Category Archives: Theory and Ideas

The Social Media Revolution–An American Spring?

"Television". Photo. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Web. 25 Jan. 2016.

Regular readers know that I–an irregular contributor here–have long said that the power of the internet is as-yet poorly understood and mostly untapped. Sure, we’ve seen the Arab Spring, but what is the internet really going to do in America beyond providing us endless hours of cat videos?

Well, Scott Adams [of Dilbert fame] suggests that it’s broken down our electoral politics and is turning us into a direct democracy:

The media has led you to believe that this is a presidential contest between Democrats and Republicans. But Sanders is barely a real Democrat and Trump is barely a conservative Republican. If Bloomberg jumps into the race, we will have three candidates with ambiguous party affiliations. So maybe there is a more helpful way to frame this contest.

Naval Ravikant calls it The American Spring, and points out that social media has become the real conduit to power. That’s a revolution. We the People are on the brink of replacing the entrenched powers and their monied interests. If the patriots in Iowa, New Hampshire, and the other early primary states put both Sanders and Trump in commanding leads, they will be – in effect – firing the government. But they would also be firing the system of government that was created by the Founders. Direct democracy via social media – chaotic and ugly – is about to replace the Republic. No longer can a strong leader ignore the will of the people when it is pounding on every door and tapping on every window. The Republic was designed to give elected officials the power to decide for the people. But the elected elites have lost their legitimacy and The People are on the brink of taking back power.

I’ve said before that technology has led America to an increasingly centralized society, culture, and government.

  1. The printing press itself was the first step in creating durable broadsheet dissemination of information to a wide audience. The pen is mightier than the sword, but owning a printing press is like being the general of an army of penmen.
  2. Newspapers have followed an overwhelming consolidation and much of their news-gathering is centralized via the AP. And they had real power, because you “never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.
  3. The introduction of radio enabled a true real-time broadcast to allow single voices to reach much more widely than ever before.
  4. TV came along, and video truly killed the radio star. Because of the expense, consolidation into the “big 3” networks meant that the largest corporations could filter and control the presentation of information to the masses.

"Television". Photo. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Web. 25 Jan. 2016.

“Television”. Photo. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Web. 25 Jan. 2016.

Each step increased the flow of information. But each step also drove the control of which information would flow into a narrower and narrower group of people. But technology marches on, and the filters of broadcast media are increasingly being sidestepped, democratized, and subsumed. It started with Cable, as the cost of getting into the television business dropped dramatically, and the appearance of the 24-hour cable news station widened the number of voices in the market. But nothing has come close to becoming relevant as quickly as the internet and social media. We now see major news productions no longer driving the reporting, but rather highlighting the tweets of feet on the ground. And Presidential primary political debates are taking questions from YouTube “stars”.

The internet has been around the “mainstream” less than 20 years now… Since then, it’s basically broken or fundamentally changed multiple business models in all sorts of industries, as any unemployed former travel agent will tell you. Politically, by 2004, blogs had changed the political landscape enough to give us Rathergate. But 2004–a mere 12 years ago–only brought us the first inklings of the social media future with MySpace. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, all of these hadn’t even been invented yet. Essentially the “modern” social media landscape was built in ~2006, with Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and integrated with the “computer in a pocket”, the iPhone and Android devices, over the following few years. We’ve been living with it for only a decade.
The first decade of television was exciting, but raw. Everyone could tell that this was something new, and something important. Much like they can tell with the internet and social media now. It created new stars and obsoleted many former ones. It changed the world of politics. Much like internet and social media has done since. And now, as streaming video is replacing broadcast video for more and more households, and with Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu becoming production companies in their own right, the traditional hold of the TV networks is breaking with it.

The “out of the blue” appearance of Ron Paul and now Bernie Sanders? Voices who have spent decades with no “mainstream” platform are now finding their audience. The growth of “outsider, anti-establishment” candidates gaining real traction? This is due to media conglomerates no longer being able to control the message and marginalize them. These candidates, rightly or wrongly, stand in stark contrast to the politicians who have been screwing us over for years while growing their own power. And can you imagine the quick changes in public opinion on the gay marriage, medical/recreational marijuana legalization fights, and civil liberties issues without a democratized communication platform like the internet? And the internet is not only domestic–it’s making these changes on a global scale.

