our 2nd greatest invention: “Monetize”

— Take a sad song and make it better —

The aspiration of yenom.biz is to help usher in an immanent new world. Unlike the fashion world, the (old doomed) financial world, or the political world: the YeNom world is NOT some self-important entity that any individual is expected, required, or compelled to accept. Moreover, in addition to participation being unequivocally voluntary, the core value of this simple system stems entirely from individual contribution. The only authorities found within this realm are those whom a person elects to respect or commit to.

— Ultimate Solution —
to the Proof of Work Abomination

The YeNom protocol was carefully detailed here (20/Jan/2006). Since then, every major ‘crypto’ implements the basic concept of an eternal record of transactions linked/chained together as described above over 16 years ago. Despite universal concurrence on this fundamental blockchain tenet all participants in this ever burgeoning mania are nevertheless curiously and emphatically antithetical to YeNom — principally due to their failure to adequately accredit meaningful monetization. This in turn leads to products crafted to yield obscene profits to their founders while also perpetuating a paradigm inviting -if not begging- thievery, abuse and cheating — such as double spending etc.

To guard against the misery of bad actors succumbing to temptations inherent in this arena; various schemes are devised to assure a blockchain's integrity without resorting to trust in any centralized authority. Thanks largely to the proliferation of bitcoin, ‘proof of work’ with it's waste and complexity problems prevails as the perverse concoction of choice. Unfortunately, to the extent that alternate decentralized mechanisms are less onerous they're also often less effective.

— To: Simon Black et al. —
Subject: Bitcoin = YeNom perverted

Predawn Friday Jan. 20, 2006: Blog dedicated to a simple undeniable yank-proof ownership paradigm (‘SUYO’) is launched per an open letter to Richard Stallman. Based upon an abiding human impulse for gift giving, SUYO aims to honor this innate tradition and catapult it to a solid foundation for individual enrichment by rigorously securing gifted ownership. This being accomplish with an open database of historically chained owners via PGP public/private key signings. The vehicle of implementation (the gift) was originally named ‘GNU.hope.html’ until re-branded as ‘YeNom’.

Three years later: Bitcoin makes the scene relying on the exact same plan of an open database consisting of public/private key chained items. However, said items -in direct contrast to YeNoms- were decisively not about any unique property possession. Instead they were blocks of sundry transactions endowed with ‘inputs and outputs’ of largely undefinable bitcoins.

— Honest Perspective —
Dear Zack,

You asked for my input to Yenom.biz.

I (re)read a lot of your stuff and one thing struck me after a while: it is very - and so to say needlessly - complicated.

I'll quote you for example on one thing:

6) Can you briefly run through the main steps to realize a YeNom?

— The Dutchman Cometh —

In the following I found myself writing, “It is a grave error on my part to post anything here that distracts from, or obfuscates the blog's intent.” To best assure that this very post does not fall into this same dismal category, I'm starting this out with an explanation of said intentions.

My most intent objective here is to reek havoc on the single greatest enemy mankind has. The term that most accurately seems to encapsulate the quintessential essence of this adversary is “FANTASY”. For better delineation, lets call it id-fantasy to distinguish it from day-dreaming and other distractions – i.e. idle-fantasy (although such forms of recreation tend to revolve around id-fantasies). The meme realm (in its entirety) includes id-fantasy as a subset. A simplistic yet hopefully helpful take on the human condition lies with an inspection of our meme set. In the beginning, crude emotion –primarily fear– forges most memes (basic id-fantasy which is perpetuated by the ‘Loving Mommy More than Truth’ type of thing). Nevertheless, actuality and logic do make painstaking inroads and so a polarized continuum arises in the meme pool between id-fantasy and reason. As more ’n more memes gravitate toward raw reality and reason the human condition improves. Unlike the oscillating Yin-Yang that compliment each other, this meme pool shift is unavoidably headed to ever greater levels of veracity. Note: while this could be perceived as a beautiful procession, there is nothing at all whimsical nor mystical about it. We are talking about pure brute cause and effect. Electricity, for instance, has its own irrevocable intricate set of laws by which it is governed (which no sorcerer nor politician has any means at all of violating). The advantages of understanding, observing, and honoring these laws can hardly be overstated nor can they be denied. The enduring stubbornness and tenacity of cause & effect instills a stabilizing ratchet effect to the correction of erroneous memes. In other-words, after sufficient advancement a virtuous meme becomes locked in and the threat of loosing ground or going backwards is minimal (for example, wasting virgins to volcanoes is hopefully part of an unrepeatable past).

