It's time for Revolution 2.0

233 years ago representatives of our thirteen original colonies declared independence from Great Britain. They did this reluctantly, as many of them had strong allegiance to the British crown, but a person can endure only so much unfairness and restrictions on his liberty. On this day, I encourage all of you to carefully read that Declaration of Independence, as it is perhaps even more prescient in current times. Consider the opening sentence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

To paraphrase (much less eloquently): When people find their government violating their basic rights, it is their duty to separate from that government.

Continuing:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Simpler: It is natural to expect that all people deserve the right to live freely and happily. To protect these goals, people form goverments to protect their ability to pursue them. If that government ever fails to protect our rights or even takes them away, it is the people's right to end the government and to start a new one. Abolishing the government should not be done lightly and yet if there is a pattern of repeated abuses by government, it is the people's right and duty to do so.

Since our form of government was officially formed in 1787, our rights have been eroded, at first gradually, and more recently, very quickly and egregiously. It can be successfully argued that we are less free today than were the signers of the Declaration.

How can we be part of a new revolution? For one, we can stop voting for the same ineffective and corrupt leaders. We need representatives that truly understand their oaths to protect the Constitution rather than ones who bow to their own greed and quest for power.

We can stand up for our rights. Don't consent to illegal searches. Don't pay illegal taxes. Don't obey unconstitutional laws (there are many).

Join the Free State Project, a group of liberty-minded people who have agreed to move to a single state (New Hampshire) in hopes of making it a place that preserves personal liberties.

Remember it is our right, no our duty, to reform or abolish our government when it has become counterproductive to protecting our basic liberties.

Minding our own business: the merits of non-interventionist foreign policy

A user comment on my introductory article on libertarian principles asked about libertarian military beliefs, so in this article I am covering the principle of non-interventionism.

At the core of libertarianism is the belief that force should only be used in defense--that aggression is wrong. A lot of the problems libertarians have with our government today are because the government is using force without cause. An obvious example is the use of eminent domain to take property.

Most libertarians believe that one of the valid purposes of government is to provide protection to its citizens. However, the power of the military should be limited to defense only. The Founding Fathers were in almost universal agreement that the U.S. government should avoid getting overly involved in foreign affairs.

George Washington, in his farewell address, stated:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural address listed as one of government's objectives "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

The provisions in the Constitution for an army assumed federal forces would be temporary--only active during a war--and that most military operations would be provided by state militias. The founders knew a strong centralized military is actually a threat to liberty.

The dangerous side effect of meddling in international affairs is that you're always going to piss someone off. Most times when you support a foreign nation, you're probably gaining a few enemies. Related to this is the concept of "blowback", the idea that when you perform covert operations against a country or faction, there will be unintended consequences years later that are unexpected by the public. This is exactly what occurred with the 9/11 attacks--our covert (and not so covert) actions in the Middle East decades earlier was largely responsible for breeding radical Islamic terrorism. [For an excellent discussion on blowback, read Chalmers Johnson's excellent book, Blowback: The Cost and Consequences of American Empire.]

Neocons don't like to admit blowback is real. Instead they shout the message that we were attacked because the terrorists are envious of our way of life and wanted to destroy American culture, ignoring the fact that there's no evidence to support that. The terrorists we captured (and some we haven't, including Osama bin Laden) have said on multiple occasions that they attack us because we have invaded their holy lands and so they must now exterminate us to win back favor in the eyes of Allah. It has nothing to do with the things we have in this country.

So should we just have ignored the 9/11 attacks? Of course not. But rather than starting an illegal and ineffective series of wars, it should have been handled as a police action. Alongside the power to declare war in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given authority to "grant letters of marque and reprisal". That's a fancy way of saying they can put a price on someone's head. In the aftermath of 9/11, neither was war declared or a marque granted, therefore all the military actions have been illegal under the Constitution. Of course this has become standard practice in modern times--war hasn't officially been declared since World War II. All the foreign military actions since then have been unconstitutional.

