A philosophy of “political” engagement for the individual anarchist

Navigating the path to a good life in the realm of politics …

The good life is one where the individual pursues her self-awareness without the encumbrance of mass tyranny.  An individual anarchist that places personal liberty above all else will have as a goal near non-existent contact with government.  She will do what is practical to keep government off of her back.  She will, for example, file her tax returns and pay her taxes, taking advantage, of course, of any means of reducing her tax obligation that keeps her at the same time off of the government’s radar.  She should keep herself in a position to keep government at bay.

Does this mean that the individual anarchist must involve herself in politics?  That may depend on how you define politics.

The politics of human interaction …

I am a realist.  I acknowledge that 245 years ago, a bunch of well-financed strong men wrestled control of this jurisdiction from a strong man sitting in England.  I acknowledge that these strong men created a government for the day-to-day exercise of administration of this jurisdiction’s resources, and that if I am to navigate this environment in order to maintain myself and my family, then there will be some minimal exchange of information or currency between me and this government and the people who exercise non-thinking obedience to its policies.

Does this mean that I have to engage in the institutional practice of the administration of public affairs?  Does this mean that I have to vote in an election or run for public office?  Does this mean that I have to fund political campaigns and take bets on a better candidate?

The answer to the above is no.  Acknowledging the State’s existence creates no requirement that you feed the Beast.  Rather you should call the Beast out through constant critique.  To borrow from Emile Armand, “the work of the anarchist is above all a work of critique.”  The individual-anarchist, in order to enhance her chances of optimizing individual liberty, must live and need be agitate from the outside.  What “political” mechanism, then, should she use?

Political ‘string theory’ ….

The relationship between elected officials and the electorate is based on an exchange of a politician’s position and and a voter’s perception.  This exchange creates an equilibrium that is maintained where a politician conveys to a voter necessary and sufficient information that meets or guides a voter’s perception as to how well the environment of the political economy is doing.  For example, Donald Trump conveys to his constituency that his policies are leading to job growth.  His base, after consuming available data, continue to perceive that things are going well.

But the individual-anarchist may see Mr Trump’s policies as impeding her ability to, say, develop and use her own private energy resources.  At this point she may have two alternatives. She can be silent and allow Mr Trump’s policies and the electorate’s erroneous perception to crush her, or she can engage in a temporary strategic partnership with like-minded individuals to critique Mr Trump’s policies.  This is where the political string theory comes in.

Under this theory, the equilibrium between elected official position and voter perception lies on a fabric of data flow between both parties.  Warp the fabric by introducing surprise; by introducing information, and this relationship changes.  The goal of the temporary, strategic partnership of individual anarchists should be to publish accurate, data rich “surprise” that disrupts the inertia in the political system.

This type of agitation cannot occur from inside the system for two reasons.  First, the system’s core has in place editorial roadblocks that will dilute, eviscerate, eliminate the messaging.  Instead, the messaging should aim to pick off elements of the mass electorate who may be more susceptible to independent thought, those who may be sitting on the fence. Those who doubt the efficacy of the political elite.

The second reason for agitating from the outside is to ensure that the messengers are not co-opted.  Take for example the Libertarian Party.  Their policies or positions have yet to take hold with a significant amount of the American population. By operating within the mechanics of the electoral system, they have morphed into nothing but closet Republicans.

Conclusion …

“Political” engagement for the individual anarchist must be temporary and purposeful.  Prolonged engagement runs the risk of creating organizations that eventually exist for the sole purpose of maintaining existence.  Prolonged engagement means diluting your individuality. To be the effective critic, the new data introduced must be a surprise, truly new information that makes disruption all the more effective.

 

Advertisements

Blacks need a new political law game

The political battle between the Executive and the Congress has been intense to say the least over the last twenty-seven months since Donald Trump took office.  With post-Mueller report hearings ramping up next week, the saga only promises to continue way into campaign season.

My friends and family have expressed varying degrees of interest, with a significant number of opinions fueled more by emotion and less by critical thinking.  For example, the constant reference to “collusion”, a term that has no legal meaning, is disconcerting because it provides an example of how people are ignoring the particulars (even when readily available for examination) and rolling with the globs of misinformation thrown onto the plate most times by the mainstream media.

