A Moderation Suggestion to Elon

Granting free speech to others is not a natural human impulse.  It is very unsettling to think that one's world view is a perspective rather than based upon absolute truths.  To institutionalize free speech is to tacitly accept that 'truth' is more relative than that.  It doesn't mean that the notion of 'my truth' is supported, but conflicting evidence is the norm in the real world.  So, the impulse to 'moderate' misinformation is not surprising.  However, from the Russian collusion hoax to the source of the SARS-2 virus to Hunter Biden laptop, the misinformation that was censored by the major social media platforms often turned out likely to be the more correct side of the story.

It is understandable that a company that offers a website that is ostensibly a public forum will feel a responsibility to have their site to be usable and that the venom that can arise when contentious issues are discussed won't intimidate participants to the extent that they do not participate to their fullest desire.  So, the first impulse is to ban hate speech.  The problem is that people have different tolerances to hostile rhetoric .  Wherever the site sets their hurdle it will be too low for some and too high for others.

Sadly, on most of the largest sites that have been banning hate speech have now morphed into banning 'misinformation'.  The implication is that free speech does not protect speech that is wrong.  In fact, free speech does protect questionable statements and, in fact, it protects outright lies.  Still, at the worst, the people who were against COVID-19 vaccines, believed that Trump actually won the 2020 election, and that fear of Climate Change is overblown, etc. are mistaken.  History, evidence and the fullness of time often strengthens positions such as these that had been censored or throttled as misinformation.

Elon Musk cannot 'fix' Twitter simply by tweaking the algorithms or changing the members of moderation boards.  A completely different approach is required.  I advocate the method delineated below.  It will involve moderation on these three levels.

1. Twitter should have algorithms that flag potentially illegal speech or posts that appear to be reasonable evidence of crimes.  These should be referred to law enforcement. They transcend simple censoring or banning.
   
2.  Users should be able to set blanket editing on their accounts.  For example, if a person does not want any pornography, they can select that setting and it will be 100% throttled.  If the algorithm allows them to see something they don't want to see, they can flag it and similar posts will be throttled.  These blanket consumer based censoring algorithms should expand to include ones that might offend people on both sides.
   
3. When a person bans someone or throttles them, others who are statistically similar (banned by the same people) will be downgraded.  Essentially, they will be throttled more than before the ban.  When you like or retweet, that lowers their throttling and those who are similar.  The Statistics behind this idea is complex but this is ultimately doable.

In essence, each user will, over time, create their own custom silo that will be a fuzzy set when compared with other users.  This will create 'environments'.  Some users will be inclined toward STEM, others toward the arts.  Some will create ribald and 'in your face' environments while others will be more urbane.  That is the proper implementation of free speech.  Essentially, you are free to say whatever you want, and I am free not to hear it.  It is not Twitter's responsibility, or any other social media platform purporting to be a public square, to assure that the public square is carefully moderated to eliminate harsh rhetoric and/or misinformation.  They can, through modern technology, allow those in the public square  to choose the audiences to which they belong and what speech they will hear.

 

Simulated Artificial Intelligence Is Imminent

Robots are advancing at a extraordinary rate.  They are doing so in many dimensions.  Boston Dynamics' Atlas is more agile than most humans.  

 

Now U.K. based company, Engineered Arts is setting new standards for realistic facial expressions.                   

 

Obviously, manual dexterity is also central to a successfully functioning general purpose robot.  Most of these research efforts have been directed at prosthetics but they can also be applied to robots.

                            

People tend to focus on the idea that a robot might become 'conscious' and, thus, be more similar to a human.  However, that is really not the most functional product feature for human use.  That, after all, is why, if they are, robots will be built and bought.  

The core of the artificial intelligence component will look like a juiced up Alexa.  If you ask your robot to play a game of chess with you, through the onboard natural language program it will access an Internet chess program and play the game.  If you ask for Coq au vin it will find a recipe on the Internet and prepare it for you.   If you ask your robot to get you a beer out of the frig, it probably doesn't need the Internet.  However, by piggy backing off of the knowledge easily found on the Internet, your robot will appear to be nearly omniscient.

The Kurzweil crowd is fascinated with 'AGI' The 'Singularity' is a time when they imagine that a superintelligence, functionally incomprehensible to humans will emerge.  It is generally taken to likely happen between 2040 and 2050.  It is odd that in this 'Singularity' community to which many high profile people have belonged, the notion of more or less unending exponential growth in technology is credulously accepted.  This is odd because a review of the history of technology strongly suggests that technologies progress sigmoidally or on an S-curve.  For example, if one plotted the maximum speed attainable by humans as an exponential curve, we should be exceeding the speed of light by now.  Of course, we are not even close to that.  In the 20th Century, the growth in maximum speed hit a point of inflection and has been slowing down ever since.

It is important to recognize that it is extremely difficult to estimate the inflection point or the asymptote in most cases.  We have good reason to believe that the 'Moore's Law' https://www.synopsys.com/glossary/what-is-moores-law.html exponential growth has reached its point of inflection.  However, the development of simulated intelligence in computers and robots is more complex than just Moore's Law.  There are other technological, economic and software components that affect the emergence of Artificial General Intelligence.  Still, a point at which humans become secondary to computer intelligence is not a foregone conclusion.  

There is also the matter of what may exist in the lab and what is implemented in the general society.  Robots and computer based AI, as well, are first and foremost a product.  There are, for many reasons, a huge inventory of technologies, demonstrated in the lab, that do not get commercialized because they are not attractive products.  It is very likely that a humanoid personal assistant robot, as an advancement upon Alexa and its competitors, would be a very attractive product, even if it was very expensive.  However, there is no clear benefit to making them 'conscious' and there are reasons to not give them any form of independent volition.  They are a product as a servant and servants are intended to have very limited initiative.  

In the above example, if I tell my robot to get me a beer out of the frig, I don't expect it to start lecturing me on the calories and refuse to do so.  If I asked my robot to play chess with me and I instruct it to play at a FIDE of 1,000, I would not expect it to up its rating when it started to lose.  If it did such things, I would take it into the shop and ask that it be 'fixed'.  A robot that is conscious, reflective and self-motivated is like a flying car.  Even if it is technically feasible, it won't be commercialized because it is a bad product.  

I do not know if the super-intelligent, conscious AGI is even possible, but, if so, it is not likely to exist outside of labs for quite some time.  However, we are right on the verge of creating a humanoid robot that is an extremely capable personal assistant.  A rudimentary version is probably feasible right now simply by creating a joint venture between Boston Dynamics, and Engineered Arts and an inclusion of a few subcontractors.  The first commercially available robot will likely be introduced prior to 2030.  It will likely have limited sales at a 300K 2022USD price point.  However, like most emergent technologies, over the following decade, the price will likely fall significantly and, perhaps to the point where they become common in middle class households.

When I was young, fantastical technologies were limited to Science Fiction.  Because of Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov, et alia, as I reached young adulthood in the late 1960s, more practical and rigorous analysis of future technologies began surfacing.  However, there was still a gee-whiz flavor to them.  Then authors, such as Alvin Toffler, started writing books purporting to present hard-boiled looks at future technologies and that tradition has remained right through to today with Ray Kurzweil and Peter Diamandis.While they report on actual research, however, they suffer from what I call, 'Everything that can go right, will go right'.  Even a preliminary review of their history demonstrates that most of what could go right, won't.

