Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Del.icio.us
I'm working on writing more, in sudden bursts with long periods of inactivity in between. In the meantime, check out the Metapolitic Del.icio.us, full of tasty links on all subjects that I have or will be writing about.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Hack Politics
“I define a hacker as an individual who experiments with the limitations of systems for intellectual curiosity or sheer pleasure; the word describes a person with a particular set of skills and not a particular set of morals.” – Bruce Schneier
Most people don’t care about systems. They care about results. They care about what gets done, not how it got done or why it got done. They spare little thought for the vast and complicated workings that support and shape their every action. When they want to get things done they interact with the system in the same ways they always have.
An example of how this attitude works out in politics: I attend a fairly liberal (ok, very very liberal) college. Every time elections come around, someone inevitably comes out to advocate voting for a third party, usually the local green party candidate. The two main parties, they argue, are hopelessly corrupted by big business interests and care little for the needs of most people. The two party system is inevitably denounced in the strongest of terms. By voting for the green party candidate, who probably actually does represent the positions of at least the student bodies interests, we can show the big party bosses what for and reclaim democracy. And all that good stuff.
And the thing is that they’re right. The two party system is corrupt and limiting and American democracy would almost undoubtedly be better off if we had more than two parties to choose from. The problem is that the two party system has nothing do with politics and everything to with the way the votes are counted. The existence of two major parties at the exclusion of all other parties is an inevitable and predictable outcome of the way the election system is organized. Third party candidates can never get major traction because the system is constructed in such a way that punishes anyone who votes for them, the punishment in this case being increasing the likelihood that their last choice candidate gets elected - like what happened to Floridians who voted for Nader. Now the voting system wasn’t intentionally constructed this way; it developed organically that way. If you want more than one party in power, you have to attack the system directly and replace it with a better system. Ignoring this fact about the system means that you’re just wasting your time.
The government, democracy, the media – these are all social systems. Vast, often corrupt, and highly complicated systems, systems that don’t work in the way or towards the ends that you were told as a child, but systems nonetheless. And as systems they can be studied and manipulated. If you’re unwilling to do so you’ll either end up at the mercy of those who are or with those who are currently in power still in power.
One group that (in my experience) does consider the power that economic, information, or government systems wield over our civilization are anarchists. But the most common reaction by anarchists is a complete separation from the systems of civilization – because they are corrupt or because they are currently being used towards immoral ends. This view is shortsighted. The engines of civilization are incredibly powerful. If they could be harnessed for good they could solve all the mankind’s problems within a single lifetime. And they can be harnessed for good. It’s just a matter of figuring out how to harness them and you’ll never do that by separation.
In order to harness the vast power of western civilization, you’ve got to be willing to experiment with them. You’ve got to be willing to hack around a bit. To make my meaning clear, when I say hacking I don’t mean just computer programming. I’m referring to exploration and manipulation of systems in all fields. It’s using things in ways they weren’t originally intended for and building new systems out of the parts of or inside old systems. Political hacking is political and social engineering done by small groups and individuals for fun and profit.
This is what I’m trying to advocate – the application of the hacker ethic to politics. Not just to politics though, to the whole spectrum of social systems that run our civilization. Because it’s not power we lack, it’s the ability to use it correctly. And the only way to figure out how to use it correct is by experimentation. We’re certainly not going to figure out if we let things lie as they are and with all the problems that the world is facing today, we need to start getting things right now more than ever.
Most people don’t care about systems. They care about results. They care about what gets done, not how it got done or why it got done. They spare little thought for the vast and complicated workings that support and shape their every action. When they want to get things done they interact with the system in the same ways they always have.
An example of how this attitude works out in politics: I attend a fairly liberal (ok, very very liberal) college. Every time elections come around, someone inevitably comes out to advocate voting for a third party, usually the local green party candidate. The two main parties, they argue, are hopelessly corrupted by big business interests and care little for the needs of most people. The two party system is inevitably denounced in the strongest of terms. By voting for the green party candidate, who probably actually does represent the positions of at least the student bodies interests, we can show the big party bosses what for and reclaim democracy. And all that good stuff.
And the thing is that they’re right. The two party system is corrupt and limiting and American democracy would almost undoubtedly be better off if we had more than two parties to choose from. The problem is that the two party system has nothing do with politics and everything to with the way the votes are counted. The existence of two major parties at the exclusion of all other parties is an inevitable and predictable outcome of the way the election system is organized. Third party candidates can never get major traction because the system is constructed in such a way that punishes anyone who votes for them, the punishment in this case being increasing the likelihood that their last choice candidate gets elected - like what happened to Floridians who voted for Nader. Now the voting system wasn’t intentionally constructed this way; it developed organically that way. If you want more than one party in power, you have to attack the system directly and replace it with a better system. Ignoring this fact about the system means that you’re just wasting your time.
