FM Corporations/ businesses/ entitities

[Sean Lynch]

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:41 AM Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:34:07AM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:
> > On 07/29/2016 09:36 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 09:45:40PM -0300, juan wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:43:12 +0300 Georgi Guninski
> > >> <guninski at guninski.com> wrote:
>
> > > THE QUESTION: The question I think always shall be, is how to
> > > transition to an anarchic society, in consideration of existing
> > > interests. I.e. how to peacefully transition existing entities/
> > > structure/ interests into an anarchistic/ truly free market
> > > reality.
> >
> > How can one "peacefully" tear the dominant syndicates ruling an entire
> > civilization to pieces?
>
> By creating better alternatives which appeal to individuals, and grow
> over time into alternative large and dominant syndicates.
>

I haven't yet been able to convince myself that "large and dominant
syndicates" are even necessary. Do we really need large scale coordination
separated into different cliques like that, or is it possible to have a
single large network (in the abstract sense) of distributed transactions?
If transaction costs get close enough to zero, the optimal firm size goes
to one. So the question becomes how much we can reduce transaction costs.


> The great challenge in doing this peacefully is not the existing
> syndicates per se, but the anti-competitive, protectionist rackets
> called "statute laws", which are lobbied for and abused by, these
> existing mega syndicates.
>

This feels right to me. Which is to say I think it's right but don't know
enough to make a good argument for it.


> In the democratic fascist model we see dominant today around the world,
> the mega syndicates lobby 'governments' for special privileges - e.g.:
>  - the right to tax humans driving on public roads (please, if anyone
>    wants to debate this, start a separate thread)
>

I don't know if I understand the point well enough to debate it, but I'm
interested to know what your definition of "public" is. Does such a thing
exist with respect to government? Aren't they really government roads?
Please forgive me if that's the exact kind of discussion you want to go
onto another thread.


>  - the right to compel corporations and owner-operator individual
>    'business persons' to sink inhuman amounts of fiat dollars into
>    licensed superannuation funds
>

Yes. Which will be the trigger for the next financial crisis or the one
after (since I think real estate is still fucked).


>  - the right to use the courts to punish anyone trying to compete with
>    your overpriced, poorly serviced telecomms network (wired or
>    wireless)
>

Or just lobby the government to require the use of your products.


>  - etc etc
>
> And so we see endless protectionist rackets, in every field of human
> endeavour, all around the world, under the pretense of being
> "democratic".
>

Yes.


> Oh, and by the way, when I use the term "right" above, I use it in the
> sense of "predatorial right" (in case it weren't obvious).
>

Obvious to me, perhaps not some others.

> Those who own and administer those syndicates
> > have devoted their lives to the acquisition and retention of power, at
> > the expense of others and in competition against a broad spectrum of
> > rivals and adversaries.  The modern Democratic State exists for the
> > sole purpose of protecting and advancing the interests of dominant
> > economic syndicates and their owners by any means necessary, with
> > deadly force topping the go-to list.
>
> indeed
>

I've been slowly slogging my way through Robert K. Massie's _Dreadnought_,
and it struck me how openly the government of the British Empire considered
themselves primarily protectors of the commercial interests of British
companies. I suspect future historians will think us terribly naive to
think that capitalism and mercantilism are different things. Capitalism,
for the most part, seems to be just mercantilism with less transparency and
the more competition for the government's favor. "Competition" being
competition to see who can give the most political donations to the right
people, etc.


> > A whole art and science of nonviolent strategic conflict addresses
> > methods of applying coercive social and economic measures to modify
> > the behavior of dominant syndicates including their State
> > sponsor/clients.  But an existential threat to these syndicates will
> > ultimately result in their application of deadly force, and a response
> > in kind.
>
> at some levels, or in some cases, yes
>
> BUT, not in all cases!
>
> That is a part of the brainwashing - oh "they" are all so powerful,
> there's nothing "we" can do without being shot.
>
> BOLLOCKS.
>
> (I know that's not exactly what you said - point is, we have to bust our
> programming if we are to have any hope of making collective progress in
> useful directions.)
>

I think most of the time it's not even fear of being shot,  though. It's
fear of losing privileges. Anyone can be blackballed in any industry at any
time. Just associate them with kiddie porn or name them as a "person of
interest" in some investigation.


> > Anarchy is not a proposed form of government or social order;
>
> I disagree..
>
> > it is an
> > informed critique of governments and social orders.
>
> ..political anarchy is much more than a critique - it suggests
> principles for principled ways for us to interact with one another,
> regardless of domain of activity.
>

I think it's both, really. You qualify it with "political" here, and I
think that's right. Unfortunately it's a pretty "charged" term, though, so
it will only convey your meaning in particular circles.