Black congressional leadership wasting political power …

What should also be disturbing is how two of the highest ranking blacks in the Congress, Maxine Waters and Elijah Cummings, are spearheading the charge in the impeachment debate.  Their distaste for the sitting president is evident, but what is less evident is how the use of a potent political law instrument as impeachment is supposed to translate into any increase in political power, wealth, or capital for black people.

If anything, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has expressed caution about pursuing impeachment, appreciating the argument from some inside her party that pursuing impeachment could have a negative impact on the Democrats’ ability to oust Donald Trump from the Oval Office in November 2020.  Mrs. Pelosi’s hesitancy on impeachment should have provided Ms. Waters and Mr. Cummings an opening to show leadership and go against the impeachment grain, not because it would be in line with Speaker Pelosi’s sentiment, but as a signal that the energy expenditure behind impeachment does nothing for their prime constituency: black people.

When you are marginalized, you agitate …

With at least 51 voting members in the U.S. House, blacks in the Congress are in a position to be the pivotal swing vote on a number of issues including impeachment. Numerically, black members of the House, where articles of impeachment would originate, could clog the wheel by holding back approximately 20% of the Democratic vote.  With this leverage, black congressmen could attempt concessions from either the House leadership or from President Trump, though it is less likely that the black caucus would try to negotiate with the President for fear of becoming a pariah in the Democratic Party.

Therein lies a telling dilemma. If the premier block of black congressmen cannot leverage numerical strength without fear of reprisal, what good is their strength?  Another irony is that for a group of congressman that represent a marginalized group, their fear of marginalization within Congress does not put them in a position to do more for their black constituents.

Maybe the answer is to stay outside the box …

On the other hand, maybe blacks, particularly those who embrace their status as marginalized, need an approach to political law that allows them to carve out their own independent niche; one that unapologetically finds the seams or openings in the political economy in order to access capital or create substantive platforms for constructing true communities. Current black leadership is too afraid to do that.

Could Trump’s request for less NIST funding be turned into another political football?

Overview

This morning the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Technology held a hearing to consider the Fiscal Year 2020 budget request of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST’s published mission is “to promote U.S. innovation and competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.”  The agency provides measurements, standards, and reference materials for the technology behind a range of products and services, including computers, GPS systems, cellphones, and automobiles.

Leading Democrats Didn’t Share Too Much Concern About Artificial Intelligence 

Based on the opening statement of the chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Democrat of Texas, the primary concern of the Democrats appears to be the impact last year’s shutdown had on NIST research and staffing and how the proposed reductions would compound the problem of reduced research output combined with a reduction in staff.

House Subcommittee on Research and Technology chairman Haley Stevens appeared to emphasize the defunding of programs that support the manufacturing sector and also expressed her concerns about the potential of 400 staffers being let go from the agency.

Both Chairman Johnson and Chairman Stevens provided more of a passing reference to artificial intelligence and advanced communication, observations that don’t appear commensurate with the proposed reductions the areas of advanced communications, networks, and data systems.

The Administration’s proposed cuts in advanced communications, networks, and data systems are severe.  The Administration wants to reduce spending in this area by 41.4%, from $68.6 million in FY 2018 and FY 2019 to $40.2 million in FY 2020.  While NIST director, Dr. Walter Copan, explained that there would be a $8 million increase in spending in the area artificial intelligence, he could not provide, during his testimony, the specific methodology leading to the Administration’s proposed overall reductions for artificial intelligence and advanced communications.

What Messages Are Being Sent?

From the Trump Administration’s end, the message appears to be the hope that NIST’s attempts to coordinate research initiatives between the private sector, public sector, and academia will make up for the reduced contribution by the federal government to research.

Congressional Democrats may see the Administration’s proposal as an opportunity to portray funding reductions as a threat to America’s economic growth. The President’s budget may give them the opportunity to make an argument that Mr Trump is continuing his shutdown of the government with this request and again risking the creation of a negative impact on the economy.

Congressional Republicans may have their bluff called on how dedicated they are to economic growth. Supporting the President’s proposed reductions may be seen as in direct conflict with their economic growth narrative. How can the Republicans support infrastructure development and investment while cutting of a conduit for development and investment?

On the other hand, Congressional Republicans could turn this into an opportunity to push back on their party’s leader, just enough to show a little independence from the White House.

In the end, Congress controls the purse strings and could present a budget in the fall that invests more in the NIST than the President is requesting.