Now, after establishing my goal (an effective attack on fantasy), the next question is how does one most forcefully unleash such an assault? Well, maybe it would pay to evaluate some potential targets and then struggle at choosing which one best merits asserted action for destruction. So one considers: 1) what fantasy most effects/dominates human life; as opposed to 2) what is the most monstrous fantasy closest to toppling anyway; verses 3) what fantasy is easiest to battle without deadly repercussions; and finally, 4) the undoing of what key fantasy would result in the greatest downfall of various other bad/ill-founded memes?

— Drupal & WordPress two Classic Works of Fine Software —

WordPress has been more than adequate for our requirements here. I've been working on other projects however, where Drupal better addressed the needs at hand. Plus I have plans for our site here that will also be better handled by Drupal. In any event I much prefer to fulfill all my publishing needs with one product instead of two, so it's sadly time to say a warm goodbye to WordPress and an enthusiastic Hello to Drupal.

— Advogato ... the real thing —
Following is my application (aka "Notes:") to Advogato

            The Press & Gutenberg -- Who made Whom?
        Does a man make a movement or can the reverse be assumed?
        A star rises imminently above all the rest
        is the secret in the Sun-of-Man or mass consciousness?
        After a tide of change time has crown
        mankind seeks names to honor & renown.
        Fame games are fun ~ sets the masses to wallow
        though life as a follower waxes hopelessly hallow.

        So where is the next trend and how does it begin?

— Diverging yet further from what I should be doing here. —
Following are reproductions of three recent email sent to Mr. Limbaugh regarding the current affairs in Honduras. –
Subject: A question from the new seat of Democracy - HONDURAS

Mr. Rush,

Not being a sophisticated political analyst, I am wholly bewildered by the upsetting unanimity of polarized political prejudice against (the people of) Honduras (i.e. support for Manuel Zelaya).  Moreover, the moronic mantras mouthed about democratic principles & processes and constitutional order is blatantly brazen considering that those are precisely the points most violated by ‘Mel’.

Regarding the Honduras Constitution, allow me to quote from the bottom of the page found at http://countrystudies.us/honduras/84.htm
“Title VII, with two chapters, outlines the process of amending the constitution and sets forth the principle of constitutional inviolability. The constitution may be amended by the National Congress after a two-thirds vote of all its members in two consecutive regular annual sessions. However, several constitutional provisions may not be amended. These consist of the amendment process itself, as well as provisions covering the form of government, national territory, and several articles covering the presidency, including term of office and prohibition from reelection.”

Moreover from http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/29/748124/-Peculiarities-of-the-1982-Honduran-Constitution (and written by a Honduran politician in 1992) we read, “… the armed forces are charged with fulfilling eminently political functions: maintaining the rule of the Constitution, the principles of free suffrage, and the alternation of the office of the presidency of the republic.”

SO MY QUESTION IS THIS:  Is the vehemence of the reactions against Honduras by Obama and other leftist leaders due to FEAR? 

In other words, the courageously pro-democratic actions taken by Honduras cannot be allowed to prevail as this would set a highly dangerous precedence.  I mean, IF Honduras can get by with independently cleaning up a grave threat to their constitution and way of life with zero outside assistance/interference, THEN what is to prevent other countries from following their valiant example?  Could this “Honduras Happening” potentially derail us off the “new world order” track and revive quaint dreadful notions of sovereignty?  Is there any validity to the prospect that Ortega, Chavez. or even Obama could follow Zelaya's fate if this Honduran happenstance is not urgently undone?  *OR* is there a better answer to the desperate untenable accusations exacted against Honduras by leftest??

— Confusing the intangible with the tangible —

Commenting on my post of December 12 ,2007 — What's wrong with the GNU GPL?

