Will net neutrality keep the FCC politicized and will investors pay for it?

Yesterday, Federal Communications Chairman Ajit Pai issued a statement regarding an investigation by the agency’s inspector general into last year’s claims that the Commission’s website was attacked during the comment period on the Commission’s net neutrality rules. Mr. Pai asserted that he was told by the Commission’s former chief information officer that external parties attempted to overload the Commission’s electronic comment portal with high traffic. It appears that the disruption to the comment system was not the result of third-party bad actors but the result of the system not being able to accommodate a high number of respondents attempting to comment at the same time. Mr. Pai went as far to say that allegations that he was aware that the former CIO’s comments were false or hid the true reasons for political reasons were incorrect.

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel was more pointed in her statement, stating that the inspector general’s findings were not a surprise; that the meltdown in the system was a reflection of how serious millions of citizens took the issue of net neutrality.

Commissioner Rosenworcel’s response, short and biting, was not surprising given the political polarization I have observed on the Commission going back to the beginning of the Tom Wheeler era. The debate over net neutrality has been the focal point for political rift, a debate that I find at odds with the Commission’s core mission which is to ensure the maintenance and availability of a universal communications network.

The debate has come down to two schools of thought. On the one hand is the comedian John Oliver view, where net neutrality rules are needed to ensure that the internet is “democratized”; that all voices can be heard and that consumers have access to the content that they choose without fear that their internet service provider is favoring its content over another provider’s content.

On the other hand, there is the original “internetwork” view of Professor Tim Wu who in his 2002 proposal for net neutrality focused on the negative externalities that could impact all networks if a broadband access provider where to extend otherwise legitimate local network management into the shared areas of the internet by discriminating against traffic coming from certain internet protocol addresses, TCP ports, or domain names.

Democracy as a narrative can lend itself to justifying invasiveness as is the case of the John Oliver model. This argument creates overreach by asserting that a broadband access provider must be transparent regarding how it manages its network. Professor Wu made clear in his proposal that a broadband access provider is expected to manage its local network in a manner that keeps it operational and efficient. It is at the internetwork level (Level 3 through Level 7 in open system interconnection parlance) that could get a broadband provider in trouble where the provider can program its network to block applications, IP addresses, or domain names.

Proponents of the Oliver School haven’t made the argument why broadband access providers could not make certain economic discrimination rules regarding bandwidth within a provider’s local network. They appear willing to avoid the initial slipping on the slope and appear willing to dive right in by allegedly protecting consumers by promoting rules that may require regulating internal aspects of local network management.

For the investor, the Oliver School can be expensive as a broadband provider, especially a smaller provider, faces the risk of having to litigate an increased number of consumer complaints about the amount of bandwidth they believe that are not receiving as a result of a perceived net neutrality slight.

For the local and state governments that are tasked with investigating consumer complaints, there cost of regulation will rise in order to address complaints regarding local network management when resources should be reserved for complaints regarding violations “on the edge.”

Investors should not expect the net neutrality debate to fade away anytime soon. The politics at he Commission may intensify once another Democratic commissioner is appointed to fill the seat left vacant by Mignon Clyburn. Should the Democratic Party win the U.S. House this fall, I expect the Progressive caucus to add to the “Democracy Under Attack” narrative the failure of the Commission to implement strong net neutrality rules thereby protecting freedom of expression and a “democratized” open internet.

If Twitter doesn’t want to be an echo chamber, then it should eliminate the retweet

The democratization of the internet was supposed to open up avenues of expression for the American electorate. According to progressives, the commercial faction doing the most damage to freedom of expression on the internet was the broadband internet access provider. These firms, which include AT&T, Comcast, Cox, and Verizon, posed a threat to democratic expression because they could potentially block access to a consumer’s preferred website, manipulate the speeds at which a content provider could transmit data to a consumer, or put their content ahead of content provided by another website.

Proponents of the concept of net neutrality, where broadband access providers would be prohibited from favoring their content over those preferred by their subscribers, throttling the speeds by which content providers transmitted data, or blocking access to websites, had only in their gunsights the broadband access provider. The masses of net neutrality followers were never fully informed by their leading strategists that if commercial activity was looked at in its entirety then edge providers such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google, would have to be placed under their scopes as well.