Consider how much more effective and efficient it would have been to capture Osama bin Laden and other related terrorists using Special Forces teams (or even private posses) rather than involving the full force of our military. The largest mistake the U.S. government has made in recent times, and possibly in its entire history, is how it handled the 9/11 attacks. At a time when we suddenly had the world's empathy and support, instead of doing the rationally expected action of quickly and quietly hunting down the rest of al-Qaeda, we showed the world the might of our great empire building machine. Within the course of just a few years, we went from having almost universal support around the world to being the world's bully, severely damaging our global reputation and destroying any remaining doubts that we are aiming for a U.S. global empire (while claiming we aren't).

With each continuing military operation, blowback is creating more enemies than we are destroying. The propaganda of the military-industrial machine has made this a counterintuitive notion, but one of the primary reasons we have had such an unexpected struggle in recent conflicts (Viet Nam and Iraq in particular) is that the intended effects of our operations barely overpower the unintended side-effect of breeding more enemies.

President Eisenhower may turn out to be the most prophetic public figure of modern times. In his final address as president, he warned of the dangerous implications of our rapidly growing military-industrial complex. It has only increased since his departure from office and today that military-industrial menace of which he spoke has become exactly what he warned about--a political machine that ensures the continuing initiation and execution of wars.

Today, we have somewhere between 700 and 800 military bases in 63 countries around the world. For what purpose? Consider the effect our occupations have on the residents and governments of those countries. Imagine how we would feel if, for example, China had several active military bases within our borders. Our founding fathers are surely rolling in their graves.

Beyond the geopolitical factors, consider the financial implications of our foreign entanglements. Total U.S. defense-related costs today exceed $1 trillion per year. Remember, there has not been a declared war since World War II. The Cold War has been over for almost fifteen years. There is very little reason for our military to even exist today, let alone demand such a huge portion of our GDP. Greatly reducing the size of our defense operations would liquidate a very substantial and much needed chunk of our budget that could be used to solve the looming financial crises of our entitlement programs (and could even be a possible way to end them while still meeting obligations to all current participants).

During debates of our proper role around the globe--these days common during discussions of the Iraq war--someone will take the humanitarian position, saying, "But don't we have a responsibility to help people who are living under oppressive regimes? Isn't it our moral imperative that we should help out people in those countries?" This argument also applies to all the various foreign aid we send around the world. The problem with this argument is that governments don't have moral obligations; only individuals do. Morals are a definition of right and wrong. A government made up of a vast collection of individuals will not have agreement on what is right and wrong and therefore cannot have morals. People may have so-called moral obligations. Therefore, people who are compelled to assist those around the world in need should form and support voluntary organizations to do exactly that. This way those who do not share their morals are not forced to participate. When our government initiates these actions, everyone, regardless of their own beliefs, is forced to participate based on their citizenship (and obligation to pay taxes). This is, in effect, immoral on the government's part.

Our military should be solely located within our own borders except during times of war, and wars should be officially declared by Congress as dictated by the Constitution. Other than embassies, we should not have a permanent presence in foreign countries. We should avoid meddling in the affairs of other countries.

This is not to suggest pure isolationism. We should be free to engage in free trade with other nations. But free trade must be true free trade, not the protectionist arrangements our government passes off as free trade in such abominations as NAFTA and CAFTA.

Logic and evidence shows that libertarians (and the Founding Fathers) have this one right. Unfortunately, our leaders have done ourselves and the world a great disservice by continuing our domineering military presence around the world.

What to expect in the final season of Lost

A few episodes into season 2 of the TV series Lost, I wrote a blog post about my theories on the mysteries of the show. Most of them proved to be incorrect. Now that season 5 has concluded, a lot of answers have been provided, although some big mysteries remain. I found this season to be very fulfilling and I have been more and more impressed by the writing as the show progresses. I expect the story of Lost will go down as one o

f the greats in literary history. With one season remaining, perhaps it's time for me to once again propose some theories and guess what we'll see in the final season.

As all well told stories do, the premise of the entire series was foretold in the beginning--in part 2 of the pilot--with dialog between John Locke and Walt [video on YouTube]. Locke is sitting on the beach with a backgammon game as Walt approaches from behind:

Walt: What is it, like checkers?

Locke: Not really. It's a better game than checkers.

...

Locke: Backgammon is the oldest game in the world. Archaeologists found sets when they excavated the ruins of Ancient Mesopotamia. 5000 years old. That's older than Jesus Christ.

Walt: Did they have dice and stuff?

