And who is it that will decide the right to rule? Be it us, he who were born to work the fields, such as God has willed it? What a fool's idea! It is called the Devine Right to Rule, we shalt not question the Lord's grand design, to do so is to take the path Satan walks! Those hedonistic, half naked, layabouts who rule through Democracy, worship gods apart from the one true God, are shameful heretics.
So if there is no Vessel who owns the land, then what? Is it we who own the land? What a silly notion. There are so many of us, how would that even be enforced? Are you then to tell me that to enforce the rule of law we would also have to establish our own lords, with whom we provide the swords, and shields and horses? What laws would these Lords of the People even enforce? The King is a decedent of God and his rules are God's rules! I've never talked to no God, have you? How insane a system to describe.
Write me a law right now, a law that makes this all make sense. What if I was a man who wanted to own many lands, and wanted to collect taxes on that land, but those people within that land ALSO wanted to own portions of that land?? What would that law even look like?? This theoretical nonsense about free markets and self-governance all sounds great on paper, but you can't even give me one example of a law under that system that makes any sense.
You're just describing Feudalism with more steps. What do you mean, the King will always want his throne? You can't just abolish the monarchy, there are parts of the Feudal system that are totally fine, and I don't understand why we should throw every part of it away. King Ulrik III is a great ruler, and I'm sure his son would be as well.
I mean, its a lot of things, starting all the way back to the ARPAnet days. The fact that encryption and privacy were not core to the specifications being built at the time means for much of the Internet's history, information passed as clear text. The project started in academia, which is probably why privacy was never considered because they imagined that only working professionals and academics would use it.
It was also a military project with the stated of goal of decentralizing our telecommunications network so that in the event of a nuclear attack, the military could still maintain comms, even if one of the major nodes went down.
Another reason why so much of it was in clear text is that for the majority of the lifespan of encryption via computers, that technology was listed as a munition. Being on the munitions list and meant that it could not be exported internationally or utilized by regular citizens.
However, as more and more people came online and the commercialization of the internet began, it was pretty clear that this could be used as a method of surveillance, although I have no material evidence of that. There was likely a tipping point in the past where national security concerns outweighed the desire for domestic surveillance and encryption was removed from the munitions list.
With the corporatization of the internet however it meant that the capitalist mode of production could swing into full effect in this unregulated and untested market. This is what ultimately led to the .com bubble, but what came out of that bubble was the knowledge of how to monetize the internet as well as vast consolidation of technological advancement over the course of the bubble's life.
The true revolution in monetization came with the onset of interpersonal networks becoming centralized and privatized. Things like XMPP/Jabber loosing to privatized systems like gchat and facebook messanger. The like-button, googles search dominance, the social feed of facebook, and amazon becoming the internet marketplace meant a full circle of information for users: What are you looking for? Who do you know? Where do you live? What sites do you visit? What are you buying?
All these questions could be answered thanks to google, facebook and amazon. Its no surprise then that each of them operated their own ad service. This leads to the inevitable outcome we have today.
Could this result in a balkanization effect? Lots of exit talk in the last 10 years (caliexit, texit). Could conditions be reaching similar states that invoked things like The Hartford Convention?
My thinking is there would probably need to be more external intervention for that to a happen. Which I think aligns with history.
I have been thinking about the panopticon for a long time. We've slowly allowed one to be built around us ever since 9/11.
I work in schools, I know how much surveillance exists now, from near 100% camera coverage in the hallways (and sometimes, depending on the state, the classrooms as well), to total visibility of all internet activity (including emails), all the way to things like internet connected Vape sensors in the bathrooms.
I could go on and on but typing out all my thoughts via my phone would probably kill me.
If you get to a zone border, the transition between your current zone and the next zone will be enough to cause the hounds to leash back to their spawn locations. Just make sure not to rezone before they get out of range, and definitely do not look at the image again once you re-enter the zone.
Hmm interesting. So IWW is a union, and I can join it, and potentially get its support if my workplace decides to unionize?
I'm in education, but not an educator, and so not in a union. Its a small dept, and I doubt it'll ever unionize, the wage and benefits are probably the best in the state. I've never understood why the tech/office people in edu (in my state anyway) are always out of the union loop.
Most people living under socialism had little understanding of capitalism in practice. Workers interviewed in Poland believed that if their factory were to be closed down in the transition to the free market, "the state will find us some other work" (New Y orker, 1 1/13/89). In the Soviet Union, many who argued for privatization also expected the government to continue providing them with collective benefits and subsidies. One skeptical farmer got it right: "Some people want to be capitalists for themselves, but expect socialism to keep serving them" (Guardian, 10/23/91 ).
Reality sometimes hit home. In 1990, during the glasnost period, when the Soviet government announced that the price of newsprint would be raised 300 percent to make it commensurate with its actual cost, the new procapitalist publications complained bitterly. They were angry that state socialism would no longer subsidize their denunciations of state socialism. They were being subjected to the same free-market realities they so enthusiastically advocated for everyone else, and they did not like it.
—Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds, pg 73 (Communism in Wonderland; Romanticizing Capitalism)
History repeats itself here in this moment. The strategy employed by the capitalist is both the same now as it was then. A people so unaware of what they have, so eager to have nothing at all.