I spent my career in business and I worked in various aspects of future planning.  We were truly hard-boiled, because when things didn't turn out well, we'd get called on the carpet.  Advanced humanoid robots powered by Internet based, simulated artificial intelligence is a 'today' technology.  We could form a joint venture between Boston Dynamics, Engineered Arts and Amazon right now and start the product development process.  No basic research is needed; the technologies already exist.

Will this fundamentally change the world?  Probably.  Humanoid robot personal assistants and home domestic robots will likely be second behind only the house as the largest personal expenditures.  Of course, our homes will likely be highly automated with robotics that is not humanoid.  The robotic vacuum that wanders about our apartment today is just the first of many examples.  Essentially, household chores will become a thing of the past.

 

 

    

Newsletter 9: Expanding Substack, Guns & Abortion, The Administrative State

I decided to wait until Tuesday to post my newsletter this week.  I suspected that, with about 60% of my readers being American, I'd get lost in the holiday shuffle.  We will return to Saturday night (U.S. time) next week.

My ultimate business model will have a limited amount of open content with the majority of the content being 'fee for service'.  Right now, I am distributing my newsletter to everyone at no cost in order to build my contacts list, but that is temporary.  Eventually, only first level paid subscriptions will receive my weekly newsletters and will also receive periodic 'white papers' covering more complex issues.  I will also publish e-books at an additional (though nominal) charge. There is also a 'Founder' level.  They will have access to my books at no cost and periodic open web based discussions which will make them true insiders.  

Our newsletter continues to grow at a non-trivial rate (about 17% per week).  Our history is still too short to draw any definitive conclusions about our growth, specifically as to whether it is, in fact, exponential or linear.  Last week, 38% of my views were from subscribers, 38% were direct, 11% were from Substack, itself, 10% were from Facebook and 2% were from Linked In.  The key is the 38% with a source of 'direct'.  These, according to Substack are people who entered MichaelWFerguson.Substack.com  directly into their browser but, in truth, they are visitors whose source is not known.  One very interesting statistic is that past issues are gaining readers, suggesting that 'word of mouth' is a major contributor.  If this is correct, we will have around 660K readers by this time next year.  That will give us the power to meaningfully interfere with the severely biased Leftish and Rightish narratives.   Of course, the growth will be sigmoidal, so there will be a point of inflection and an asymptote, so our enthusiasm should be tempered. 

I believe strongly in the reverence for and pursuit of intellectual sophistication.  That means I strongly argue for lifelong learning and an assiduous pursuit of objectivity.  Intellectual sophistication, if pursued aggressively throughout one's life, will result in an objectively supportable world view.  This leads to a world view that does not conform to the world views of either the Right Silo or the Left Silo.  I will be publishing a white paper entitled 'Summa Caye' in which I describe in detail a community that adheres to the cultural perspectives that flow from an objectively supportable world view.  Its purpose is hypothetical, essentially describing what society will look like when all the mistakes are fixed, but that does not make it less valuable.

Substack as Your Main Social Media Platform

I am beginning to think that Substack, though designed to enable professional writers, represents a very credible general purpose social media platform.  So, I am going to advocate that all of you who are less than enamored of Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, etc. consider creating your own substack account.  While you can charge for subscriptions, it is not necessary.  By using Substack, in addition to not worrying about censorship or shadow banning, your content is yours as is your 'contacts' list.  You can also operate a mostly free account that does have some premium material.  It is pretty flexible.

One of the things I like most about Substack is that when I post something, I can choose to notify all my subscribers or only paid subscribers.  And, unlike Locals, it works even on a free account.  Since you can, at your discretion, give free subscribers the benefits of "paid subscribers", it really can be used to set up levels of distribution.  Since there is a third 'founders' level, you really have even more flexibility.  I would like to see Substack increase flexibility over time.

Another feature I like about Substack's system is that if you abuse the privilege that subscribers have granted to e-mail notify them, they will unsubscribe.  I publish one newsletter per week that takes between 10 minutes and 15 minutes to read.  If an e-mail notification one time per week is too much for some, then it is reasonable for that person to unsubscribe.  Between 50% and 60% of my subscribers open their e-mail notification every week.  And, so far, I have had no unsubscribers. 

The podcast functionality is there, but is still rudimentary, but some of the larger Substack creators are using it, so I expect that it will improve.  I want 'call in' functionality and video as well.   In a way, it might function like the now defunct Google Hangouts.  Also, though, for the most part Substack is all about 'fee for service', the video functionality should accommodate ad support.

So, Substack is not yet everything that we would like it to be.  I would like to see more format choices, such as font type and size, color, etc.  It is better than Facebook but not as good as the blog platforms, like Blogger.com or WordPress.  

We, intellectually sophisticated people, can be very influential.  We tend to be persuasive (Simonton Gap) and accumulate around us people who are inclined to believe, or at least give substantial weight to, what we say.  It is one explanation for my Substack growing quickly and primarily through 'Direct' sources.  One of my subscribers may repeat something I say.  Someone asks, 'Where did you get that?'  They answer from MichaelWFerguson.Substack.com and, voila, I have a new view.  I suspect that is a contributor to my growth, but if my regular readers have their own substack account, that can be supercharged.
It will also make us a more efficient and a faster growing intellectually sophisticated community.

Guns & Abortion

Every time a major decision comes down from SCOTUS, my social media blows up with posts and threads that are mostly repeating the points of the Left and Right New Media.  It reminds me of just how ignorant people are about the underlying principles of Enlightened nations.  The Federalism underlying to U.S. Constitution seems to be particularly elusive for most people.  This last week, there were two major rulings and three more that seem to have escaped the attention of the mainstream.

SCOTUS decided that New York cannot strictly limit concealed weapons.  In this case, SCOTUS decided that the Constitution, specifically the 2nd amendment, does not allow States to unduly restrict the 'bear arms' portion of that 2nd Amendment Right.  This is good constitutional law, but it is not very sensible.  Bearing arms in a small town in Wyoming is very different than doing so in South Chicago.  The former population will likely regularly bear arms as they hunt for venison and fowl.  Also, bear, moose, mountain lions, etc. don't listen to reason and may need to be dissuaded.  These are serious and legitimate reasons to bear firearms.  While there are very strong, some would say compelling, reasons for different carry laws in different locales, SCOTUS is stating that, in order to enable the very sensible restrictions that a densely populated urban community may wish to place on bearing arms, the Constitution will need to be amended.  It is beyond the authority of SCOTUS to do so.

This notion of gun restrictions is far from new.  If you have watched any movies about the U.S., 19th Century 'Wild West', you are likely familiar with the practice of, when entering a saloon, leaving your sidearm at the door.  With people drinking and gambling, this is just sensible.  An obvious problem with applying that logic to cities is that, while law abiding citizens are likely to obey restrictions on bearing arms, criminals likely will not.  In other words, when gang members in South Chicago are shooting each other, and random passers by, they are clearly bearing concealed handguns that they usually have not obtained legally and likely cannot legally own.  There are difficulties with disarming the law abiding people when criminals are armed.  Law abiding citizens, living in or traveling through high crime districts may carry firearms out of fear but end up shooting innocents, themselves.  This is a knotty issue that local communities need to resolve.  But they need to do so in a Constitutional way.