Alan wrote, “I believe the core argument in this post is: "Copyright is one of the state's basic mechanisms for seducing weak minds into sanctioning governmental violence to enforce contrived rights who's only hope of possibly being realized lies in the menacing threat of arrogant aggression." Without commenting on the rest of the post (which I mostly agree with), I feel this main point needs rebuttal.”
    While the post in question concerned various (largely laudable) observations concerning the GNU General Public License, Alan did identify the single sentence that best captures my primary core argument. It could consequently be argued that this terribly belated response should follow Alan's comment under my original provocative post. I have, instead elected to create a new main (root level) post for the following reasons:
      1) Alan's comments far exceeds the scope of the main post.
      2) It's my unwary way of dignifying all my brutish ape-like chest pounding that has preceded this event.

Alan, graciously continues, “First, let me point out the extreme irony in this idea. It is no doubt that Mr. Z. Clark is strongly of the libertarian persuasion (as I am), sharing the two most important core beliefs of abhorrence from unnecessary force, and utmost respect for (physical) property rights. Yet, this is an argument over an abhorrence for intellectual property (IP) rights.”
    Thanks, a better lead-in would be hard to come by. A no doubt conclusion (accusation) of my strong libertarian persuasion merits a few shared reflections however. I wonder if said persuasion is evident from this blog's contents or has more to do with personal knowledge of say the fact I ran against D. Gephardt as a Libertarian. In any event, the average libertarian may well cringe at any Z.Clark associations. If I had the stomach to investigate such things, Libertarians would likely still prove to be the least offensive political party in the US. But like the GPL, the mere exercise of either lends credence to a system which is ill founded at base. It's quaint at best to hope Libertarians can improve/salvage what the ‘Founding Fathers’ could not (i.e. the morbid transition from confederacy, to republic, to democracy on to socialism is systemic in nature and is fated to unfold as such despite the bloody patriot's best intentions). A flattering distinction for the GPL is that it hopefully sets a precedence (wittingly or not) of binding the machine against itself.
    To more directly contest the issue however, Alan apparently considers my inability to equate the “physical” horse in my front yard to the “intellectual” unicorn in Danny's imagination as “extreme irony” ... hmmm. All are invited to rephrase the foregoing to more advantageously reflect their perspective. Nevertheless the real crux of the problem I see lies in first 1) inventing then 2) claiming and finally 3) protecting ‘rights’ in the first place.

— PATENT Left – Taking the Patent to it's ultimate logical end —

I apologize up front for inserting an extra post in ahead of my long over due thrashing of Intellectual Property theory. However, there's this hot idea that came to me while finishing up “WHY I.P.??” and it just can't wait. In fact, it's probably unwise to have delayed as long as I have – as some like-minded jerk could swoop in and steal all the glory.

Anyway, even yours truly has been bitten by the patent bug now. One can only imagine how the prospects of fame & envy serves to motivate an ill defined ego. So without further ado, here is the patent to end all patents:

  A business method wherein profits are realized from acquiring patents and then suing infringers.

Don't worry if the beauty of this doesn't exactly jump out at you (as that should help prove non-obviousness). Also note that acquiring any patents (other than the Power Patent just defined) is not necessary. You just need to find plaintiffs with patent infringement suits; then they in-turn become intrinsic defendants for infringing on your patented business method. A jolly-good bonus for anyone lacking friends is that such a patent would make you adored by thousands of attorneys.

It'd be dandy if someone could better express this concept in patent legalese. And anybody wanting to push my plan into some sort of fruition is welcomed to do so. In the event of actually filing a patent on this, one could even use me as the “Inventor” as this very post records the original idea. I don't even know what part of any profits I'd want to control, except to say that the initial candidate for receiving my share would be Richard Stallman and his Free Software Foundation. The two reasons for this are: 1) it would be apt pay-back for the wonderful contributions rms & FSF have made to the world I love, and 2) the whole concept is just a basic rip-off of copyleft anyway — transforming patent rights to patents left powerless (to thwart innovation as they normally do).

— Intellectual Property and Other Fantasized Rights —

I've rightfully been faulted for too slowly producing my promised pummeling of the pathetic premises behind Intellectual Property (IP). On the other hand, the mere diversion of attention from the blog's core theme (money morals) to engage IP proponents could reasonably be question as well. So true to what I indicated previously, this post will examine why IP is a valid YeNom blog topic.