Locke: (nodding) But theirs weren't made of plastic; their dice were made of bones. Two players, two sides. One is light, one is dark. Walt, do you want to know a secret?

There are further references to games. In season 1 episode 2, Locke is playing Risk with a coworker, and his retort after his boss makes fun of him is "I'm just playing a game, Randy." In episode 16, where we first learn about Hurley's numbers, his former friend at the asylum is playing Connect 4 while he repeats the numbers continuosly.

Lost is about two ancient Egyptian men playing a game. Jacob represents good (or light) while his unnamed nemesis (I'll call him Nemesis here) represents bad (or darkness). The final episode opens with the two of them talking on the beach about an approaching ship, Jacob wearing white and Nemesis wearing black:

Nemesis: How did they find the island?

Jacob: You'll have to ask them when they get here.

Nemesis: I don't have to ask...You brought them here. Still trying to prove me wrong, aren't you?

Jacob: You are wrong.

Nemesis: Am I? They come, fight, they destroy, they corrupt--it always ends the same.

Jacob: But it only ends once--anything that happens before that is just progress.

Nemesis: Do you have any idea how badly I want to kill you.

Jacob: Yes.

Nemesis: One of these days, sooner or later, I'm going to find a loophol

e.

Jacob: Well, when you do, I'll be right here.

This leads us to two important questions:

1) What is Jacob trying to prove Nemesis wrong about?

2) What is the loophole?

From the dialog in the scene, my guess is that Jacob is trying to prove that people are fundamentally good while Nemesis contends they are evil. That is the game.

And that is where all the other characters come in. They are the pawns in this ultimate backgammon game. Perhaps the game is all about seeing whether people, over time, end up being honorable or evil. Throughout the course of the series, the characters are moving either toward the white (good) or black (evil) end of the board.

What is the loophole? It seems that Jacob and Nemesis are immortal. It is unknown how they got this way, but it could be their nature as set by the island or by gods (or perhaps they are gods themselves). So the loophole may be a way to get around the immortality so that Nemesis could kill Jacob (or vice versa). At the end of season 5, we see the loophole has been found since Locke coerces Ben into successfully killing Jacob.

And the big question left with us at the conclusion of season 5 is what effect will the detonation of the hydrogen bomb have on the past events?

Here are some things I think we'll learn in the next (final) season of Lost:

Which pawns (characters) are on each side--which have redeemed themselves and which have remained (or become) evil.

The origin of Jacob and Nemesis and how/why they started their game.

Richard Alpert arrives on the Black Rock (probably the same ship we see in the scene mentioned above). He gains agelessness after agreeing to help Jacob.

Nemesis controls (or is) the smoke monster. Jacob and Nemesis can take the form of others who have died (Christian, Claire).

The loophole centered around Ben--he had to be the one to kill Jacob. Nemesis had taken on the form of Locke to lead Ben down that path. It was Nemesis who indirectly caused Locke to leave the island and be killed so that he could inhabit his body on his return on the Al-jira flight. Perhaps the loophole is that Jacob and Nemesis may only be killed by a mortal who was born on the island.

If the detonation of the hydrogen bomb works as Jack and company hope, the season will mainly consist of showing the Losties and how their lives would have played out if they hadn't gone down on Oceanic 815 and encountered the island.

But I suspect, instead, that the detonation will not have that affect--either we'll find out it was the cause of the original "incident" at the swan and things will proceed as we've already seen, or it will have some other consequence that will have ramifications on the island but not off the island or to the normal course of history. It will be responsible for damaging the statue of Taweret (under which Jacob lives), and since that is the goddess protecting pregnancy and childbirth, will begin the problems with pregnancies on the island (and greatly reduce the chance of loophole natives being born on the island).

The electromagnetic pocket at the swan station has an unexpected effect on the hydrogen bomb detonation and everyone survives (except for Juliet) and the hatch will be built so that the events causing Oceanic 815 to crash on the island occur as expected. Episode 1 of the final season will open the same as the first episode of the series: with Jack's eyes opening. We hear screaming the distance. After getting up and running through the jungle, he emerges on the beach, but this time instead of finding the crashed plane, he sees the broken Taweret statue in the aftermath of the bomb explosion.