It is not clear that the framers of the Constitution would have stated the right to bear arms so unambiguously if they were faced with the realities of today.  Rifling, though invented in the 15th Century, was not introduced commercially until the 19th Century.  This technological advancement made guns much more lethal.  Semi-automatic firearms, which obviously allows more shots in the same amount of time, enables more injuries and deaths.  Those are very significantly different threats than those faced when the 2nd amendment was originally framed and ratified.

It is true that most European countries have more strict gun laws, although often  not by much.  It is true that there is a correlation between gun ownership and gun violence, however, the causal arrow is never really considered.  In other words, do more people buy guns because there is a lot of gun violence and they want to protect themselves, or is the high gun ownership the primary driver of higher rates of gun violence.  Or, as I suspect, is it a bit of both? 

The real issue is whether the extremely high death rate from guns in the U.S. (nearly four times higher than any other EUNA nation) is due primarily to guns, or is it primarily that the U.S. has an extremely violent culture?  If AR-15s were not allowed in the hands of young people, while mass school shootings might drop, would it simply be replaced by bombings?  That certainly is implied by the 'troubles' of Northern Ireland where gun control was strict, but bombings were never really controlled.

Sadly, this distinction between murders being caused by the availability of guns and murders being caused by a violent society is not discussed.  It needs to be and the discussion needs to be bifurcated.  The 2nd amendment is clearly not sufficiently nuanced and needs to be revised.  However, it is not at all clear that violence will decrease to anything similar to Western Europe.  I have often suspected that the reason the Left focuses on gun control is because if they admitted that the problem is primarily cultural, they have no idea how to solve it.

While there is a cultural discussion that needs to take place in the aftermath of the SCOTUS gun control decision, that is not the case with the Dobbs v Jackson decision.  Though it is being framed as a moral issue, this is strictly a Constitutional issue over Federalism.  In other words, is abortion properly regulated at the Federal level or the State level?  From the beginning, on the surface, there is something strange with the notion that terminating the life of an adult is restricted by State statute, but terminating the life of a fetus is restricted by Constitutional issues.  This was accomplished in Roe v Wade by attempting to cobble together a Constitutional right to privacy that, oddly, didn't seem to apply to anything other than abortion.  Roe v Wade was bad law and even if Dobbs v Jackson wasn't the proper resolution, at least, the 'established law' is gone.  We can speak of a more enlightened legal position from here.

Nearly everyone is talking as if Dobbs v Jackson outlaws abortion, which, of course, it doesn't.  When called on that, some of the more partisan commentators will claim that the GOP, if they take over Congress, will pass a national ban on abortion.  There are several things wrong with this appeal to fear.  First, even if the Republicans take both the House and the Senate in November of 2022, they don't have sufficient support among their own caucus to pass an absolute ban on abortion.  This should be clear from the recent Florida law, which was passed by Republicans that allows abortion on demand to 15 weeks.  So, it is reasonable to assume that if a bill was put forth that set an absolute, national ban on abortion, many Republicans would vote against it.  The Senate won't have a fillibuster proof Republican majority, so, even if it did pass the House, it wouldn't pass the Senate.  Even if that happened, there is still a Democrat President who would veto it.  The same is true for the other scare tactics such as claiming that birth control pills would be banned as well.

In truth, State legislatures will pass their individual laws.  We already know that South Dakota, Texas, Louisiana and likely a few more will ban abortions completely.  On the other hand, nearly all of the West Coast and some of the Northeast will have laws that will allow on-demand abortions right up to birth.  There is even talk of post birth abortions, which, in addition to making no sense as a term (that isn't an abortion), would not pass Constitutional muster.

On the other hand, Democrats are talking about passing a national abortion rights law.  Dobbs doesn't preclude that, but if it happened, like a GOP national abortion ban, would likely not be judged as constitutional by this court.

The SCOTUS Dobbs v Jackson majority opinion found no Constitutional right to an abortion.  That is reasonable.  Essentially, none of the founders were in favor of legal abortions, so if there was a right in the Constitution, it was put there inadvertently.  The Washington Post stated that through the 18th and 19th Century, there were no laws making abortion illegal.  That is true, but disingenuous.  It wasn't necessary.  The Hippocratic Oath specifically forbids a Physician from performing one.  SCOTUS also did not find a limitation at viability.  In this, I believe they were wrong.

Imagine a woman, 24 weeks pregnant, is diagnosed with an aggressive cancer.  The doctors need to begin treatment immediately, but it will cause a miscarriage.  Because her Physicians assess the fetus to be viable, the decision is made to take the fetus out and place it in a neonatal ICU where it does survive.  Now suppose a woman comes to a Physician, 24 weeks pregnant, and asks for an abortion.  The Physician judges that the fetus is viable.  Now the question becomes, 'Does the first fetus enjoy Constitutional protection but the second does not?'  If so, that would appear to violate the equal protection clause of Amendment 14 of the U.S.  Constitution.  So, either the first fetus/baby will not enjoy constitutional protections until it reaches 40 weeks from conception or the second fetus/baby will enjoy them.

Also, if a fetus is viable, performing an abortion would appear to violate medical ethics, as the Hypocrataic Oath states, 'Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.'  It also implies that under no circumstances will the Physician do harm.  This phrase, though not actually in the Oath, is well known, 'First, do no harm'.  While Physicians are not, strictly speaking, bound by the Hypocratic Oath, they are fully bound by a responsibility to practice medicine in an ethical way.  One could interpret this to mean that a Physician is required to remove a viable fetus in such a way as to maximize its probability of surviving, irrespective of a mother's wishes.

It should be pointed out that, as leaders in Europe roundly condemn the Dobbs decision, its net result will likely be to make the U.S. more similar to Europe with regard to abortion.  Europe has a few countries, like Poland and Malta that have very restrictive abortion laws similar to some states in the U.S.  Most, however, have laws that allow on-demand abortion up to between 10 weeks and 14 weeks.  A couple, Sweden and U.K. allow later abortion with U.K. setting the limit at 24 weeks or approximately viability. There are only four countries worldwide where abortions have no gestational limits.  They are China, North Korea, Vietnam and (in some states) the U.S.  In other words, only the most brutal governments condone late term abortion. So, that is not company that one should wish to keep.

The Administrative State

SCOTUS, last week, severely limited the power of the EPA and, perhaps by extension, all regulatory agencies.  Essentially, they decided that the EPA's regulatory authority was limited to specific powers expressly delegated to them by Congress.  The hue and din that followed was primarily limited to members of the administrative state and their allies.  They understand that this is a threat to their unrestrained power over the populace.