Restating exactly what this blog's objective actually is may be useful. This can be best encapsulated as ... freedom. Now if the direct connection between YeNom/SUYO (Simple Undeniable Yank-proof Ownership) and freedom is not readily evident then this review is particularly pertinent. In contrast to ‘freedoms’ afforded by the state (better called “freakdoms”) were one is generously released of responsibility and encouraged to enjoy rights to unearned medicine, food, housing, condoms, etcetera; the freedom I'm selling is the exact anti-thesis where responsibility is actually the prime prerequisite for real freedom and a person is free to suffer the consequences of their own actions (regardless of how excruciatingly successful that may turn out). I'd further like to aptly argue that freedom can be equivalently understood as disengagement from slavery.

YeNoms advance the above by simply providing the most effective means personally conceivable for realizing freedom. In other-words, no single thing predisposes the human mind to respond more slothfully and slave like than the notion of money as some natural proprietary asset of the state. This hardly argues that money per se is evil (as if such a thing existed), but just the opposite since money could fully enable the division of labor with all it's life saving and Homo-sapien enhancing advantages. So the real problem lies in money being catastrophically crippled when employed as some proprietary weapon. YeNoms are not only a thief proof foundation for open money, but is further distinguished from the current proprietary system by rewarding integrity instead for enticing issuers to profit from acts of bad faith.

— the Meticulous & the Meaningless —

I'm fond of saying YeNom is the reverse of money. It is perhaps reasonable then to clarify some basics regarding the world's most popular money. Fortunately we have classic comments from Alan at our disposal to serve as authentic examples of popular legends. Reacting to my post “The thought provoking Eric Harris-Braum”, Alan argues, “... referring to [the] introduction of government money, you say, ‘… money is injected into the economic area via bank loans (so it is never free and always burdened with interest). Plus it trickles down from the money moguls to the producers.’ I believe you are looking at this with blinders on! Bank loans are in the middle of the cycle, not at the beginning. Banks can only lend money they possess. They do not create it. The government does that, lending initially created money to the banks to re-lend. Banks also re-lend money from deposits. These deposits come from both the moguls and the peons, meaning it both trickles down and up (i.e., it is again with blinders that you ignore an important part of the overall equation).”

To best deal with these typical assertions, I naturally turned to our friendly fiend the Internet. And while the majority of the results coughed up by an initial search are expected to be crude, this particular monetary topic was considerably comical. Government sources are particularly prone to avoid substance and gravel in trivia. Although many ‘authorities’ may welcome Alan's viewpoints and want to encourage them, I still could not find any instance where the line was crossed with blatant falsehoods to justify anything like Alan purports. Not even the Bureau of Engraving and Printing with the incredibly intriguing domain name of moneyfactory.gov offered any support for Alan's claims.

— How did I cause such confusion?? —

Commenting on my previous post “Levels of Wealth” Part 1, Alan said in part:
“... You: An example in honor of Alan's IP sentiments follows: Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock in his press release ...
    I would prefer you not so honor me. I find this drivel repulsive as do you. I hope you did not seriously relate this crap to any of my IP arguments. ...
”
    Excuse me. My above quoted lead-in was not intended to honor anyone per se (as another's sentiment could be honored while the person himself is not). I was merely interested in dissecting an example of authoritarian political blather. The type of rhetoric emitted by the dear Australian Attorney-General is hardly anything special and equally precious statements could have been readily gleaned in just about any page of any newspaper. I just focused in on an IP related instance because that theme had merited your defense. There was no interest in implying that you two were particularly in agreement. That being said however, I was taken back by your vehement reaction against Ruddock. He was providing no defense of IP at all, but was merely dutifully reporting a change to the statutes in a pathetic yet wholly typical newspeak manner.

Alan continued:
“... I do find your arguments against Ruddock's statements to be rather poor logic. While the context of the included quotes ... are clearly in reference to the changes in Australian law, you misinterpret them to reference technological capabilities and ignore the certainty that they refer only to reduction in legal prohibitions. That is a strawman argument which is way beneath your capability for logical argument.”
    What I believe I did (and as clearly as I could) was merely to demonstrate how they announce changes in the statutes by choosing vocabulary that is literally consistent only with technological issues ruled by the laws of physics. I even went through the exercise of rewording his statement to read accurate and semantically correct. So it is intriguing to imagine that anyone could honestly believe that I literally misinterpreted Ruddock. To argue that I misrepresented him might be a more legitimate attack.

