone who so strongly believes they're right that they're willing to forcibly shut out the other side - just like the conservatives. Whether or not I agree with what you're saying isn't really relevant - I worry about any group or individual who purports to be for the greater good but who's proposals are exclusatory by nature.

As for who I am, I don't mind identifying - I'm not Anon and I'm not anon. When I say compromise myself I meant more in the values sense. I'm Jordan, and I'm trying to find out where the action is. Who's pouring the fuel, so they say. I don't have any specific questions other than trying to see who's currently doing things and seeing what it is they're doing. What I've been occupying myself with of late is trying to boil down everything to the simplest possibility - the one sentence that doesn't require a ton of explaining about how the banking system works, or who's really in control, or who's fighting who - basically something that you can tell to someone and use as a springboard to discuss everything else. At the moment, I have found that sentence to be "We must start paying back our debt".
What are your thoughts on that?


On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Normally I'd be happy to tell you what #OpNoPro is as I do value discussions with strangers since they often turn out to be helpful, but in this case I can't do that quite yet. 

I'm not sure what you mean about the video; you're saying I sound like a social conservative?

I work with several people who are unwilling to identify or compromise themselves and I'd be happy to discuss more with you. Ask your questions a little bit more directly, though, so that I can better answer them. I get a sense of what you're asking about, but want to be sure.


On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Inverted Vantage <invertedvantage@gmail.com> wrote:
What is Op/No/Pro?

To me, you sound a lot like the side in this video that you're attempting to shut out and discredit.

How should I look at that?

I watched another one of your videos, rather interesting thought process.

I'd be interested in what you might have to say to a stranger, trying to help those around him, but who is unwilling to compromise themself in the process.



Messages sent in the wee hours of the morning can often be the most interesting to get a response to the next day.

\\\Iv



--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302




--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302




--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302