So, what is the point? Well, it remains to be seen. We are witnessing the greatest social transformation the world has seen since at least the invention of television, but probably since the creation of “mass media” at all. We’re seeing the replacement of “broadcasting” with “narrowcasting”, or “sidecasting”, or “targetedcasting”, or “peercasting” or whatever you want to name it. But the fact is that information no longer only flows downhill from the powerful to the rest of us. Now, while each of us may individually be no more powerful than we ever once were, all of us are collectively more powerful than any individual media magnate or opinion-maker on the globe. While much of Scott Adams post goes into suggesting an idea that I don’t think will ever come to pass, the question of demolishing our system of government is well under way, whether the visible structures of government change or not.

Is this a good thing? Will it advance liberty? I’m not sure. But it’s certainly different, and the world–be it politicians, media folks, leaders of industry, etc–hasn’t quite figured out the implications of that yet.

Quote of the Day: ‘Constitutionalist’ Inconsistency Edition

The poster child for faux Constitutionalism

From Mike Maharrey’s post: The Constitutional Inconsistency of Many “Constitutionalists”

This short statement sums up many people’s views on “constitutionalism” and “limited government” in a nutshell. It goes like this. If the government tries to do something ‘limited government guy’ disapproves of – regulating light bulbs or soda consumption – he will scream “limited government” and point at the Constitution. But when the federal government does something ‘limited government guy’ deems necessary, he makes excuses for it, and supports it, whether authorized by the Constitution or not.

The federal government lacks the constitutional authority to do any of these things. But ‘limited government guy’ wants the feds to enforce airline security because he finds it “a good idea.” Here’s the thing: a lot of people think telling ‘limited government guy’ how many ounces of soda he can drink is a good idea. A lot of people think telling ‘limited government guy’ what kind of light bulb he can screw into his fixture is a good idea.

So, why exactly should the federal government implement the things ‘limited government guy’ likes (airport security) and not those others things he dislikes? He really doesn’t have any basis to object, other than his conception of “good ideas.” He’s already tacitly admitted the federal government can do pretty much anything. Now it only comes down to whether it should.


Of course, this is all pretty much moot in 2015 because Americans don’t really give a crap about what the Constitution says or means any more – unless it relates to abortion, porn, gay marriage or keeping somebody from slapping the 10 Commandments up in a public space.

By the way, I bet ‘limited government guy’ thinks it’s a great idea for the feds to meddle in some of those things too.

I’ve encountered quite a bit of these “constitutionalists” and “limited government guys” recently. For example, there are actually “limited government” people in my social media feeds who think anything related to Islam should be banned (burkas, mosques, “Sharia Law” in private family matters, the very practice of Islam itself etc.). “Islam isn’t a religion, it’s an ideology (or cult, or philosophy, or…). Even if I were to concede that point (which I don’t), banning Islam or any other expression of conscience which does not violate the rights of others would still be a flagrant violation of the First Amendment. A true “limited government” person supports the rights of people with whom s/he disagrees.

Mike Maharrey is definitely onto something here. Most people aren’t really in favor of liberty for “others” but only for themselves.

Zero Tolerance Will Never Stop Bullying

BullyingBullying, so we are told by the MSM, is an epidemic in our nation’s schools. Administrators have guest lecturers, students role play and/or talk about their feelings, sign anti-bullying pledges, wear ribbons and T-shirts with slogans about how bullying isn’t cool. These things are all fine; its great that there are people and organizations who care enough to shine a spotlight on the real life consequences of bullying. Maybe some bullying is prevented with these programs. That being said, no amount of role playing, “sharing,” or pledges will protect a victim of violence while the bullying is happening.

There is one policy that far too many schools have that will never stop bullying: zero tolerance for those who use legitimate force against those who illegitimately use force. Zero tolerance, makes no distinction between the aggressor and the one being aggressed against. Failing to make such a distinction is akin to taking the position that making love and rape are the same act. Zero tolerance teaches people to not question the rules discouraging critical thinking.

This brings me to the recent event that transpired in Huntington Beach, California. The bully, by the name of Noah, was beating up on another student, Austin who is partially blind. But before he could continue the beat down, Noah received a beat down of his own when Austin’s friend Cody came to the rescue. The beat down consisted of two hits: a hit to Noah’s face and his head hitting the ground.

Here’s the viral video of the event.

Early reports about Cody’s punishment (kicked off the football team and suspension from school) which resulted in an online petition signed by almost 43,000 people for defending his friend appear to be inaccurate. According to the L.A. CBS affiliate, the school did not suspend him and Cody did not join the football team this season. If this is all true, this is a very good sign that not every school has bought into the zero tolerance cult.