With Jacob dead at the end of season 5, the Nemesis, as Locke, has seemingly won the great game. But Richard Alpert and the team with Locke's dead body will devise a scheme to avenge Jacob and claim victory in the final episode of the series. This will involve Claire's son Aaron, currently still back in the "real world", since he is the other mortal who was born on the island--he will be the one to kill Nemesis.

Will Jack's group make it back off the island? How will Alpert's team get Aaron back on the island to kill Nemesis?

We have many long months to wait before we have all the answers...

Developer personality dynamics

A while back, the members of my team participated in an Insights Discovery process session. Insights Discovery consists of a personality questionnaire completed by each team member followed by an analysis and group session to discuss the meaning of the results to facilitate improved communication and synergy between team members.

We found the results very enlightening and I've noticed improvements in team interactions since we went through the process. I'd like to do it again to include team members who have joined us since.

Insights Discovery assigns each personality type to a place on a color wheel. We found that most team members had mostly blue personalities, which are common amongst developers (introspective thinkers), although we had a couple of greens (supporters) and one red (directors).

Blue vs. red can be a challenging dynamic and one recent interaction I witnessed brought me back to our analysis. Here's how it played out (with ficitious names):

Blue Ben was pulled into a data warehousing project after it had become late and over budget. Although Ben had some ideas for improvement, he was met with resistance since those already on the project were already personally heavily invested in the current design. Ben continued to work on the project which, while continuing to come closer to completion, continued to go later and further over budget.

Eventually, Red Rudy was brought in to help complete the project. After just a day or so of orienting himself to the current solution, Rudy approached Ben, saying, "Hey, there are a lot of things with this that really suck." While Ben knew Rudy was overreacting, he also knew some of what Rudy was saying was true. However, Ben suddenly felt defensive; his work was seemingly being called into question. But most of it wasn't even his decisions! He was now in a position where he felt compelled to defend work that wasn't even his!

By the next week, Rudy had largely redesigned the solution. Well, it wasn't really redesigned all that much, but since it was Rudy's work, he could now distance himself from the previous solution. Unfortunately, this further alienated Ben, who now felt "stuck" with "his" inferior solution (that he didn't really even want in the first place) while Rudy ran off with the new, improved goods.

A week later, close to the end of the project, Green Gary came in to help with some final tasks. He took a look at Ben's solution and then approached him, saying, "Hey, I noticed a few things that might be worth looking at for improvement. Maybe you already figured them out, but how would you feel about discussing them?" Ben was more than willing. He finally felt like he could share some of his frustrations; Gary helped Ben confirm his own ideas while enabling them both to feel more ownership over the project rather than defensive about it.

Soon, a new phase of the project began, and Rudy's solution was used as the starting point. Ben had a lot to offer but struggled to feel any connection to the project--this no longer felt like the thing he had invested so much in.

What this scenario helped illustrate is that the outcomes, at least in terms of the attitudes and happiness of the developers, can be affected greatly by how the developers are approached. Beware of forcing developers to defend things they don't want to defend!

How I became a libertarian

Over the next few weeks I plan to post a series of articles describing some of my political beliefs in hopes of spreading the message that there are others out there (many more than you probably imagine) whose beliefs don't fall neatly under the categories of Democrat and Republican (or even liberal or conservative). I figured I should start the series by describing how my thinking evolved.

The truth is, I've always been a libertarian. It just took me some time to realize it.

When I first registered to vote when I was 18, I didn't know much about politics. We didn't talk much about politics at home. I thought my parents were probably Democrats but didn't really know. When I first registed, Republican was the popular party in power, so I just went with that.

I didn't think much about politics for a while after that. But one incident sticks out in my memory--I was an intern at the Rochester City Schools and one of the other interns, obviously politically wise and ambitious, asked me, "So, what are your political leanings?" After a few seconds of my deer-in-the-headlights nonresponse, she continued, "You know, are you liberal or conserative?" I don't recall exactly how I answered, but somehow I came up with a response that satisfied her for the moment.

But that exchange motivated me to do some research. What does it mean to be liberal or conservative? How do those terms relate to the Democrat and Republican parties?