Simply put, EUNA has been infected with an unelected, administrative state that has been empowered to create and enforce volumes of government regulations.  They are, in no way, subject to recall nor can they be taken to task by the population that they are regulating.  Thee is absolutely nothing democratic about them.  Some people call it 'the deep state' and are routinely ridiculed.  President Trump called it 'the swamp'.   Again, the term is probably more of a public relations ploy, that, though clever is a detriment to the cause.  Steven K. Bannon, pushes back on these two terms and refers to it as 'the administrative state'.  I, and most careful observers, agree.  The term is less partisan and more accurate.  While not well illuminated by the press, the administrative state is one of the greatest threats to Western civilization and spectacularly illiberal.

History gives us a precautionary tale.  Rome fell and more than 1,500 years later the why of it is still be argued.  It was, as is the case with nearly all great empires, a complex issue.  As I repeat again and again, everything is multivariate.  However, according to many, one of the major reasons was that it simply collapsed under the weight of its own bureaucracy.  The lesson is very relevant today.  Neither the Left Silo nor the Right Silo talks about it, so, of course, I will.

There are two problems with the administrative state.  The first is the obvious problem that these people are hired with unlimited terms of employment, and are not elected.  They are not subject to recall and absent egregious misconduct cannot be removed.

The problem started when Congress began delegating the specifics of legislation to the appropriate Executive Agency.  In other words, Congress may pass a law on automotive emissions but authorize the EPA to promulgate the regulations necessary to implement the law.  They are allowed to do so, partially because the Congress had insufficient staff and, likely, no expert qualified to do itt was the wrong solution.

Today, the Executive Branch has about two million civilian employees and an unknown number of people operating on its behalf on a contract basis or through a corporate contractor.  They both formulate and enforce regulations.  There are many proper duties for the agencies of the Executive Branch, however, they should be executive and formulating regulations is a legislative power.  They should not be making laws.  Rather than allowing the current Congressional practice of writing laws and delegating the details to departments in the Executive branch, the personnel should be transferred to the proper committee and committee members where the specifics of the law will be fleshed out.

We really have no idea what percent of the two million executive branch bureaucrats are engaged in setting policies and regulations and how many are legitimately executing and enforcing those policies and regulations.  If we assume that 25% are doing the former, that is 500K bureaucrats.  That is likely an underestimation, but for the sake of conservatism, we will use it.  These bureaucrats should be transferred to the 44 committees of the Senate and House.  There, instead of having lifelong career security, many and perhaps most, will have a job at the pleasure of a Representative or Senator and should the member of Congress be defeated or retire, they will be terminated.

While some of the transferred bureaucrats would work for the majority and minority members of the committee and would be administered by the chairman and ranking member of the committee.  However, most would report to a specific committee member and would provide the expertise and time required to create and further complete the bills.  Therefore, the law, if passed, would not need the Executive to promulgate more detailed rules. 

For example, a given House member who sits on three committees may have 750 additional staff members, compared to the current staffing of about 21.  Committee staffers might increase from the current level of 6,000 to 100,000.  This quite likely would be more than enough and, in fact, totally staffing might be reduced, perhaps substantially. 

One of the critical control tricks currently being exercised by the Federal government is the elaboration of laws administratively where political processes don't apply.  In other words, Congress can pass a vague law that will garner sufficient support and then, when fleshed out by the Executive Branch, turns into something that could never get past a Conference Committee.  In other words, this simple proposed reorganization that brings the issuance of regulations under the legislative branch would almost certainly result in much less intrusive laws.

Because laws would be much less intrusive, there would be fewer bureaucrats needed to enforce the laws, likely shrinking the assumed legion of 1.5 million bureaucrats assigned to enforcement. 

My argument would be that in EUNA, the sense many people have that their lives are being run out of D.C. would slowly dissipate.

Additionally, the President should use Executive Orders in the manner for which they are intended.  They should provide for the efficient operation of the Executive Branch.  They should not be used to promulgate policies that would not pass muster in Congress.  Essentially, all recent Presidents have violated this principle; they have been legislating from the Executive Branch, both through the Administrative State and themselves.  This is a gross violation of separation of powers.

The rules throughout Europe, India, Brazil, Japan and South Korea differ, but nearly all of them are suffering the same growth in Administrative States.  In an objective sense, this means that most of the liberal democracies are becoming less democratic and less liberal.  This is happening, in essence, because people are being told, 'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain'.  It is well past the time that we should.

Please Register and Share

The growth in readers is very gratifying.  However, we are still small and we need to grow. If you support intellectual sophistication, just a simple share can change the dynamic in a way that will improve our future.  If either the Left or Right tries to sell partisan misinformation and the 660,000 readers, which is what we will have if we keep growing at 17% per week, receive a convincing and well supported refutation, both the Right and the Left will have their narratives disrupted.  That can vastly improve the public discourse and by extension improve the state of EUNA.  And all it takes is your regular sharing of the newsletters that you receive.

Newsletter 8: Fed's Pickle, Blackbox Manufacturing, Right Ascending

My long term goal is to reach a sufficient number of thought leaders so that the Rightish Silo and Leftish Silo narratives are disrupted.  As  you will likely discern over time, neither is worthy of serious consideration.  Certainly, some of these unsupportable narratives involve technology, but at its core it relies upon people's misunderstanding of Economics, Political Philosophy, Sociology, etc.  So, I will regularly return to explaining the principles and mechanics of these subjects.

For those who have not read, 'Intellectual Sophistication' I hope you put it on your reading list.  If you have not yet read it, I want to clarify that I am not a high IQ guy.  Intelligence is necessary, but not sufficient, when it comes to producing high quality intellectual product.  The core of intellectual sophistication is comprised of erudition, objectivity and discipline.  If one is less than impressive in one's intellectual sophistication it is likely the result of a deficiency in a couple of components, of which one may not be intelligence.  As I have pointed out several times, high IQ societies tend to attract high IQ, low intellectual sophistication people, while Academia tends to attract people educated beyond their intelligence. 

The Pickle the Fed (and Euro central bank) Are In

As I have said over and over; if legislatures spend more than the Real GDP+the Central Bank's target inflation rate, the Central Bank is put in a no win situation.  It has a choice of either 'printing money' and thus exceeding the inflation rate or allowing interest rates to rise and likely instigating a recession.  In 2021, that magic number was about 800 billion USD in the U.S. and about the same in the Eurozone.  The actual U.S. Federal Deficit was 2.8 trillion USD.  If the Central Bank monetizes the excess, inflation explodes.  The Fed and the Eurozone Central Bank, both in fact, monetized the deficit and, as a consequence,  inflation has been exploding.  The 'pickle' is that if the Fed doesn't buy Treasuries, then the excess 2.0 trillion USD will flow through to auction and interest rates will skyrocket.

There are a few dynamics that complexifies this.  First, there is a proper relationship between inflation and interest rates on Treasuries, especially the 10 year bond.  The reason is because it historically has been the first choice among several lesser options to park one's unutilized financial resources.  It has been marginally more attractive than gold because 1) gold carries no official return and 2) gains, unlike for Treasuries, are not exempt from taxation.  Of course, other governments issue similar debt instruments.  If the interest rate on 10 year Treasuries is too far below the inflation rate, people find other options, often off shore. 