Still, there are those even among his defenders, who say that Cody shouldn’t have knocked the bully down. This is absurd.

If any student should be invited to the White House, it should be Cody Pine. While Cody Pine by no means single handedly put an end to bullying, certainly there is one bully who will, at the very least, think twice before attacking another student. Beyond that, perhaps more individuals of all walks of life will be inspired to do what is right.

Something else occurred to me when I watched the video again after publishing this post. Notice the amount of force Cody used to stop Noah from attacking his friend? Cody could have easily beat Noah to a bloody pulp but he chose not to. Like I said, stopping the bully only required two hits. Maybe certain overly aggressive members of law enforcement could learn a thing or two from this video concerning use of force.

Former Liberty Papers Contributor Authors Report on “Over-criminalization Epidemic” for Freedomworks


Former Liberty Papers contributor Jason Pye may have long ago moved on from this humble blog but he certainly hasn’t moved on from doing his part to educate the general public on matters of liberty and justice. Pye’s latest work for Freedomworks is something I have a great deal of interest in and concern about: over-criminalization.

What can be done about the idea that the average person commits (usually unwittingly) three felonies a day? Pye offers some great ideas; mine are probably too radical. My radical proposal being

1. Congress should repeal the entire criminal code and restore the Crimes Act of 1790.

2. Crimes that are already on the books in a given state should have jurisdiction instead of similar federal crimes (i.e. murder is already a crime in all 50 states and all the territories, therefore; the federal government should not charge anyone for murder as the state or territory would use its police power to bring charges).

This would go a long way towards solving the problem of over-criminalization.

That said, Pye’s recommendations are probably more politically feasible and should be a great starting point.

The Over-criminalization Epidemic: The Need for a Guilty Mind Requirement in Federal Criminal Law

Related Posts:
Do We Really Want the President to Enforce ALL Federal Laws?
Quote of the Day: Jason Pye on the Smarter Sentencing Act

What IS the Difference Between Democrats and Socialists?

Hillary_Clinton Bernie_Sanders

The DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was asked a very provocative question from a very unlikely person. The unlikely person was Chris Matthews and the unlikely question was the following:

“You’re chairman of the democratic party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist”

The reason Matthews asked the question was because of the rising popularity of self-identified socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who is challenging Hillary Clinton to be the presidential nominee of the Democrat Party. Clearly, Matthews along with most people who follow politics, does not believe that Bernie can actually prevail against Hillary (Bernie’s popularity among progressives notwithstanding). Given the tradition of both the Democrats and Republicans to give a prime time speaking slot during their respective national conventions, Matthews asked Schultz if Bernie would receive that honor.

Here is the video of the exchange.

At first blush, the question seems simple enough. Why couldn’t she answer?

But the more I thought about the question, it occurred to me that I couldn’t answer the question either (but in my defense, I’m not the DNC Chair either). I’m sure there must be a difference but unlike Chris Matthews, I don’t believe it’s a “huge” difference.

How does one go about answering this question? No two Democrats think exactly alike any more than any two Socialists or any two adherents to any other philosophy for that matter. Perhaps the better way to determine the differences between democrats and socialists is to compare party platforms.

This raises another problem: which party platforms?

For the Democrats, it makes the most sense to compare the DNC 2012 Platform (the most recent), but what about the Socialists? It seems that most third parties are Socialist in nature. Among these parties are the Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Equality Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Socialist Action, and Socialist Party USA.

It seems that I have no other choice but to pick one. I’ll compare the DNC 2012 Platform to that of Socialist Party USA (2013-2015). For the purposes of this post going forward, the contents of this particular platform is what “socialists” believe. I will also restrict the range of issues to socioeconomic issues where there is probably broad agreement among those who subscribe to Socialism as the best way to organize society and government.

As I examined the two platforms, I realized that making apples-to-apples comparisons would be more difficult than I expected. To the credit of the Socialists, their platform is much more to the point and easier to understand than the DNC’s. Here’s an excerpt from their economics plank:

The Socialist Party stands for a fundamental transformation of the economy, focusing on production for need not profit. So-called fair trade is meaningless as long as the world economy is dominated by a few massive corporations. Only a global transformation from capitalism to democratic socialism will provide the conditions for international peace, justice, and economic cooperation based on the large-scale transfer of resources and technology from the developed to the developing countries.