The net neutrality faction seemed to be advancing politically and legally. After taking what appeared to be marching orders from President Barack Obama in late 2014 on implementing net neutrality rules, former Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler delivered by issuing in 2015 a set of net neutrality rules based on the Communications Act of 1934. The following year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia would seemingly affirm net neutrality after denying a court challenge of the rules by Verizon.

Unfortunately, all honeymoons end and proponents of democracy on the internet would find out over the next two years what the real challenge to democracy over the internet is: contentiousness.

For those of us who advocate in cyberspace, we know that social media can be unforgiving. Trolls hiding behind goofy looking avatars hurling one-liners and expletives make the notion of free expression a joke. Bad manners and narcissism go viral with a hashtag, the digital banner around which many, unfortunately uninformed, tend to rally. Politics is fun to watch at times, but in the end, it is low-frequency chimp shit where most of its participants vibrate at highly emotional levels.

Emotions around net neutrality were expertly manipulated by strategists to distract consumer and policymaker alike from the other side of the freedom of expression debate: a business model driven by algorithms and advertising fees.

The cynic will argue that for the edge provider, “open internet”, a term used interchangeably with net neutrality, means a business model opened to advertisement by foreign agents and the ease of infiltrating a democratic system. Dig a little deeper and the cynicism goes away because democracy is an open system that, in theory at least, allows for wide participation. Combine democracy with an open market driven by digitization and you actually lessen the argument that democracy as a political system can be attacked. Rather, democracy is increasingly susceptible to crude, direct manipulation as the alleged Russian interference with the 2016 elections demonstrates.

Russia was able to play on the contentiousness of the American political system, a system where debate is highly polarized; where communities can be quickly established around a Twitter hashtag and discussions, debates, and pronouncements made to go viral with a retweet and nary any deeper research to verify the tweet.

Maybe something for proponents of openness on the internet to consider, that while keeping their eyes and rants on the broadband access provider as gatekeeper, the focus should also be on the retweet as the Trojan Horse. To an online democracy, is one worse than the other?

A top down Virgin Islands economy cannot survive further into the 21st century

An area populated by roughly 105,000 people should not run its economy based on a model designed to hoard capital while generating returns to that capital in as many markets as possible. Given the reliance on government and tourism as its economy’s drivers, can the Virgin Islands of the United States afford to have a fraction of its community limit the distribution of capital and the opportunities that are spawned from capital deployment? In other words, where a small number of farmers control most of the seed, should they be allowed to only spread seed on a small portion of the land while most of the plot lays fallow? The answer is no.

I can understand the marginalization that a significant number of Virgin Islanders feel. My father moved from St. Kitts to the Virgin Islands in the early 1960s. He married my mother in St. Kitts in 1962 and I, their first born, came along the following year. He worked in the hotel industry which was booming at that period in large part to Fidel Castro taking Cuba offline as a tourist stop resulting in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico emerging as alternative vacation destinations. A large number of “down islanders” moved to the Virgin Islands during that period and while we added to the vibrancy of the economy, particularly in the tourist industry, we were always outsiders, having not being born in the territory.

That outsider status as immigrants of course spilled over into the other industry: government. Being non-citizens, my parents could only watch from the sidelines and cheer for a candidate that they thought represented their values. During the early 1960s through the late 1970s that candidate was Cyril E. King. So enamored with the late governor was my mother that she thought it a good idea that I share Governor King’s middle name. Quite a few parents shared that sentiment during that time as well.

But not only was there marginalization in terms of origin or employment by or representation in government, there was marginalization in terms of ownership in the private sector. Yes, locals owned small retail outlets, trade shops, small bars, and restaurants, but larger institutions such as the banks, hotels, and jewelry stores remained in the hands of American and European corporations. Corporations and banks represent not only non-ownership on the part of locals, but a flow of capital and income out of the territory. A community with a high level of poverty needs to see capital and income recycled through the local population, searching out and funding the opportunities that have laid dormant or unseen because current hoarders of capital are biased against local people, preferring to keep us marginalized.