What I found confused me right from the start. Liberalism and conservatism can mean so many different things. Liberalism as originally defined seemed to match a lot of my beliefs: individual rights, freedom of speech, small government. But it doesn't seem to mean that anymore. Now, it seems to be more about ensuring opportunities for everyone: minimum wages, welfare, affirmative action. Conservatism seems to mean the things that liberalism used to mean with an emphasis on slow change in contrast to liberalism. But what is this about social conservatism vs. economic conservatism?

There were so many conflicts when trying to fit my beliefs into those two buckets. I believe that people should keep what they earn rather than paying it to the government. I guess that makes me a Republican. But I believe in a woman's right to choose abortion. That seems to be a Democratic thing. I think welfare and social security are generally bad ideas. Doesn't that make me a Republican? But I believe same-sex unions should be allowed. Doesn't that make me a Democrat? Where is the logic in all this? The consistency? So I remained confused for a while, feeling like I either didn't understand or just didn't have a real political party to call home.

I don't recall exactly how I stumbled onto the Libertarian party and libertarianism in general. But from the moment I did, everything seemed to fit my beliefs. It made sense and was logical and consistent.

There are a lot of misconceptions about what it means to be libertarian. "Aren't they just all about legalizing drugs?", "Don't they want to abolish the government?", "Are those the people that think 9/11 was orchestrated by the U.S. government?" or "Yeah, right, like they ever have a chance of being taken seriously."

Libertarianism is rooted in the idea of individual liberty. That means that people should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't harm someone else. The purpose of government is to protect that liberty. Note that the U.S. Constitution was built on this principle (ignoring, for now, that it failed to prohibit slavery). So, it is generally fair to say libertarians believe in a government like the one described in our Constitution as designed by our founders.

We believe a big centralized government like the one we have today is actually contrary to the idea that government is for protecting liberties because it takes away more liberties than it protects. It is hugely ineffecient and can't help but be greatly influenced by special interests. It treats us like children rather than responsible individuals and that becomes a growing self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'll talk more about libertarian principles in the weeks ahead. Do you know where you fit into the political spectrum? If not, try the World's Smallest Political Quiz. Post your questions, comments, or perspectives below.

How much is your email worth?

A coworker recently sent me a link for a company's website promoting a cool concept for dealing with email overload. Seriosity's Attent borrows some ideas from the online role playing gaming world and provides a way to attach virtual currency to emails you send and receive.

When you send an email, you attach an amount of virtual currency, called "Serios". You attach the number of Serios you think the email is "worth", meaning the amount required to get your email read. The recipient (assuming they are also an Attent user) sees the number of Serios you attached and emails with the most float to the top of the inbox.

You have a limited amount of Serios to spend, so you have to choose wisely. The idea is that having to attach a limited resource to your emails forces you think a little more about how valuable your communications really are. You get more Serios when people send you emails with them attached and you also get an allowance of 100 new Serios each week that you send at least one.

There are some cool features such as visibility to recipients' Serio balance and history so you can get an idea of how many Serios you'll need to spend to get someone's attention.

I think this is an intriguing and promising concept. The company has plans to expand this to other forms of communication, and I think it would work even better when instant messaging, phone calls, and even support requests are included in the Serios financial world. It would be great as an incentive for participating in collaboration sites.

The biggest downside to Attent is that it requires a "critical mass" of connected users to make it useful. So, I encourage everyone who reads this to try it out!

Feeling hopeful

On this inauguration day of Barack Obama, I am hopeful. I think a lot of people around the world feel the same way.

I didn't vote for Mr. Obama, but if I had to choose between the two major candidates, he is easily the one I would have chosen. Sure, I am concerned and somewhat fearful that Obama is often compared with Lincoln and FDR, perhaps the two presidents in our history who did the most to restrict our liberties and cause damage to the Constitution. I am concerned that further expansion of the federal government will further bankrupt our country rather than save it. But I am still hopeful.

I am hopeful because, at this point, what we need more than anything is to repair our image throughout the world. Over the past six years or so, we have greatly accelerated our image as the world's bully, the great empire building machine ready to take over the Earth. I think Obama can turn that around and help unify the world, possibly even bringing peace where it has not existed for quite some time. Even if that does not occur, it will be so refreshing to have a president--the first in my lifetime--that the vast majority of the country feels proud to have serve.