As a store of value, the sensible rule of thumb should be that the 10 year Treasury interest rate should exactly reimburse the holder for loss of purchasing power through inflation of USD.  Currently, inflation is at 8.6%, however, 10 year Treasuries are currently yielding 3.1%.  However, as the Fed sells its inventory of Treasuries, M2 will fall and so will inflation.  It is not necessarily the case where the two will meet in the middle.  However, if it does, that point will be around 5.9%.  That interest rate will substantially increase the cost of financed assets, such as houses and cars, which, in turn, will likely result in a recession.

Since the Eurozone is in the same situation, the coming recession will be global.  Of course, 5.9% inflation and interest rates are not optimal.  Fortunately, the Fed still has a whole lot of Treasuries to sell and by not buying new ones, money supply will likely fall and with it, inflation.  It is generally taken that an inflation rate of 2% is optimal.  There are several reasons for that.  First, deflation is harmful and, because monetary policy is not completely accurate, a little inflation as a safety margin is wise.  Second, while people don't like inflation, it is actually economically stimulative.  Here is a simple example.  Suppose you buy a house for 200K USD and you have P&I of $1,200 per month.  Next year, there is 5% inflation and so, your income of $3,600 increases by 5% to $3,780.  Your P&I did not increase by 5%, so, assuming that everything else stayed at 5%, you have an additional $1,200X5%=$60 per month of purchasing power.  So, you spend it and that stimulates the economy by increasing demand.

So, if Congress limits the deficit to around $800 billion, inflationary pressure will subside and return to 2% relatively quickly.  However, that can only happen after the current extra $2 trillion of spending can be wrung out of the system and that can't happen without a bout of increasing inflation and interest rates and a recession.  By the way, the U.S. was in a very similar situation at the end of the 1970s and that was precisely how it was solved.  It was painful, but there seems to be no alternative.

Despite all the rhetoric on both sides and the hostility toward the Fed, the fact is that the FOMC is moving, albeit a bit late, in a prudent and proper way.  However, that does not defuse the pickle and a recession can only be moderated, not avoided.

Blackbox Manufacturing is Coming

Blackbox Manufacturing is a term that I coined in a 1970 term paper.  In it, I imagined that robotic trucks would bring raw materials to a factory where robotic forklifts would unload it and put it on pallet racking.  When the time came, a robotic forklift would bring it to the assembly line where robots would assemble the parts into finished goods.  Robotic forklifts would bring the finished goods to a picking line where other robots would assemble orders entered by computers.  Robotic forklifts would bring the completed orders to the shipping dock where they would be loaded onto robotic trucks and be taken to their final destination.  I predicted that it would be feasible in about 50 years.  That was 52 years ago, my prediction was close.

Obviously, I called it a black box because raw materials go in and finished goods go out and there is no human intervention in between.  Now that it is an eventuality generally accepted, it is being called, 'Lights Off Manufacturing'. This is critical to understanding the near future, because this is not science fiction; it is feasible today.  Foxconn attempted to fully automate the assembly of Apple products.  They were unsuccessful, but they were close and it was far more challenging that, say, manufacturing shampoo.  Such less demanding automation are being implemented and many are predicting their almost universal use in the near future. 

During the Agricultural Age, farming was the most common job and it occupied over half the population.  Today, it employs only about 2% of the population.  At that time, rather than farming, people worked in factories making products.  Now, with black box manufacturing, the number of people engaged in manufacturing will also likely fall to around 2%.  This has actually already started with only about 10% of the workers engaged in manufacturing today.  Already, most people are engaged in the processing of information or providing services.  In the past, the primary information jobs have been dubbed 'pink collar' and services have been dominated by low wage hospitality jobs.  Because of this, non-systems thinkers, which sadly comprises most of the MSM, have predicted the death of the middle class.  They imagine an economy that is dominated by minimum wage service workers.

Because of this, in my group, Polymathica, I use this banner.  Its message is that while the middle class is in fact disappearing, the majority of those leaving are rising to the upper class, not falling to the lower class.  It is also worth noting that the fastest growing group are households with incomes in excess of 200,000 2020USD.  These are the Information Age independent workers that I talk about, one might say incessantly, when I discuss the proper careers for Polymathicans.

There is growing discussion of UBI (universal basic income) and the justification is often the misplaced belief that automation will result in 50% or higher unemployment rate and the massive replacement of humans by machines over the next few decades.  While it is true that automation is about to explode, the belief that it will lead to enormous unemployment is called 'The Luddite Fallacy' referring to the belief, in the early 1800s, that power looms would result in massive unemployment.  Despite 200 years of disproof of this concern, the Internet is full of essays proclaiming that 'this time is different'.  It isn't. 

Consider an economy that has a GDP of one trillion dollars and a worker population of ten million.  That means that the average worker has an annual added value of one hundred thousand dollars.  Now suppose that through automation, the average worker has an added value of two hundred thousand dollars.  It could be that GDP would remain at one trillion dollars, but the number of workers will fall to five million.  The unemployment rate is now 50%.  That is not what happens.  Rather, the number of workers falls, but then rises again to one hundred thousand.  However, GDP is now two trillion dollars.  So, the standard of living doubles.

As we saw in the above graph, the extra one trillion dollars is not spread equally.  It mostly goes to decreasing the number of poor people and increasing the income and number of households at the very highest level.  This is why, in the past 70 years, GDP per capita has increased substantially, but the median household income has increased only slightly.  The 50%'ile person is not the same person as 70 years ago, but their value added is about the same.

An important thing to understand is that the middle class will continue to disappear.  We are headed toward a bimodal, rather than trimodal, economy, with service workers at the bottom and owners, innovators, and deciders at the upper end.  The lower class, which, oddly, will include Physicians, Architects, Attorneys, but also wait staff, gardeners, beauticians, etc., will comprise about 80% of the labor force while the upper class will comprise the other 20%.  The result is much better than it might initially appear.

The High Industrial Age began around 1875 and continued to about 1995.  That is the beginning of the Information Age.  In 1875, according to Measuring Worth, the average GDP/capita was 3,506 2012USD.  By 1995, the average GDP/capita has increased to 39,900 2012 USD.  So, during that 120 years, standards of living seem to have increased 11.38X.  Standards of living will increase by a similar amount during the Information Age, but it will take, perhaps, half that long.  So, we would project that GDP/capita will increase to around 450,000 2012USD or about 863,000 2021USD.  If we use Pareto, we will conclude that the upper class will have an income of around 3,500,000 2021USD and the lower class will have an income of around 215,000.  This assumes, unrealistically, that no government efforts would be employed to decrease income disparity.

This process, actually, has already started.  Recently, the 'great resignation' has been reported in the news.  Obviously, some of these resigners simply had stimulus money in their pockets and decided to spend it on a little vacation and a search for another job.  However, many are likely responding to the spate of advertisements touting the opportunities to work independently.  They got a taste of it during the COVID-19 lock downs, decided they liked it and are pursuing the 'opportunities' being advertised.

How the economy of the Information Age will differ from the Industrial Age is extremely complex.  Consequently, I am working on a book entitled, 'The Death of Capitalism: Information Age Economics'.  By this, I do not mean a rise of Socialism.  Rather, I mean that imagination, connectivity, creativity, and quality judgment will replace Capital as the 'Wealth of Nations'.  Peter Diamandis argues for a coming 'Age of Abundance' and, while likely misguided in many of its details, is spot on with regard to the changes that automation will bring to society.