What type of opportunities should re-cycled capital and income search out? They should seek out opportunities that create the ability for each household to have productive capacity within their own hands. Capital and income need to stay within the territory and provide households the ability to practice “decentralized home economics”; where a household can produce their own energy, network their own communications needs; and access alternative modes of logistics that not only transport citizens quickly to any destination, but brings goods, services, and information from distant points to the household. Instead of enjoying fewer economic benefits because they have been forced to live on the edge, households can maximize returns on their resources i.e. income and capital, by making the most from living on the edge.

Marginalization no longer has to be equated with poverty. It can now be, through the use of technology, be equated with wealth.

Decolonizing the United States Virgin Islands

It is time for the Trump administration to follow the lead of the British and cut a couple colonies loose. The one colony I would like the Administration to let go its own way is the United States Virgin Islands. One quick note, especially to Virgin Islanders who find it hard to believe that the United States looks at the USVI as anything more than a colony: your vehicle license plates. The inscription, “America’s Caribbean” is code for America’s colonial attitude toward the Virgin Islands.

Another piece of evidence is the refusal to allow American citizens living in the USVI to vote in presidential elections. USVI citizens go through the farce of sending delegates to a party convention but every four years in November they are not allowed to cast a vote in the general elections. Nor does the USVI have voting representation in the U.S. congress. Its one delegate, Stacey Plaskett, can be a member of a congressional committee, make speeches on the House floor even. But vote? No.

In addition, the USVI has no say over its external affairs. Although not a part of the U.S. customs territory, the USVI cannot enter into trade deals without the permission of the United States. The governing document for the Virgin Islands, the Organic Act of the Virgin Islands of the United States, 1954, is more of an instrument for the public administration of internal affairs under the auspices of the American congress and executive branch. With the exception of a brief discussion on the importation of infected livestock from the U.S. mainland and the placement of duties on articles imported into the Virgin Islands, the Organic Act does not empower the Virgin Islands in matters of foreign trade. Public administration of the Virgin Islands is as colonial as it gets.

But what are the benefits to the United States from colonizing the USVI? In August 1916, the United States entered into an agreement with Denmark to purchase the Danish West Indies as part of the American strategy to protect the western hemisphere from European invasion during World War II. This strategy continued into the years of the second world war. For example, the Cyril E. King International Airport on St. Thomas was the site of an old army airfield that was later named after U.S. president Harry S Truman. As a child growing up in St. Thomas in the 1960s and 1970s it was never surprising to see an attack submarine surface in the harbor at Long Bay or at the old submarine base a couple miles to the east of the harbor. As a teen-aged member of the Civil Air Patrol, I led a search and rescue exercise around Magens Bay, taking my team into an area that housed a satellite communications facility. I don’t remember if it was military, but we were spotted by a white woman in a VW Beetle who threatened to rat us out given our failure to give her an explanation as to why we were there. Needless to say, we hauled ass after completing our mission.

But today, in the 21st century, where the United States deploys nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines, satellite communications, and long-range jets, does the U.S. really need to use the Virgin Islands as a land-based aircraft carrier in the Caribbean Sea?

And given that the Virgin Islands keeps the federal income taxes it collects from its residents while enjoying limited social welfare benefits, the United States is probably losing a few billion dollars in tax and other revenues.

Politically, where is the benefit to either Democrats or Republicans in the United States from America’s Caribbean? Again, the delegate from the Virgin Islands is a non-voting member of the U.S. House. The thirty or so thousand eligible voters, while allowed to cast, in my opinion, a symbolic vote in the primaries and send delegates to the parties’ conventions, are not allowed to vote for president.

Culturally, the Virgin Islands do not add to America’s social fabric. While a significant portion of the population enjoy the trimmings of Americanism, from shopping to cable television to American sports, we are still, whether we are aware of it or not, still Caribbean. We live in two worlds with a significant “down island” portion of the population helping to keep our feet in the goings on of the Lesser Antilles. The Democrats would not want Virgin Islanders playing a significant role in their party politics. West Indians are more conservative than your run-of-the-mill American, and while most won’t admit it, do not share as close an affinity to black Americans as most would think, skin color notwithstanding.

Other than the prestige of saying that, like other European powers, they are in possession of overseas territories, I see no benefit to the United States in playing the empire game in the Caribbean. The United States should truly consider some decolonizing especially if it nudges my people to more self-determination.