        * From Eric Harris-Braum's openMoney.inf WEB site
— Why I was confused although Alan was not. —

Commenting on my previous post, The thought provoking Eric Harris-Braum, Alan worte, “In response to Harris-Braun's openmoney.info page, I would like to say I agree. Specifically, this is an EXCELLENT perspective on money and wealth, with an honesty and clarity and depth that is rare.
Your first impression says, ‘You [i.e. Eric] open with an introduction on the Tradeable - Measurable - Acknowledgeable paradigm. I needed to reread and wrangle with it a bit to get this new perspective into focus.’ I sure hope you provide elaboration on this. I found the paradigm very easy to understand.”
    Elaboration on a personal inability?  Another's insight into this would perhaps be more valid than my own.  Anyway, in Eric's “Levels of Wealth” the circle of Acknowledgeable wealth is more sizable than the merely Measurable, while actually Tradeable wealth (the stuff of mega-billions of GNP) is the smallest of all.  This concept is especially appealing for its propensity to put the realm of traditional money into perspective.  Now then, the “Levels of Wealth” oval graphic moreover implies (to me) that Tradeable is a subset of Measurable which in turn is a subset of Acknowledgeable.  At the very least, this is a comfortable assumption due to the terribly counter intuitive notion of saying that Tradeable wealth is NOT (i.e. excluded from the set of) Measurable and in turn insisting that the Measurable isn't Acknowledgeable.  This would, for me, constitute an overly extreme distancing of these words from their common casual meanings.  Nevertheless Eric, could potentially be advocating exactly this when he writes, “Acknowledgeable Wealth: Friendship, beauty, freedom, civility, culture, happiness, integrity, reputation--these are all forms of acknowledgeable wealth. They are neither tradable nor objectively measurable because their impact is only felt subjectively.”(emphasis added)  Then when Eric teaches that Acknowledgeable wealth are “relationships between systems”, I find myself fumbling with the notion of “beauty” and “freedom” (from the previous sentenece) as relationships between systems.  An excellent recognition of the “interdependent” nature of wealth levels, is followed with a whole section on “Wealth Acknowledgment” which focuses on Tradeable wealth issues.  So I guess this “Acknowledgment” is very much distinguished from (if not the antitheisis of) the former term “Acknowledgeable”.  Perhaps it is unfortunate that the things I've just cited overly interfere with my ability to grasp new perspectives.  However an agreeable benefit of the doubt posture where we all ‘know’ more or less what we're talking about is increasingly objectionable for this student to adopt.  My way of developing his theme would be to start with Acknowledgeable wealth and then examine Measurable and Tradeable as clearly identified natural subsets.

— The Spiritual within the Mundane —

Back on April 14th Eric Harris-Braun wrote to me in part:
“....I thought I'd point you to my latest writeup on open money: http://openmoney.info I think you might be most interested in the theory page, ....

As it turned out, this email came in on a partially forgotten account, so I didn't even see it until June 21st (over 9 weeks later). Embarrassed, I apologized for the delay; and then continued:
“Interestingly, I'd been thinking about you recently and just a few days ago I was going through much the material on your WEB sites (I even logged into my account at http://alpha.openmoney.info/om.cgi). And yes, I actually did read with much interest your "theory page". In fact it was the most intriguing document I came across that day. So let me recount my most notable impressions:

1. You open with an introduction on the Tradeable - Measurable - Acknowledgeable paradigm. I needed to reread and wrangle with it a bit to get this new perspective into focus. However it was worth the effort and could possibly provide the basis for some valuable elaborations. It's when one gets into rewriting a piece that you really need to devote maximum effort to do the concepts justice and hopefully come up with a real contribution.

2. Regarding concepts such as “Wealth Acknowledgment” and your interest in setting the stage where the creativity of others can extend our horizons beyond anything we have yet considered — these are things I relate to instantly. Many of your objectives are so much in accord with my YeNom idea that it's almost eerie.