> > Or it is a
> > delusional belief system indoctrinated by propaganda.  Or it is
> > violent opposition to social order of any kind.  Depends who you ask.
>
> Sure. But not one of the definitions you've suggested is particularly
> useful - add to that list "direct democracy" - perhaps not the best
> definition, but one I saw once and got an "ahah" moment.
>

I haven't yet been able to figure out how much of a collectivist or
individualist you are, but "democracy" strikes me as a fairly collectivist
term. It's rule by the people over all the other people. I prefer rule of
oneself by oneself. To the extent possible, at least.

Perhaps "opt-in direct democracy" would be a better way to define
> "political anarchy" so that lay-persons can grok the concept, rather
> than get caught up in the common meaning of 'anarchy == chaos'.
>

I'm a fan of "polycentric order" or "polycentric law" myself. Though that
may assume certain factors that you don't think are warranted.

>
> > If you want an anarchistic society, you will need to keep units of
> > sovereign governance small enough that everyone can observe and play
> > an active role in their governance.
>
> And those units, however they each choose to operate, may syndicate as
> a syndicate of units.
>
> And those syndications of units may syndicate ...
>

How about families or even just individuals?

...


> > In short, you need to model your State as Bands, Tribes and Nations
> > governed by open Councils acting on consensus only.
>
> Watch my lips carefully, as I'm only going to do this once:
>
>
>    I
>
>    don't
>
>    need
>
>    to model or otherwise do
>
>    shit
>
>    !
>
>
> Got it?
>
> It's a simple concept. In fact, it is foundational to political anarchy
> theory, from my very limited understanding.
>

The temptation to design is a very hard one to avoid. It took me a long
time to break myself of it. In fact, it was an individualist anarchist who
finally broke me of the habit.


> > And you need to
> > site it on a world where no other kind of State exists or can arise,
> > because hierarchal governance in a caste system includes efficiencies
> > that will enable other States to take yours over shortly after they
> > see advantages in doing so.  At best your Anarchistic State may
> > survive by imitating the organizational methods of antagonistic States
> > - - but then, you will no longer have an Anarchistic State.
>

Despite probably being the "wrong" kind of anarchist according to many
here, Hans-Hermann Hoppe does a pretty good job of obliterating the notion
that voluntary societies cannot defend themselves from traditional
nation-states in _The Myth of National Defense_.

In any case, though, Zen (and I) expect such a society to evolve alongside
and among traditional nation-states, so it has to be able to protect itself
or it could not exist in the first place. So there's no need to "site" the
society anywhere.

If we do get access to our own planet, though, it might help things along a
bit. Of course, then you run into the problem that all
intentional/constructed communities run into, which is that they have an
extremely low probability of success. This is one of the reasons I've
mostly gotten over the idea of seasteading as the answer to our problems.
Of course, while an *individual* seastead might have very low probability
of success, tens of thousands might produce a couple of interesting ideas.
 ...

> > The problem with "revolution" is semantic:  We are taught that a
> > revolution is an armed conflict that replaces one gang of rulers with
> > another gang of rulers, who may or may not bring plans for a new
> > social and economic structure with them.
>
> It is much more than semantic - history shows us many examples of
> "bloody revolution", with vast millions of humans ending up dead in the
> process of "transition".
>

And a "transition" or "emergency" government that's really just a
dictatorship and lasts a very long time.

> My favorite definition of "revolution" equates it to "the world turned
> > upside down."
>

And often this is "literally" true - the old servants become the masters
and the masters become worm food. And then the old servants are just as
brutal of masters, if not moreso, than their old masters. Especially if the
new masters really did comes from the lowest echelons of society where they
have no experience at all with leadership. At least internal coups don't
tend to have this problem quite so badly. But they also don't tend to
change much.


> > We are taught that revolutions initiate radical changes in social and
> > economic systems, but I maintain that revolutions are the end result
> > of radical changes in social and economic behavior.  We are taught
> > that Great Leaders with Great Ideas change the world, but I maintain
> > that changes in technology, population and environmental conditions
> > change the world:  Those Great Leaders with their Great Ideas show up
> > /after/ irreversible changes in social and economic life have already
> > taken place.  They represent new dominant syndicates, seeking to
> > displace institutions of governance created by and for the exclusive
> > benefit of earlier dominant syndicates.  Their role is to modify the
> > institutions of State power to codify, control and exploit the new
> > order, for the sole benefit of the new dominant syndicates.
> >
> > According to this model, the "shooting war" phase of a real revolution
> > serves the sole purpose of removing dead-end resistance to rule by new
> > dominant syndicates that have already eclipsed the power of previously
> > dominant syndicates.
>