There is too much “we” in our mindless political analyses

Recently I saw a meme on my Facebook feed that asked, “How did my freedom end up in Afghanistan?” As July 4th approaches I cringe at the thought of all the patriotic messages that will be spewed especially by Blacks born here in the United States. Their thoughtless blithering on “freedoms” and “blessings” form the basis for the observation in the Afghan meme.

Thoughtless because it is beyond me how a small Central Asian country that has poppy as its main crop could pose any danger to my ability to walk around my neighborhood; eat my turkey sub; write this blog post; apply for a job; or watch a movie.  Yes, the Afghans are notorious for rightfully kicking the asses of imperialist British and Russian invaders, but if anyone’s freedom is being threatened, it is that of the Afghans who have a 150 year of more long history of battling uninvited guests.

Blacks in America should be especially mindful of latching on to the “we” word.  A group of people who only saw their rights as citizens fully incorporated by law within the past 60 years should be pulling back from the assimilation rhetoric of current misguided or disingenuous political leaders.  So quick to be accepted are blacks that it is easy to spout the mindless adages that will flow more freely than beer during July 4th.

It is too easy for blacks to scream that the Russians attacked “our” election process.  Really? How so? Did the Russians stop 20 million eligible black voters from going to the polls and choosing Hillary Clinton?  How is it “our” process when diverse voices within the black population can nary get support from fellow blacks?

The second problem with “we” is that it reinforces the myth that the black population is a political monolith.  Black over-indexing in support for the Democrats creates group speak and gives the Democratic Party the emotional, Pavlovian responses that make good sound bites for television talking heads and thirty-second video clips for MSNBC.

The appropriate unit of analysis for reflection should be “I”. Democracy and the partisan politics that flow from it have made Americans fearful of sounding selfish or anti-social. Avoiding the “we” is painted as anti-collective and creating disharmony.  Focusing on the “I” fears collectivists, especially the collectivists on the Left because the “I” means operating in an environment of mental and emotional discipline, and when operating in the space raises the chance that the individuals says, “Hey. Not so fast, collective. That’s not where I want to go.”

It is time to pursue more independent thinking. Time to stop fearing the “I”.

The Sarah Sanders fiasco challenges the notion of free exchange of ideas and nation-state.

America’s hypocrisy when it comes to the freedom to exchange ideas was further exposed last weekend when Sarah Huckabee Sanders, press secretary for the White House, was asked to leave the Red Hen, a restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. According to The Hill.com, Mrs. Sanders along with seven members of her family, was asked by Stephanie Wilkinson, the co-owner of the restaurant, to leave the establishment because she took issue with the Trump administration’s policy toward transgender members of the military.  Listening to calls this morning to C-SPAN on the issue is giving me the sense of how increasingly polarized the United States is politically. It has me asking, “Are Americans really serious about the free exchange of ideas or is that just some Madison Avenue hype designed to maintain an artificial society?”

The first three words in the Constitution of the United States of America, “We the People”, seem farcical given this latest event. Yes, humans are expected to disagree, but the United States has been transmitting a message to the world that the choice to disassociate based on the groups you want to disassociate away from is somehow a bad thing and that real strength lies in diversity of people and ideas.  The Sanders event is an example that this creed is built on shaky ground. It seems more likely that Americans rather not share space with people who do not share their political beliefs or political lineage. “We the People” means, “We, a Particular People Who Have Taken Charge.” Inclusive means only including those who share your beliefs.

The State had to sell the notion that the disenfranchised were allowed to come to the party. The last thing the United States needed to see was its own version of Bastille Day on American soil. To keep the barbarians at bay the political elite needed a doggy bone and democracy has been that bone since the country’s inception.  But as the guise of democracy and its phony noble intent falls away, are the disenfranchised ready for a world that is not inclusive?

If Americans are serious about freedom of association and the freedom to exchange ideas, they must accept the freedom to disassociate and go one’s own way. The Left is afraid of such a mindset because disassociation means fewer people across which to spread the costs of unnecessary programs and fewer people towing their party line.  The Left has been historically aligned with freedom of thought, but their support for the co-owner of The Red Hen demonstrates to me that even they do not understand their equality standards and the artificial nature of those standards are coming back to harm them.