3. There is, I propose, a extremely pertinent & significant factor that desperately needs recognition in your theory page. A lot is said regarding the scarcity of money and your/our proposal to eliminate that scarcity through the creation of (local) currencies. However, the crucial thing that is left unsaid (and will likely make readers uncomfortable on at least a subconscious level) regards misgivings about possible inflationary factors. I think it is worth addressing this issue head on. The two main distinctions between the proprietary money supplied by governments and the type we want to create is a) what is being monetized, and b) how it is introduced into circulation. In the first instance, government debt is the preferred poison. I'd even argue that the very foundation of such a system is consequently a form of anti-wealth, with more & more debt not being a positive thing. The basis of our systems lie essentially in promises of individual personal performance insured by the issuers best interest to maintain a respectable reputation. And the more we have of this is a positive thing. Another night & day difference exists with the methods of introduction. In the former, money is injected into the economic area via bank loans (so it is never free and always burdened with interest). Plus it trickles down from the money moguls to the producers. Our alternative is the exact opposite of this! Not to mention that said debts (the fodder for their proprietary money) were created by the government to either fund their welfare programs (which essentially saps recipients' motivation for gainful endeavor) or, they are entering the market place to buy-up/divert labor and materials to satisfy their needs for arms, surveillance and policing (which of course tends to drive prices up). ...”

That very same morning, Eric responded saying: ...

— No Orwellian Rights Recognized —

When I first read about the Free Software Foundation's GNU General Public License, I was truly moved by the stroke of genius it represented! Moreover, my enthusiasm has not waned. This respect carries over to the Creative Commons efforts as well. Copyright is one of the state's basic mechanisms for seducing weak minds into sanctioning governmental violence to enforce contrived rights who's only hope of possibly being realized lies in the menacing threat of arrogant aggression. (Whereas a peace respecting mind would only confer the notion of a ‘right’ to concepts that prevail as working solutions where coercive enforcement is needed only rarely if ever.) The beauty of Copyleft, of course, is that while it is a copyright, it nevertheless works to undue most everything a copyright is traditionally used for. Consequently, all those who conceived, perfected, and use copyleft schemes will always receive my support. However, I cannot personally use it. The reason being of course, is that the freedom campaign that I'm promoting cannot be compromised by employing the threat of legalized violence against anyone who has not willfully and actively subscribed to the ‘jurisdiction’/agent who will be carrying out any coercive enforcement.

During the last incredibly short three months, I have put a portion of my photography onto commons.wikimedia.org. Devout readers can verify this by checking commons' categories Honduras and Antigua_Guatemala. My files are all distinguished with file names that are exactly 22 characters long. All my photos currently under Antigua_Guatemala start with “GT056-Antigua” while those from Honduras begin with “HN”. The exif “Comment” of every photo carries this notice: “As no compulsive ‘jurisdiction’ can morally confer|deny any RIGHT, my photo is put in the PUBLIC DOMAIN to best advance art & integrity. Use file and visit http://yojoa.org/ego to be paid.”

— Making Paying a Pleasure —

Blog wise, I've certainly not kept up with my duties and objectives. Instead of reducing the times between posts, it looks more like I'm hell bent on setting new records for falling behind (Dr.Alan posted apt comments regarding this).

I've just finished composing a more difficult than average article for my new 'EGO' page (which is essentially a plan to pay persons YeNoms for using my PUBLIC DOMAIN photographic files). I was intending, of course, to post a blog covering this new initiative after I'd actually made some photography publicly available. But then I noticed the date of my last entry here and felt a little sick. So to help feel better, I'm knocking this out posthaste with another post to hopefully follow soon. So far now, the text related my concepts on 'EGO' and the future is copied below:

The options sought for obtaining goals can be squelched by the social environment one operates in. It is, however, eminent that viable goal options will eventually emerge as society matures. The option I'm trying to nurture promises to free the creative ego from the current threats of institutionalized violence. If the meaning of an “Eminent Goal Option” is now clarified then click here to jump ahead - otherwise lets further examine this word for word.