> A new syndicate does not start out "dominant". I guess you mean "new,
> soon to be dominant syndicate".
>
> And that's why the banks (the oligarchs) have funded all sides of every
> war in history - very profitable business, war.
>
> So before going to war, ask yourself if you are selling your soul to the
> existing syndicates...
>

Personally, I don't plan to go to war at all, ever, if I can avoid it. And
by "avoiding" I mean "can physically escape with my loved ones," not "I've
tried everything else to effect change and now must take up arms." I care
enough about my home to kill an individual or small band who try to invade
it, and even to band together with my neighborhood to do so, but not to go
to war. I'm not sure I could tell you what the crossover would be in terms
of level of organization, but I'd guess it's at the level where we need to
resort to any kind of abstraction.


> > > We must always remember it is never the arm chair pundit ("oh I
> > > wish our democracy elected representatives actually represented
> > > us") crowd who will change the world.
> > >
> > > So historically, revolutions seem to be more a devolution than an
> > > evolution of the status quo. If you have counter examples, please
> > > highlight them now.
> >
> > The French and American Revolutions removed the institutions of
> > Monarchy to make way for a New World Order where insurgent Mercantile
> > and Industrialist factions share power with the older "landed"
> > Aristocracy.  That New World Order developed under Monarchy; its
> > revolutions only restructured political power to reflect a new
> > arrangement of economic powers already in place, and establish the new
> > dominant syndicates as its "legitimate" rulers.
>
>
> I am consistently reacting to what I am hearing from you as a fatalism,
> that "new syndicates" are already dominant before they even topple the
> existing syndicate, does not make sense.
>

They are not on the bottom, though. They are the bourgeoisie. They
typically form alliances with those on the bottom by promising to make
their situation better, though never better than their own. Go with us to
war and we'll share the spoils (unequally) with you.


> And I don't think in history it has generally been black and white (new
> vs old syndicate) either - the banks (old syndicates) funding both sides
> is the kind of 'armed revolution' we usually see in history...
>
> My reaction is because you seem to deny (by assumption in the words you
> choose) these possibilities, for just some examples:
>  - a new syndicate can start small, probably --should-- start small!
>  - a new syndicate can be organically built.
>  - a new syndicate might be just two women starting a computer repair
>    "shop"
>  - a new small syndicate, if it genuinely represents an improvement over
>    the status quo (Uber), ought naturally grow into a large syndicate
>

Historically, it's been very hard for small syndicates to grow into large
ones without winning favor from the existing players. Today we have Ubers
that can grow without having a revolution. It used to be much harder.


> > > So it is that I hold far greater hope for a better/ anarchistic/
> > > direct democracy type of future, via the pathway of evolution, and
> > > not revolution.
> >
> > No evolution, no revolution.  Unless by "revolution" one means
> > overthrowing the State to replace it with a new State administering
> > the same social and economic systems the old State evolved to control
> > and exploit.  In this case, revolutionaries are those who seek power
> > for its own sake through violent means; that is not likely to end well.
> >
> > > And so it is also that we owe it to our future generations to
> > > consider pathways to peaceful transition of existing interests,
> > > into that better future.
> >
> > The real future includes the collapse of industrial economies,
> > accelerated looting of under-defended territories, and a major human
> > population crash.  This is the picture presented by current and
> > historical geophysical data.  Any plan or strategy that does not work
> > in this context does not work.
>
> Catering for likely contingencies is sensible.


I don't consider this a likely contingency. The trend has been toward LESS
violence, and there is no particular reason to believe that there's a
simple inverse relationship between income and fertility rate. Doesn't mean
I am not hedging against such a possibility, but I'm certainly not betting
on it, just making it more likely my family and I could survive it if it
happens.


> I'm pretty sure the USD is gonna go down hard, and then the existing
> oligarchs will go into looting overdrive - those who've positioned
> themselves to be able to, of course.
> Such is the sad state of human affairs we usually see.
>

The economies of developed countries are too intertwined for USD to "go
down hard" without taking a lot of other economies with it. What do you
think will happen to the Chinese economy if, for example, the US suddenly
stops buying their products? They'd have a bunch of saved dollars to spend,
and the best way to spend them would be on American goods. More likely it
would be gradual and we'd see a shift in the US back toward manufacturing.

The US government actually *wants* the dollar to decline in value. It makes
US products more competitive both domestically and abroad. It causes
inflation and thus reduces real incomes and debt. It would put a bunch of
people back to work. Sure, skyrocketing oil prices would hurt the US
economy, but look how much US investment there is in electric cars, solar,
etc. And nobody in the US is going to be buying Chinese solar panels when
they're no longer cheap. They'll be buying American ones.