EUNA Is Moving Right

I know that it sounds like tin-foil conspiracy theory, but there is, in fact, a well developed, self identified power structure that spans all of the EU and North America.  Many on the Right call it 'The Party of Davos' and in the U.S. is often referred to as 'The UniParty'.  The term 'Party of Davos' refers to the World Economic Forum, an organization supported primarily by 1,000 multinational corporations.  It has 3,000 members who are mostly large investors, business leaders, political leaders, economists, celebrities and journalists.  While hardly the only mechanism for coordination and cooperation of the elites across the world, it is likely the most visible.  It describes its mission as "improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas".

There is also the Bilderberg Meeting and the Trilateral Commission, both of which have been frequently mentioned in conspiracy theories.  Again, they rather blatantly state their purpose is to coordinate the efforts of elites.  However, because of its size, corporate funding and the inflammatory headlines that have described past meetings, most notably the 2020 'Great Reset', WEF has come to the forefront and become the focus of a growing, global populist, nationalist movement.  Given a constituency of billionaires and national leaders, it is difficult to refute the charge that its aims are nothing less than a global plutocracy.

While integral to the current socio-political dynamic of much of EUNA, Davos is only a part of the whole.  There is, simultaneously, a renaissance of conservative values among the young.  Also, since voters become about .38% more conservative per year, as populations age, they can become dominated by conservative voters.   A third phenomenon is that people tend to vote like their parents and conservatives have more children than liberals.  For these reasons, Liberals, who have controlled the politics of most of EUNA since WWII, are losing control of the political dialogue.

'The Great Replacement' theory says that Liberals are intentionally importing refugee masses with the intent to get them the right to vote so that, presumably, they will give Liberals a more or less permanent majority.  Is this true?  It is not easily proved or disproved.  However, there is little doubt that both the U.S. and Europe are being flooded with immigrants.  In both Eastern Europe and Southern U.S. this flood of immigrants is creating a backlash.  So, whether the flood of immigrants was an intentional effort to dilute 'white voters' or not, it is creating a conservative, nationalist, populist movement.

I will grant that those who are in favor of large refugee populations entering EUNA do so for ideological reasons.  In other words, they may be properly moved by the political and economic privations of Syrians when they allow them to move to Europe or for Venezuelans when they allow them to move to U.S.  However, it does mean that the expatriated Middle East and Latin America expatriated residents are increasing the percentage of the population without a strong Enlightenment heritage.  However, it is not necessarily the case that, if they gain voting rights, either officially or surreptitiously, that they will support the Liberal side.  There is no doubt that the Liberal side thinks so, but the data is starting to question that premise.

There is, however, a danger that the Left may, ultimately, be hoisted by their own petard.  In both cases, whether the Muslim refugees in Europe or the Latin refugees in the U.S., they may be of a more Socialist world view, they are culturally very conservative.  While, in the U.S., the Democrats thought that they could turn Texas blue because of the increasing Hispanic population.  However, the Hispanics are now voting culture and are moving to the Republicans.

Lastly, in the American inner cities, a growing number of residents are coming to realize that Leftish policies are mostly to blame for the squalid conditions within which they live.  As all Hispanics are moving Right, so are black males. 

Watershed moments just took place in both France and the U.S.  While Macron won re-electiion over Marine Le Pen by a comfortable margin, though much less than in prior elections.  However, the Liberals lost control of the French legislature to the more Conservative parties.  In the U.S., there have been several interim elections that went the Republican way.  However, Hispanic Republican candidate, Mayra Flores, beat the Hispanic Democrat candidate, Dan Sanchez by nearly 8%.  What makes this such a significant harbinger is that Biden won the District by nearly 15%.  It suggests, especially in Districts and States with large Latin population, that no previous Democrat win makes the seat safe.

We should not ignore the traditionally Christian Conservative nations of Eastern Europe.  They are not necessarily becoming Conservative, but they appear to becoming more intransigent to more Liberal policies of the EU.  The focus has been on Hungary where long term President Viktor Orban has been increasingly at odds with Brussels.  While the EU has emphasized what they consider to be human rights violations, the Hungarians perceive the conflict to be more over their Christian Nationalist values, specifically over anti LGBTQI+ and forced acceptance of Middle Eastern refugees.

However, the EU is having a Conservative backlash over all of Eastern Europe.  Abortion in Poland is legal only in cases when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act or when the woman's life or health is at risk.  This stands in stark contrast to the general abortion rights.  Also, about 1/3 of Poland, in the Southeast, is an LGBT-free zone.  Due to this, the EU is withholding some funding.  Also, Poland was the major safe-haven for Ukrainians, it pushed back on accepting refugees from the Middle East, suggesting, if not nationalist sentiments, a greater Slavic solidarity.  Combined with a much more Christian sensibility, there is, if not a move Right, a more strident expression of a Conservative set of values.

We see that the interaction of many factors are all causing a cultural and political sea change over most of EUNA.  That does not mean that there will be an eradication of the Left.  Rather, we will see a more balanced and, hopefully, tolerant distribution of empowered subcultures.

Recent Supreme Court Decisions

Two major Supreme Court decisions on gun rights and abortion were released in the last few days.  It is a lot of reading and I have not yet assimilated all of the opinions, much less thought critically about it.  However, on an initial skim, I will likely take umbrage to both majority and minority opinions on both decisions.

As I end every newsletter, please register, if you have not and share either way.  We are growing at a gratifying rate and initial analysis indicates that the growth is exponential rather than linear.  Consequently, within a year we can possibly reach the point where we can exert meaningful influence on the public discourse.

Newletter 7: Modifying the Westphalian Model

This week I am dedicating the whole newsletter to one of the biggest problems in Western civilization that nobody talks about.  That is, specifically, the inability of the Westphalian model to accommodate the current rapid increase in cultural fragmentation and the political fallout that is resulting from it.  Despite the Rightish and Leftish coverage, it is the underlying problem in Ukraine right now.  However, it is also a problem in other places and it is one that will become worse as the forces of social change accelerate over the next few decades.

At its core, the problem is that the Westphalian model results in an extremely illiberal stance within the community of nations with regard to secession.  That would not be a problem if modern society was culturally homogenous.  However, even within a liberal, democratic ideological world view, there is a whole lot of room for disagreement.  Additionally, ethnic, national and/or group identity, within EUNA, is potentially very diverse.  The development of the Internet, through print and video news and entertainment content, is allowing these groups to find each other and reinforce their sense of identity.  Also, the formation of cultural or ethnic identity is not geographically defined.  There have been several diasporas that now can remain cohesive rather than being assimilated into their local community.  

I often speak about the Right Silo and the Left Silo.  Very little information or ideas move from one Silo to the other.  Consequently, they each are mechanisms that are reinforcing and magnifying several, clustered cultural identities.  The Left Silo is comprised of Socialists, Marxist/Feminists, Greens, (for now) Traditional Christian Democrats,  etc.  The Right Silo is comprised of Christian Conservatives, Opportunity Conservatives, Libertarians, etc.  Even this is an oversimplification.  However, there are also groups, including Polymathica, that cannot comfortably fit into either of these two dominant Silos.  Consequently, over time, more Silos will form in order to accommodate them.