The “Eminent”

The good news first. Excluding the outside chance of some glorious war and the wholesale devastation of the physical environment, our world is unstoppably spiraling toward ever enhanced levels of rationality and an unfolding utopia. This is no compliment nor show of faith in our species. Instead, it's a mere recognition of the basic fact that in due time and despite ourselves, superior results inevitably take hold over inferior ones. Capitalism's triumph over communism, had nothing to do with the effectiveness, validity nor vehemence of any rhetorical campaigns. It had to do with clean food in the mouth and fitting apparel for the ego. Likewise with slavery (past & present) in the ‘land of the free’. Lincoln's obsession was hardly bent on freeing anyone, but in maintaining the Union. Actually, considering the nonviolent intent of the South to simply secede, the North's reaction itself constitutes an act of aggression to subjugate (enslave) the South and strip her of any sense of self sovereignty. Hence field slavery failed on its own merits (without heroic outside force). That is, compulsory servitude doesn't work - at least not compared to the cotton gin or a farm combine. This of course, only begs the point that human slaves of whatever caliber cannot perform at the same level as liberated egos.

— Love to supplant fear: The Meta War Worth Fighting —

Well, to the extent that any sorry soul is ill integrated into the status quo's local matrix of misfeasance, they will be perceived as delusional by their peers. While the foregoing could portend an ensuing defense (on my part as a nonconformist), let me wholly dispel that anticipation by emphatically declaring up front, “Of course I'm delusional - highly delusional, in fact.” That being said, allow me the liberty to precisely define “delusional” for the purpose of this post. In saying, “delusional”, I refer to our species' tendency or affinity to delusion and insanity, rather than the condition of harboring any particular set of delusions. For a succinct insight into delusion per se, it's hard to beat the Devil's Dictionary:

DELUSION, n. The father of a most respectable family,
comprising Enthusiasm, Affection, Self-denial, Faith,
Hope, Charity and many other goodly sons and daughters.
____________________________________________
All hail, Delusion! Were it not for thee
The world turned topsy-turvy we should see;
For Vice, respectable with cleanly fancies,
Would fly abandoned Virtue's gross advances.


Mumfrey Mappel

Now regarding said affinity to delusion, we might identify it more forcefully as powerful propensities or even hopelessly ingrained habits. Nevertheless, persons strongly susceptible to delusion could, in principle, suffer far fewer actual delusions than individuals with considerably less severe inclinations. Indeed, a highly delusion prone person who is sufficiently honest with herself may notice particularly strong emotional reactions to various issues which serve to distract from, or even prohibit logical analysis. This awareness in turn holds the potential for an avalanche of self-sincerity and the wholesale eradication of many ghosts and delusions. Two aspects of this process are most notable. First, the annihilation of dearly held precious beliefs can be accomplished not only with runaway dispatch, but also with negligible emotional discomfort. And second, the end result is remarkably stable; so regression back to delusion is not a threat. What this tells us is that many such beliefs, regardless of how vehemently proclaimed and emotionally celebrated, are not really believed in the first place (albeit defending said delusions can lead to a horrible and early death).

— Society: Empowered by the Individual perverted by the state —

“Save the Children?” What exactly is that supposed to mean?? Well the current main stream thought-pool which is huge enough to easily immerse both the Moral Majority and Greenpeace would instantly translate this to “DONATE”. Which in turn means, “YOU give MONEY to THEM”. And by “THEM” we obviously don't mean the children themselves nor their parents and not even any local community centers; but instead officially trustworthy & awesomely affluent organizations endowed to the hilt with adequate overhead. This is an undeniably valid premise as the very same (anti)thought-pool invariably holds that money makes the world go round and 501(c)3 organizations know best.

To quickly clean the preceding up a bit, it first behooves one to refrain from using a term like “thought-pool” to refer to a condition which serves more to paralyze rather than stimulate the mind. A more apt reference would be “meme pool” (or possibly “stool”). Next, as I'm relentlessly prone to promote, the real miracle of human society lies in the exponential advantages found in cooperation and division of labor. Since money can powerfully enable such mutually profitable interactions incredibly well, the more cunning have managed to securely monopolize this otherwise naturally free medium.

So if one now wishes to consider saving the poor children then the last thing you'd want to instill in their minds is a crippling dependence on a proprietary currency issued by the very same system that left them outside the monetary loop in the first place. Real empowerment would reside in the creation of their own local currencies potentially based upon the YeNom concept. The first and foremost matter a free enterprise system should address is its own life blood; namely an open flexible monetary scheme that is customizable to specifically address any need.