The co-owner of the Red Hen, again, took issue with transgender policy of the Trump administration and given the lack of anonymity that Mrs. Sanders could not avoid were able to single her out and direct a protest against Mr. Trump by asking her to leave.  Would the Left take issue with a restaurant owner who does not support the Democratic Party because of the party’s support for gay marriage but because she is aware that 90% of blacks support the Democratic Party decides to not serve them? The answer is yes and not because the Left would think the owner is wrong, but the loss of black votes stemming from any Democratic support for the restaurant owner’s free speech would cost Democrats at the polls.

I don’t believe the discussion on free association will ever end. Quite frankly it needs to continue and get louder.

Would independence make the U.S. Virgin Islands more Caribbean? Yes, I think so.

One evening after finishing a jog, I spied a young lady walking through the graduate residence I lived at during grad school. I walked up to her and introduced myself. Upon hearing her accent, I asked her where she was from. She told me Guyana. I responded enthusiastically and by saying that I was from the U.S. Virgin Islands. A sour look came across her face. She went on to tell me that I was American and not Caribbean.  I became indignant, wondering why she would draw that conclusion and told her that I was just as Caribbean as anyone from the region. She walked off with a look on her face as if she had stepped into a hornet’s nest.

I entered my apartment still pissed at what I perceived as an insult, but as I calmed down and started to process her observation, I saw, reluctantly, where she was coming from. Independence, it sounded like, was prerequisite for claims to being from the Caribbean region. Whether you came from an independent nation determined where you stood on the region’s totem pole.

For a number of reasons, I may have put this consideration out of my head. At the time of my encounter with the young Guyanese woman I had been on the U.S. mainland for roughly 15 years. I had become increasingly immersed in American, especially Black American, culture.  One of my saving graces had been the remnants of my accent. The other, closely related now I realize, was the company I kept while in Tallahassee. Most of my friends were either West Indian, descendants of West Indians, or preferred the company of West Indians. The few Black Americans I hung out with were some of the most open-minded people you could meet. Although I had received that type of treatment, albeit a lot less subtle, from the time I moved to the mainland, it had via that encounter become more pronounced.

Island nations had been going their own way since the early 1960s. The British Empire was in decolonization mode after the end of the second world war and the Caribbean was benefiting from it. Great Britain and Europe determined to take another route that would see them still exercise economic influence while dumping political responsibility on to their former colonies.  The United States got into the colonizer game pretty late in the Caribbean.

In 1898 the United States put the island of Puerto Rico into their portfolio. In August 1916, the U.S. entered an agreement to purchase the Danish West Indies from Denmark for a cool $25 million and renamed the territory the Virgin Islands of the United States. The purchase and eventual transfer in March 1917 were just in time for the territory to play a role in the protection of the Panama Canal via the establishment of a submarine base and other military facilities.

I will have to post on the legal uncertainty surrounding citizenship for the descendants of slaves in the territory but for now bear in mind that American citizenship became a crown for jewel for islanders and through the years, especially post World War II, the United States Virgin Islands (less of a mouthful nomenclature) would attract Caribbean people especially from the other islands in the Lesser Antilles.  Among those people would be my parents who met and married in St. Kitts and moved to St. Thomas in 1962.  I would enter this physical realm a year later, one foot in a Caribbean still under the direct rule of Great Britain, the other foot in a culture increasingly tainted in Americanism.

From childhood especially when traveling “home” to St Kitts, I was conscious of being in two different Caribbean realities. One night I am sitting in my great aunt’s house listening to the BBC. The next night I am in my living room in St. Thomas watching a one-week delayed television broadcast of “Mannix.”  Visiting cousins in New York, yes, I was from “the islands”, speaking with the funny accent, but I would have no qualms slipping into my best version of a Brooklyn accent just to fit in.  I was an American after all, wasn’t I?

And it is this attitude, that we are Americans versus Caribbean, that pervades the Virgin Islands’ culture.  The separateness from the rest of the Caribbean because of American citizenship is expressed with pride, so much pride that for the native-born Virgin Islanders, they look down on immigrants from St.  Kitts and other islands.  When I look back at my family’s network back in the USVI, it was primarily made up of people from St Kitts, Nevis, Anguilla, and Antigua. Even today the Virgin Islanders I socialize with are either from St Kitts-Nevis or, as in my case, our parents were from St Kitts-Nevis. But whether you were born in St Thomas or an immigrant who became a naturalized citizen, your Americanism was viewed as a sign of superiority over the other island nations.