> > Absent a paradigm shift that replaces "progress" with "disaster
> > mitigation, management and recovery," application of political theory
> > and practice can only produce worse outcomes, not better ones.
>
> It is all very well to start at the end goal, but not at a fatalistic
> "guaranteed" bad outcome - if that's all you envision, either get
> another vision, or start at the other end of the scale (how we can
> usefully form small syndicates, from 2 humans upwards, to work towards a
> possible better future).
>
> I will -not- accept your fatalism and your presumed horrific outcomes.
>

Yeah, I don't see history as a series of disasters either. Just paradigm
shifts. But I guess I'm fundamentally a "progressive" and not a
neoreactionary. But then again, I don't see how anyone who understands
evolution can think it can't apply to human knowledge & culture as much as
it does to genomes. Unless they're predisposed to believing there's nothing
they can do anyway, because they would otherwise feel back about NOT doing
anything. Most of us do seek meaning, after all, and it can be hard to
accept that your life thus far has had none. Or maybe I'm just more
sanguine about it because I have my backup strategy: kids. And I want to
believe they're not destined to live in a world that's shittier than the
one I grew up in.


> I will -not- accept that there are no pathways to productively and
> usefully evolve towards political anarchy in broad action.
>
>
> > My proposed solution is radical decentralization of industry and
> > agriculture; adaptation of "low technology" not dependent on
> > centralized heavy industry to replace "high technology" where and as
> > it has real survival value; moving as many people as far away from
> > population centers as possible; and distributing field tested
> > strategies and technologies for the above as widely as possible while
> > the networks and economies to do so are still up and running.
>
> Sounds great.
>
> Sounds grand.
>
> Sounds like there are possibilities for action by individuals and small
> syndicates that could arise from this viewpoint. I think this could be
> useful.
>

I'm not opposed to "radical decentralization of industry and agriculture,"
provided there is not a significant reduction in productivity, which with
improvements in technology there doesn't have to be, especially when you
account for the increase in resilience & the reduction in the (presently
hidden/subsidized) cost of transporting food/goods over long distances.

I suspect this is the direction technology is already leading us, though.
Take steel mills as an example: they reached peak scale in the 1950s or so
and then got outcompeted by smaller, more flexible mini-mills with smaller
machines with less up-front investment. Farming equipment is getting
smaller and smaller, and I suspect a lot of the current scale of farming is
a result of artificial barriers to competition, *not* the technology or
genuine economies of scale. Get rid of those barriers, and the scale will
naturally fall as smaller, more flexible firms and individuals jump into
the market.

> Large scale industrial processes that systematically destroy the
> > essential survival resources of future generations have to be halted
> > as soon as possible.  Hydraulic fracturing to harvest petrochemicals
> > permanently destroys water tables.  It is now decades too late to
> > "stop" global warming, but not too late to limit the rate of onset,
> > severity, and duration of large scale climactic disruptions on the way
> > to a "new normal."  Genetically engineered 'food' crops destroy
> > topsoil ecologies, poison water supplies and threaten the genetic
> > integrity of plant species necessary to large scale human survival.
> > The longer these and other grossly destructive industrial activities
> > continue, the lower the resulting long term carrying capacity for
> > human population in affected regions.
>
> Sure, ACK. "We" the human race, need to, must do better.
>

I think the only thing I'd add here is that it's important not to lump all
genetic modifications together. While some of them may be "gratuitous" and
dangerous, others may turn out to be vital, like salt tolerant crops, more
nutritious grain varieties, etc. I suspect patent reform would go a long
way toward reducing the problems with genetic modification.


> > Preparation for and mitigation of the "end of the world as we know it"
> > provides more than a lifetime of challenging, satisfying, useful work.
>
> :)
>

> >  Any real progress in these areas will produce a better future,
> > sooner, for more people.
> >
> > Ready?  Go!
> >
> > :o)
>

I would submit that progress toward a more voluntary society would ALSO
produce greater resiliency. How do you propose to convince a large fraction
of the population to move away from cities, farm, and make their own stuff?
How do you propose to get them to stop using computers, or to decentralize
the manufacture of computers? I'm not saying this is not doable. In fact, I
think it IS doable, but it's going to take the development of new
technologies. I'd love a chip fab that I could own as an individual or in a
partnership with a few friends. I'd love a robot gardener that could turn
my back yard into a farm without my needing to spend a significant fraction
of my time doing it (which is also known as "subsistence.")

And without a global market for food, how do you propose we deal with local
disasters? Shall we force societies to rely on charity in cases where under
the present system they would have just increased their imports slightly?
"Eat local" doesn't work when there's a "local" drought.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 29236 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20160804/521d26a4/attachment-0002.txt>