Regional and ethnic identities are compounding the problem, especially in Europe.  However, in North America, the West Coast and the South are developing Regional identities with very different, probably incompatible, ideological viewpoints.  They still are part of the, Enlightenment, European culture, but likely too different to comfortably share a common body of laws, policies and programs.

By way of background, between 1642 and 1648 much of Europe undertook six years of negotiations that resulted in major treaties, referred to as the Peace of Westphalia.  It instituted several changes in how the European community of nations interacted with one another.  The part that, over time, revolutionized the global community of nations, and changed the future, was the introduction of the concept of sovereignty.  Essentially, it was the birth of the concept of territorial integrity and the modern nation state.

The Peace of Westphalia took place prior to the emergence of the Political Philosophy of the Enlightenment.  Hobbes is generally credited with its beginning when he  wrote Leviathan in 1651. However, it was more than a century later that the primary principles were fully formulated by Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Smith, Kant, et alia.  Consequently, the drafting of the Peace of Westphalia was not fully informed by the Enlightenment and it is not fully compatible with it.

During and immediately after the Enlightenment, nearly all nation states in Europe became liberal democracies.  Many retained their Monarchies but in a ceremonial role.  This means that there is a pronouncement in some form that the individual enjoys liberty, despite the sovereignty of the nation state.  The 1789 "Declaration of the Rights of Man", approved by the National Assembly of France carefully delineated the Rights that accrue to the citizens of a liberal democracy based upon these Enlightenment principles.  A critical point of the document was, "4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights."  This presaged the concepts of Kant's 1797 Categorical Imperative, which in some ways, completed the Political Philosophy portion of the Enlightenment.

On the other hand, the previous item, "3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation." precludes sovereignty claimed and exercised by aggregations of citizens unless they constitute a majority within the whole nation state.  It is unlikely that the framers intended it to be interpreted in an illiberal way, but that is precisely what happened in practice.

The ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America in 1791, through its Bill of Rights, enumerated many of the same principles codified by the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man".  The Bill of Rights confers to States a degree of Sovereignty.  However, it is subordinate to the Sovereignty of the Federal government.  The U.S. has a benefit in that a number of States did secede and, when they did so, made several arguments that doing so was legal and, even, just.   However, these arguments did not persuade the Federal government and a war of reintegration ensued.  For many, this firmly established the principle that communities within a nation state are irrevocably subject to the ultimate sovereignty of the nation.  

Again, this could be construed as oppression, as Thomas Jefferson asserted, when he penned in the Declaration of Independence, "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."

Locke, especially, argued that the rights of the individual are natural and, as such irrevocable  One of those rights, expressly enumerated, was liberty.  Yet, the claim that the nation state possesses ultimate dominion over its citizens clearly violates the natural right of liberty.  This contradiction remains unresolved and, even today, as demonstrated in Yugoslavia, Crimea, Donbas, South Ossetia, Transnistria, North Cyprus, Catalonia, etc. the declared desire on the part of a community to sever ties with the nation state within which it finds itself nearly always, as it did with the North American colonies,  leads to violence.  

Several Enlightenment Philosophers, most notably Jean Jacques Rousseau, argued that the legitimacy of the nation state was based upon a social contract with its citizens.  While attractive as a concept, the Social Contract concept has several very serious flaws.  In nearly all cases, current residents did not agree to the Social Contract, but rather were simply born into it.  Generally, they are allowed to leave if they did not agree with the terms of the Social Contract (It is generally considered illiberal when countries establish 'exit visas'), however, the rights of citizenship are considered to be non-severable and are forfeited with expatriation. 

Additionally, current boundaries of nation states are a legacy to all current citizens.  Long ago in various events, groups of people met and drew perimeters around large parcels of land and called them countries.  With the Peace of Westphalia, the perimeters were memorialized and thereafter nation states became the center of focus of geopolitical interactions.  There is no mechanism by which they can be changed.  It is definitely not the case that the territorial integrity of nations were never again challenged.  Wars still happened and when they ended, often the borders of nations changed.  However, the community of nations, in aggregate, generally condemned these wars of conquest.

 
Today, almost no nation state grants the right of portions of their population to withdraw and to claim sovereignty for themselves.  This is despite the current borders often being arbitrary and even nonsensical.  For example, after attempting secession in 2017, Catalonia found its action declared illegal by Spain's Constitutional Court and an arrest warrant for sedition was declared against the former Catalonian President.  This was done on the basis of the very historically recent 1978 Spanish Constitution.  Catalonia's identity is quite ancient.

Their history began its formal regional recognition as part of the Roman Empire after a period when it was occupied by an indigenous population with a few Greek colonies.  When Rome fell, it had a brief period of indeterminate status and then, in 718, became part of the Umayyad dynasty.  Around 800 A.D. it fell under Frankish rule.  In 1137, much of it became part of Aragon, with the remainder becoming the Principality of Catalonia.  In 1469, through marriage, Castille and Aragon partially merged under the marriage of Ferdinand II (of Aragon) and Isabella I (of Castille).  However, it was not until 1714 under Philip V of Bourbon that Spain came under common rule, which included the modern Catalonia.  This, then, becomes the point in time when Catalonia became part of Spain, in a meaningful way.  Even then, however, with the Napoleonic wars, the continuity of Catalonia as part of Spain was interrupted.

The current nation of Spain was established in 1978 and it is under that Constitution that Spain's Constitutional Court declared the the 2017 referendum for Catalonian independence illegal.  The referendum was held anyway and the independence side won.  The Spanish central government declared the referendum invalid and arrested many of the organizers, while others fled the country.  The Spanish Senate called for direct rule of Catalonia and a new election was held in which, again, pro-independence parties took control of the legislature.  However, in 2019, finally, calmer heads prevailed and a 'table of negotiations' was instituted.  However, the Federal government, before it started announced that it would not consider Catalonian independence.  So, with a pro-independence Catalonian Legislature and an obdurate central government, this disagreement is clearly not over.

This situation where the majority of Spain is against Catalonian independence, while the small majority of Catalonia is in favor, is being repeated over Europe.  Clearly, this is a tyranny of the majority.  We see it in Ukraine, where the majority of Ukrainians were against Crimean independence, but the vast majority of Crimeans were in favor.  Transnistria is in favor of independence, but the majority of Moldovans are against it.  The northern portion of Cyprus is Turkish and wants independence, while the majority of Cypriots are against it.

In these and many other cases, the Westphalian model is counterproductive and, many times, promotes illiberal treatment of minority groups of citizens.  The Kurds, comprising minority populations in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran have never had a homeland and the currrent interpretation of the Westphalian model, never will.  In the worst cases, as in the current Ukrainian situation, substantial military conflicts arise.  Even in the best of situations, 'break away' regions, such as Kosovo are caught in a state of limbo.  Serbia considers it to be part of Serbia, while Kosovo, primarily ethnic Abanians, considers itself to be independent.  They have their own money, their own license plates, their own border control, but they are not recognized by about half of the UN members and are not a UN member, themselves.  Northern Cyprus is in a worse situation with de facto independence, but recognized only by Turkey.  Turkey maintains a substantial military presence there to dissuade Cyprus and/or NATO of engaging in a military intervention.