The irony, for it is for that reason that island nations look down on us and it is not coming from a place of jealousy.  I believe that they view a people who exercise little self-determination as second rate.  While I disagree with the description of my homies from the USVI as second-rate, I would agree that given our brain power and deep-water port, if we leveraged today’s technology to create our own economy, an independent Virgin Islands could be a force to reckon with in a Caribbean that needs to be led by a example of a dynamic fellow island nation. I would like to see that happen.

If you needed the internet that bad, you would have created it yourself

Monday 11 June 2018. We will see a repeat of the weeping and wailing that Hillary Clinton’s supporters did as they witnessed what they thought was impossible: an electoral loss to Donald Trump. Advocates for the treatment of broadband access as a telecommunications service will weep and wail not because of the loss of internet service, but because they will be out of bullets when the scare tactics imposed on millions of consumers do not come to fruition. As June goes into July into August into election season into Kwanzaa, another argument for attracting anti-Trump voters will fade away.  As the tyrannical Fake Left jump onto social media and create new forums and hashtags for the next rally, they will soon take for granted that the internet still works after all.

What I find disconcerting is the emotion attached to internet access. “If everyone is not connected, we will all sink into the pits of Hades.” “If I am not online, I am inconsequential.” “The internet is crucial to our daily living and well-being.”  None of this is true. Unlike water and energy, internet access is not a necessity for the continuation of life. Approximately 11% of Americans do not use the internet, according to data from Pew Research. More than likely, these individuals are getting information they determine as pertinent to their lives from old tried and true sources: first hand observation, published news sources, direct contact with government agencies, family and friends. These data sources are not as fast or as glitzy, but they have worked for centuries and more than likely were used by the individuals who built this digital world.

I expect the percentage of Americans not using the internet to fall over time when you consider that in 2000 approximately 48% of Americans were not online.  Our children are already internet savvy and this use of online services will only continue as they get older. As we on the tail end of the Baby Boom enter retirement, we may find ourselves using it more to connect with fellow Boomers who, unfortunately, may not be up to travel for various reasons.

What we need to avoid is allowing political factions such as the Fake Left to play on the emotions stemming from the belief that without net neutrality rules, consumers won’t be able to get to the websites of their choice, see speeds from their favorite websites slow down, or have their data sold to third parties they did not approve.  This narrative should be seen for what it is; another way to get votes.

If the Fake Left were really concerned about protecting your privacy and the speed at which you access data, they would tell you that you are responsible for reading the fine print of every service agreement for every information service provider you access. Arguing that terms and conditions are written in “legalese” is no excuse for skipping over disclosures and subjecting your privacy to abuse.  If, as the Fake Left argues, the internet is that crucial to everyday living, so crucial that it should be treated like a utility, then equal fervor should be applied to the consumer who decides to use online services.  In other words, the Fake Left should stop encouraging people who can’t fly to buy an airplane and attempt to fly it without bearing the consequences.

If you can’t get what your want from an information service provider in terms of privacy or speed, then maybe you should invest in consumer encryption services such as a virtual private network, or using a heavily encrypted network or browser such as TOR.

There are also the old methods of information gathering: a telephone (landline) and a newspaper, from which you can access by paying cash, the ultimate form of encrypted currency. Bottom line, there are ways to protect your individual privacy without implementing more onerous rules on society.

Courts and regulatory agencies as markets

For most of us every day folk, courts are places where we want a judgment that says, “We are right.” But courts are also “rules markets.” Rules markets are where frameworks for how we engage each other going forward are produced and depending on how broad the issue is defined, those rules may be forcibly consumed by others who were not a party to the conflict that brought the original rule producers together in the first place.

The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission provides an example. While the issue in that case focused on whether Colorado’s equal rights agency applied its civil rights rules in a neutral manner where civil rights violations were alleged, some Americans questioned why the consequences of that case should spill outside of Colorado and impact citizens and businesses in other states. The short answer is that externalities, whether positive or negative, from a court ruling enter society because of the structure of our legal system. The legal structure is centralized and the ripple effect of legal decisions spreads out to more citizens the higher up the legal rule production hierarchy you go. The interpretation as to what the rule should be for governing a relationship or conflict becomes the “law of the land” where the highest court becomes the market for producing legal rules.