The government, democracy, the media – these are all social systems. Vast, often corrupt, and highly complicated systems, systems that don’t work in the way or towards the ends that you were told as a child, but systems nonetheless. And as systems they can be studied and manipulated. If you’re unwilling to do so you’ll either end up at the mercy of those who are or with those who are currently in power still in power.
One group that (in my experience) does consider the power that economic, information, or government systems wield over our civilization are anarchists. But the most common reaction by anarchists is a complete separation from the systems of civilization – because they are corrupt or because they are currently being used towards immoral ends. This view is shortsighted. The engines of civilization are incredibly powerful. If they could be harnessed for good they could solve all the mankind’s problems within a single lifetime. And they can be harnessed for good. It’s just a matter of figuring out how to harness them and you’ll never do that by separation.
In order to harness the vast power of western civilization, you’ve got to be willing to experiment with them. You’ve got to be willing to hack around a bit. To make my meaning clear, when I say hacking I don’t mean just computer programming. I’m referring to exploration and manipulation of systems in all fields. It’s using things in ways they weren’t originally intended for and building new systems out of the parts of or inside old systems. Political hacking is political and social engineering done by small groups and individuals for fun and profit.
This is what I’m trying to advocate – the application of the hacker ethic to politics. Not just to politics though, to the whole spectrum of social systems that run our civilization. Because it’s not power we lack, it’s the ability to use it correctly. And the only way to figure out how to use it correct is by experimentation. We’re certainly not going to figure out if we let things lie as they are and with all the problems that the world is facing today, we need to start getting things right now more than ever.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Brave New War
“In fact, it was the opening salvo in a revolution […] In the coming weeks and months and years, these hundreds of thousands will be followed by millions, and this revolution will not be satisfied with overthrowing a corrupt and unresponsive political system. It won’t stop at remaking politics. And it won’t pay attention to national borders.
[…] Every institution that doesn’t understand that the technology is finally here to allow people to reject what they’re being given and demand what they want had better start paying attention.
The revolution comes for you next.”
–Joe Trippi, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Before I start, I’d like to get one thing out of the way: John Robb’s Brave New War is an excellent book and everybody should read it. From start to finish it’s packed full of interesting, frightening, and important ideas and the problems and solutions found in this book need to be understood by everybody. Go get a copy and read it right now. Every single chapter of Brave New War holds important information for our survival in the twenty first century.
But I’m only going to talk about Chapter 6, the one on open source warfare. Open Source Warfare is a new way to run an insurgency. It consists of a large number of small, independent cells working towards a common goal (in Iraq, the common goal being the removal of American forces). While acting independently, all of the cells freely exchange strategies, resources, and intelligence among one another. Successful methods discovered by one group can be passed on the other groups, and useful techniques can quickly spread through the entire insurgency. Their open source organization allows the insurgents in Iraq greater flexibility and faster innovation rates than the hierarchical organization of the US military and this flexibility and innovation is what allows them to take on the world’s largest military and win. Although there are previous examples of this organization method, it has only come into it’s own with the war in Iraq.
If open source warfare were only a war phenomenon, it would still be a fascinating concept. But it’s not just a war issue. It’s part of a much larger trend, a trend for which we’ve hit a steam engine time right now. David Ronfeldt calls it ”the rise of collaborative networks.” David Brin calls it the Age of Amateurs. Jane McGonigal talks about 3rd wave ARGs and the Cluetrain Manifesto talks about markets as conversations. Despite the different language, it’s all part of the same larger trend - it’s just manifesting in different arenas and so people are coming up with the different language for it. At the heart of the trend modern communication technologies are allowing people to join together, pool resources, and work collectively towards whatever ends they choose – be it to design an e-mail program, figure out what’s happening to somebodies website, or kill the infidel.
What Robb adds to this discussion, what you can’t find anywhere else, is an in depth look at the methods behind this form of organization. Lots of people are talking about the effects or the potential of this trend, but so far only Robb provides a look at the basic principles behind creating, sustaining, and existing within these movements. And because Robb is talking about a specific example of a trend whose effects are spread out over almost every part of the human condition, he also provides basic principles that can, with a little work, be divorced from the specific realm of warfare and then applied to other realms. And once you’ve successfully applied those principles, you wouldn’t be out of line to expect similar success – specifically the ability for small, under funded groups to beat out large well funded groups. The particular realm that I’d like to try to apply these principles to is politics.