The above mentioned cases are examples where there is little controversy over whether the majority of the people within the region favor independence.  However, a very substantial minority (>40%) do.  Such has been the situation in Quebec, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Chechnya, Abkhazia, Donbas (perhaps), to name a few.  While imposing laws, programs and policies that the regional majority accept but a minority profoundly disagrees with is also illiberal.  Resolution is even more problematic.

I am writing a book entitled, 'A New Enlightenment: Political Philosophy in the Information Age'.  In it I propose a new principle of liberalism, specifically, 'No person should be required to live under a body of laws, programs and policies that (s)he considers to be fundamentally unjust'.  This does not mean that every difference of opinion should invoke this principle.  There is plenty of room for political resolutions.  However, this does not apply to significant differences in principles.

Politics is the art of compromise.  It is wrong to compromise one's principles.  Therefore, political resolutions are not proper when differences are matters of principle.  Resolutions are also not likely to be found because the opposing sides won't compromise.  This divergence of values is central to the polarization in the U.S. It will be central to the coming 'divorce'.  Nor, I argue, should they.  Enforcing 'territorial integrity' over a minority because the minority agree with it is fundamentally counter to the principles of liberalism.

Originally, Crimea was populated by Scythians but Persia rendered the peninsula more or less uninhabitable.  Over time, other populations moved in.  By 600 A.D., Crimea was ethnically a mixture of Greeks, Bulgars, Kypchaks and Goths.  However, around 900 A.D. Russians took it from the Byzantine Empire.  They held it until around 1200 A.D. when briefly Venice took it over, but lost it 30 years later to the Mongol invasion.   In 1475, it was taken over by the Ottoman Empire.  They held it until 1783 when Russia took it back.  While Russia and, later, the Soviet Union had difficulty holding it until after WWII.

During the 2014 conflict in Crimea, the news talked about what the U.S. wanted, what the national government of Ukraine wanted, what Russia, Germany and France wanted.  I kept asking, 'What to the Crimeans want?  Isn't that most important?'  What I learned was that few people could think outside of the Westphalian model.  Those stuck in it interpreted Russia as invading Ukraine.  However, those who could transcend the Westphalian model might conclude that, rather than an invasion, Russia was defending the Crimea's right to self-determination.  One might argue, as I would, that if Ukraine is allowed to defend its right to self determination, the same right should be granted to Crimea and now Donbas, as well.

 
Today, all the ethnic populations that comprise Crimea's history have disappeared through interbreeding save for the Tatars.  The Tatars came to Crimea through the Mongol invasion.  They comprise about 12% of the population of Crimea.  While Ukrainian is more of a national identity than an ethnic one, but it comprises about 15% of Crimea.  That is somewhat misleading since Pew Research found that about 88% of Crimeans favor the joining of the Russian Federation.  However, that means that 12%, presumably mostly Tatars, who do not.  

If there is an ethical justification for Crimea to withdraw from Ukraine, then that same logic will apply to any decision of the Tatars to leave the Crimean government.  We don't know that there is any appetite for such a secession.  However, that is not important with regard to their right to do so.  The problem arises when there is no clear geographic definition of the population.

Northern Ireland is an example of a minority population within a geographically defined region that did not want to belong to a larger nation state but did not define a specific geographic location within Northern Ireland.  It is a good example of an intermediate situation.  A minority of Northern Irish were Catholic and wanted Northern Ireland to reunite with Ireland.  Most Northern Irish did not and preferred to remain in the U.K.  They really had just two reasonable options.  One, they could individually move to Ireland and, in fact, that has slowly been happening.  Two, they could all move to the most Catholic portion of Northern Ireland and when they become the majority in that area, declare independence for that region and/or apply for membership in Ireland.

In most of Europe, minorities that contain separatist movements typically already have their own region or province.  This is certainly true in the Basque region of Spain and France, Scotland, Alsace in France, Bavaria in Germany, etc.  It means that if the separatist movement reaches a critical mass, the independence demands will be fairly well defined.  However, in every case, they comprise a very small minority of the nation state's population. 

While most of the separatist movements in North America are not ethnic or regional, that is beginning to change.  That is because, as the majority in a given State or Province uses the 'tyranny of the majority' to create the laws, programs and policies that they prefer, the minority leaves.  This is often just concentrating pre-existing subcultural differences.  In other words, California, for example, has been progressive and secular for quite awhile.  On the other hand, Florida has been conservative and Christian.  What is happening is that conservative and religious Californians are moving to Florida and while there is not yet evidence for it, presumably, eventually, as this process continues, progressive, secular Floridians will move to California.

At some point, one can easily imagine that California, Oregon and Washington may not want to share a country with Texas, Tennessee, Florida, etc.  However, will there be justification for the withdrawal from the Union?  We know that in 1860, there was not.  A war was fought.  However, it is now over 160 years later.  Laws, interpretations of laws and public opinions have changed.  Say that Florida seceded from the U.S.  The majority of Americans would likely be against it.  However, would they be willing to see columns of tanks roll into Tallahassee, arresting local officials and bombing pockets of resistance?  Most likely the answer is no and a situation that now prevails in Transnistria, Abkhasia, Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, etc. would result.  In other words, Florida would behave as if it was independent, the Federal government would not recognize it, but would only engage in non-violent resistance.

I am currently in-process on a book, 'The Rise of the Microstate: The geopolitics of the Information Age' in which I will explore the mechanisms by which nation states will end and subculturally defined microstates will emerge.  Here, however, we are focusing on whether nation states are on sound philosophical ground when they assert, as they almost always do, that secession is illegal.  The current interpretation of the Westphalian model, they invariably say that it is illegal.  Other countries will claim that it is an internal affair and other nations should not recognize breakaway regions until and unless the nation state involved does so. 

Enlightenment principles support the concept of individual liberty.  The issue of liberty aggregated while often addressed in scholarly communities has generally concluded that secession is a natural extension of the individual right to liberty and self-determination.  However, among legal communities, whether addressing international law or the legal status within a specific nation state the right to secession has not regularly seen as justified and when it is seen as justified, only so in extreme situations.  This is primarily the result of the canonization within the United Nations and other transnational organization of the Westphalian system.  Being of a more philosophical rather than legal perspective, I am more convinced by the former than the latter.  However, the issue is quickly becoming a more practical one than either a philosophical or legal one.

We currently have a number of 'breakaway' regions that are functioning as de facto nations.  We also have several where secession was declared but where national governments recaptured control.  Other regions, such as Northern Ireland have become peaceful but are likely to have continuing problems due to changes in demographics.  Lastly, the fragmenting and polarizing processes of the Internet will likely see increasing calls for independence.  Simply put, if each event results in a war, the 21st Century will become quite bloody.  The Westphalian model simply must be modified so that secession and the emergence of microstates is an orderly and peaceful one.  Right now, the war in Ukraine is being misapprehended as a war between Westphalian nation states when it is, in reality, about the right to secede.  It is the present one, but it is hardly the last one.