I heard some of this concern from every day folk during a CSPAN session the day after the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling. “Why did this conflict have to escalate?” some asked. It escalated because a centralized legal system provides opportunities for individuals occupying a minority class to extend its views on how society should work to the rest of America by accessing and participating in the rule making process.

Conflict is a high cost for entering this “centralized rules” market, but a higher price is paid by the rest of society where we are subjected to rules produced by a small number of participants seeking to produce rules that favor their behavior and the detriment of limiting or modifying everyone else’s.

In my opinion, the limitation of the behavior of others as a result of rules produced in a centralized market is a negative externality or negative benefit. No matter the noble intent of the rule producers, where the rule produced impacts my behavior, it impacts my liberty.

One way to limit the negative externalities of centralized rulemaking is for parties to enter into voluntary agreements, agreements limited to the parties resolving the immediate conflict. It would be a lot cheaper for parties in actual conflict or anticipating conflict if the rules were produced as a result of voluntary engagement designed to head off conflict versus the other way around. It would also be less expensive for members of society who are not direct parties to the conflict since they would not be subject to rules that they did not produce.

Blacks live in a population, not a community

Black Americans have built their collective around a history of pain and suffering, a misery that a significant portion of the black population have never directly experienced. A part of the reason for the collective mentality stems from being a libations people. Some blacks in America have continued some semblance of the practice of commemorating the ancestors. All groups have some degree of reverence for the elders but I find that blacks in particular take the reverence to another level. Take for example John Lewis, the representative to Congress from Georgia’s 5th district. Mr Lewis, who has served in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1987, rarely fails to remind us of his experiences marching with Dr Martin Luther King. For black Americans to turn Mr Lewis out of office would be sacrilege even though his effective over the years is highly questionable. As a messenger who reminds black Americans of pain and suffering, Mr Lewis is one of many architects of the narrative of a black community.

I have argued before that blacks do not have a community. At the risk of sounding like a fan of “trap music”, the poor and middle-income strata of blacks live in a mental, spiritual, political and economic ghetto where payday lenders, pawn shops, and tax preparers offering advances on internal revenue refunds make up the population’s financial district. Ride on MARTA in Atlanta and you observe that mobile broadband is the low cost digital source of entertainment for blacks in this income bracket. Over-indexed on both mobile broadband and social media, Facebook and Twitter are the databases and noise exchange platforms for the population.

Philosophically, Black Americans view the real world as a hostile place driven by ever present racism and a slave history that white Americans have not yet reconciled with their current privilege. Since this attack is directed at people with dark skin who can trace their lineage to Africa, most reactions from the black population comes from a collectivist albeit not entirely monolithic place.  Blacks feel trapped; they feel under siege.

Notice that I have been using “population” more than the typical word, “community.” Blacks do not have a community. Many view community as a social term. The social taint of the word is secondary. Community is an economic term with the accompanying social ordering of its members based on their contribution to the extraction, organization, and distribution of resources. At the base of a mining community is a mine and surrounding that mine is an ordering of human resources organized in such a way where you recognize leaders and followers; where you can identify where political and economic power is deployed and which classes are exercising what levels and amounts of that power.

It is the social orderings stemming from political and economic power that serve as platforms for a group’s culture, for the groups values as transmitted by the group’s leaders. I don’t see that in the black population.

Didn’t see it in Canarsie or Crown Heights. I haven’t seen it in West End Atlanta. I haven’t seen it in Baltimore. I haven’t seen it in Charlotte Amalie.  I saw populations of black people employed by non-blacks who actually owned the “vibranium.” I don’t see a community.

This lack of community along with the lack of values spawned from political and economic decision- making means, in my opinion, less of a barrier to pursuing individual self-interests.  Claims of community are empty for the black population where so-called community leaders and leading politicians have not been able to make heads or tails out of the centuries old relegation of blacks to the bottom of the political and economic totem pole. This major flaw in the community narrative is the cue for more blacks to “go their own way”, getting away from the false premise that skin color and pain throughout history should be enough to sustain monolithic thinking and poor political and economic gains.