How exactly would you start on this? Well, for one thing, over the coming days and weeks I intend to look deeper into the principles Robb lays out in Brave New War and figure out how they can be applied to politics (so if you’re wondering “what exactly are the principles he’s so on about” just wait for a second. I’ll get to it). But there is another side to it. Returning to the substance of Brave New War, Robb points to the lowering of entry costs as a driving force behind Open Source Warfare. It is cheaper now to wage war, at least for the insurgents, than it has been ever before, for a variety of reasons discussed in Robb’s book. Low entry costs means that more people can participate and you can build up the momentum needed for an open source movement. But how do you go about lowering the entry cost of politics? What exactly are the entry costs of politics? The one thing I’ve been able to come up with is information, training, education. Most people simply don’t know how to put the influence on their government. God knows I don’t. So I’m looking in to it and I’m going to report what I find here.
In conclusion, I’d like to say once again that you should all go out and get yourself a copy of Brave New War. You owe it to yourself and to everybody else. It was at least good enough to inspire me to start this blog plus all the above rambling.
[…] Every institution that doesn’t understand that the technology is finally here to allow people to reject what they’re being given and demand what they want had better start paying attention.
The revolution comes for you next.”
–Joe Trippi, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Before I start, I’d like to get one thing out of the way: John Robb’s Brave New War is an excellent book and everybody should read it. From start to finish it’s packed full of interesting, frightening, and important ideas and the problems and solutions found in this book need to be understood by everybody. Go get a copy and read it right now. Every single chapter of Brave New War holds important information for our survival in the twenty first century.
But I’m only going to talk about Chapter 6, the one on open source warfare. Open Source Warfare is a new way to run an insurgency. It consists of a large number of small, independent cells working towards a common goal (in Iraq, the common goal being the removal of American forces). While acting independently, all of the cells freely exchange strategies, resources, and intelligence among one another. Successful methods discovered by one group can be passed on the other groups, and useful techniques can quickly spread through the entire insurgency. Their open source organization allows the insurgents in Iraq greater flexibility and faster innovation rates than the hierarchical organization of the US military and this flexibility and innovation is what allows them to take on the world’s largest military and win. Although there are previous examples of this organization method, it has only come into it’s own with the war in Iraq.
If open source warfare were only a war phenomenon, it would still be a fascinating concept. But it’s not just a war issue. It’s part of a much larger trend, a trend for which we’ve hit a steam engine time right now. David Ronfeldt calls it ”the rise of collaborative networks.” David Brin calls it the Age of Amateurs. Jane McGonigal talks about 3rd wave ARGs and the Cluetrain Manifesto talks about markets as conversations. Despite the different language, it’s all part of the same larger trend - it’s just manifesting in different arenas and so people are coming up with the different language for it. At the heart of the trend modern communication technologies are allowing people to join together, pool resources, and work collectively towards whatever ends they choose – be it to design an e-mail program, figure out what’s happening to somebodies website, or kill the infidel.
What Robb adds to this discussion, what you can’t find anywhere else, is an in depth look at the methods behind this form of organization. Lots of people are talking about the effects or the potential of this trend, but so far only Robb provides a look at the basic principles behind creating, sustaining, and existing within these movements. And because Robb is talking about a specific example of a trend whose effects are spread out over almost every part of the human condition, he also provides basic principles that can, with a little work, be divorced from the specific realm of warfare and then applied to other realms. And once you’ve successfully applied those principles, you wouldn’t be out of line to expect similar success – specifically the ability for small, under funded groups to beat out large well funded groups. The particular realm that I’d like to try to apply these principles to is politics.
How exactly would you start on this? Well, for one thing, over the coming days and weeks I intend to look deeper into the principles Robb lays out in Brave New War and figure out how they can be applied to politics (so if you’re wondering “what exactly are the principles he’s so on about” just wait for a second. I’ll get to it). But there is another side to it. Returning to the substance of Brave New War, Robb points to the lowering of entry costs as a driving force behind Open Source Warfare. It is cheaper now to wage war, at least for the insurgents, than it has been ever before, for a variety of reasons discussed in Robb’s book. Low entry costs means that more people can participate and you can build up the momentum needed for an open source movement. But how do you go about lowering the entry cost of politics? What exactly are the entry costs of politics? The one thing I’ve been able to come up with is information, training, education. Most people simply don’t know how to put the influence on their government. God knows I don’t. So I’m looking in to it and I’m going to report what I find here.
In conclusion, I’d like to say once again that you should all go out and get yourself a copy of Brave New War. You owe it to yourself and to everybody else. It was at least good enough to inspire me to start this blog plus all the above rambling.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
What is Metapolitics?
Metapolitics is the politics of politics.
Metapolitics is the systems that constrain and define politics.
An understanding of politics will tell you what is happening and what will happen. An understanding of metapolitics will tell you how to make things happen.
Metapolitics is what I can get away with.
Stay tuned for writings along this general line.
Metapolitics is the systems that constrain and define politics.
An understanding of politics will tell you what is happening and what will happen. An understanding of metapolitics will tell you how to make things happen.
Metapolitics is what I can get away with.
Stay tuned for writings along this general line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)