• We demand the immediate withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and oppose the creation of a widened Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
• We call for worker and community ownership and control of corporations within the framework of a decentralized and democratically determined economic plan.
• We call for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living.
• We call for a full employment policy. We support the provision of a livable guaranteed annual income.
• We call for all financial and insurance institutions to be socially owned and operated by a democratically-controlled national banking authority, which should include credit unions, mutual insurance cooperatives, and cooperative state banks. In the meantime, we call for reregulation of the banking and insurance industries.
• We call for a steeply graduated income tax and a steeply graduated estate tax, and a maximum income of no more than ten times the minimum. We oppose regressive taxes such as payroll tax, sales tax, and property taxes.

See what I mean? For all their failure to understand very basic economic principles, these Socialists understand economy of words. They have some terrible ideas but at least they know how to organize them!

That was the first 256 words from the Socialist “Economy” plank. What can we learn from the Democrat’s first 256 words about their economic policy?

This is where it becomes difficult to make comparisons. The DNC’s 2012 Platform doesn’t have a single section for economics. Under the heading “Moving America Forward” their platform is divided under categories such as “Putting Americans Back to Work,” “The Middle Class Bargain,” “Cutting Waste, Reducing the Deficit, Asking All to Pay Their Fair Share,” and “Economy Built to Last.”

To the DNC 2012 Platform:

Four years ago, Democrats, independents, and many Republicans came together as Americans to move our country forward. We were in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, the previous administration had put two wars on our nation’s credit card, and the American Dream had slipped out of reach for too many.

Today, our economy is growing again, al-Qaeda is weaker than at any point since 9/11, and our manufacturing sector is growing for the first time in more than a decade. But there is more we need to do, and so we come together again to continue what we started. We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth—the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.

This election is not simply a choice between two candidates or two political parties, but between two fundamentally different paths for our country and our families.

We Democrats offer America the opportunity to move our country forward by creating an economy built to last and built from the middle out. Mitt Romney and the Republican Party have a drastically different vision. They still believe the best way to grow the economy is from the top down—the same approach that benefited the wealthy few but crashed the economy and crushed the middle class.

Democrats see a young country continually [snip]

Sounds like a whole lot of nothing right? This is a typical political speech in which lots of words are spoken but nothing of substance is being said. “[H]ard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.” Wow, how absolutely earth shattering! Who doesn’t agree with the statement above?

The DNC 2012 Platform goes on like this the rest of the way, short on specific policy proposals but long on flowery prose. To the extent there is something I can sink my teeth into: the wealthy don’t pay enough taxes, the undefined middle class needs more subsidies and tax breaks (the middle class being the largest voting bloc), and we’ll keep the Republicans hands off of Social Security and Medicare.

Maybe I need to scrap the idea of comparing platforms. What do Democrats believe these days?

I would love to be wrong, but I’m quite sure that much of the Socialist Party USA Platform would resonate with rank and file Democrats and “Occupy” Democrats in-particular.

“We call for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living.” Many rank and file Democrats agree with this; Seattle has already passed a $15 per hour minimum wage.

“We call for a steeply graduated income tax and a steeply graduated estate tax, and a maximum income of no more than ten times the minimum. We oppose regressive taxes such as payroll tax, sales tax, and property taxes.” This almost certainly resonates with the Occupy Democrats. Could such a plank make its way on the 2016 DNC Platform?

“We call for a full employment policy. We support the provision of a livable guaranteed annual income.” Any serious objections from Chris Matthews on this one?

“We call for increased and expanded welfare assistance and increased and expanded unemployment compensation at 100% of a worker’s previous income or the minimum wage, whichever is higher, for the full period of unemployment or re-training, whichever is longer.” Certainly those who support Bernie Sanders would be on board; Hillary supporters maybe not. To extent there is disagreement, it’s only a matter of degree.

“We oppose the court-created precedent of “corporate personhood” that illegitimately gives corporations rights that were intended for human beings.” Democrats (and probably some Republicans) around the country are shouting “hallelujah” and “amen” reading this statement.

It seems to me that there isn’t a great deal of daylight between Democrats and Socialists on socioeconomic issues. Is it any wonder why the DNC Chair couldn’t answer the question?

The only reason Democrats and progressives don’t call themselves socialists is because the term probably doesn’t do well in focus groups.

Socialists or Democrats?

Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton?

To quote Hillary: “What difference at this point does it make?”

1 2 3 4 5 163