While children make for endearing sentimental targets, other instances of victimization are worth considering as well. And in the case of traditional money, robbery is perhaps the most notorious. This can occur in three broad modes. In order of severity these are: 1) counterfeiting, 2) swindling and 3) direct person on person violation. Yea, I know counterfeiting as number one must sound pretty strange even though the state likes to make a big deal out of this whenever they wish to issue a downgraded currency to their benefit. But I'm talking about the mobsters within the self-sanctioned system (not from the outside). In other-words, it is the Federal Reserve System itself that should be construed as the master counterfeiter in violation of the Constitution. As is the case with lotteries, the state simply can't condone competition. Precious few, however, care to acknowledge things like this. The only news people crave to hear and worry about revolve around gruesome individuals like Seung-Hui Cho while the insanity of say Hiroshima and Nagasaki is accepted in stride.

— Crying needs & opportunities —

Thanks in part to innovative sites like whois.domaintools.com and www.aboutus.org this blog has enjoyed a significant jump in traffic. And while an indignant lapse has been suffered since my last post, this should not be interpreted as any wane of commitment. Nor is there a lack of material and strategies to examine. The problem instead lies in managing dearly limited hours to best advance ones aspirations. Most recently my time has been focused on a project to advance and develop the Lake Yojoa area of Honduras (see Yojoa.org). Given the traffic increase however (along with the merits of our goal), I now commit to a minimum of two worthy post per month.

A major problem Honduras has is an incredibly weak system of land registration resulting in extremely insecure real estate ownership. The main issues are three fold: 1) To paraphrase the World Bank; it's estimated that only about 30 percent of the 2.6 million land parcels in the country [1.8 million urban, 0.8 million rural] are properly registry [the total value of these extra-legal assets is estimated to be $12 billion, which could be used to mobilize credit]. 2) Very little real estate has ever been correctly surveyed. 3) Registering a property in no way guarantees against (past or future) conflicting registrations. Conditions such as these are understandably sufficient to subdue serious investment interests. Consequently, efforts lent to correcting these inadequacies should reasonably result in a valuable service.

Moreover, Yojoa.org is actively approved by associates who's support help secure my future as a responsible provider. Nevertheless, my personal principle passion is the introduction of alternative monetary solutions into this mix. The rural areas of Honduras is just one of many finely irrefutable instances of stalled & strangled economic development due merely to a lack of monopolistic 3rd party money/tickets/tokens.

Land rich but cash poor. Why not use credits based on land titles to relieve the liquidity crunch? Will keep you posted through this blog, plus your reflective input is eagerly welcomed.

— January 14th, 2007 at 1:41 pm —

* Check out Erick's blog here *

---

— Ultra tolerance for individuals – Zero tolerance for unilateral coercion! —
* Searching for the common ground between brothers in arms *

Greetings Fellow Advocates of Jean-François Noubel's The Transitioner:

I have gone through this site's entire “Who is Who” list and read everyone's introduction. Allow me to comment on two observations. First is the surprisingly encouraging caliber of the individuals supporting Mr. Noubel's undertaking. Second is the expected general sense of encouragement & positivism. Unfortunately, too many entries -despite an upbeat intro and promise of more to follow- have not been updated for over two years. Consequently, I beg your understanding if this commentary fails to substantiate the festive optimism traditionally sung by would be visionaries/futurist.

First, I'm in enthusiastic accord with the basic concepts promoted here. In fact, I'm frequently inclined to take a winning concept much further that those who seek virtue in compromise & middle of the road postures. For example, if we concede that burning select women to death for inconformity (i.e. witchcraft) is a bit excessive, then a laudable legislator might gain glory for advocating a more humane demise (per a propitious poison for instance). My closed minded objective however, would aim for nothing less than total tolerance (i.e. malicious targeting of no one). Admittedly, such full fledged commitments could be construed as radical – which is also an apt way to characterize the grand social architects like Hillary & Hitler. So how does one turbo blast an agenda to dimensions opposite of the spectrum occupied but all those goodly idealist committed to compelling everyone else into their superior world views? Well, it's not all that difficult – we just need to take freedom seriously. I like to view it as the not-doing (a Carlos Castaneda concept) of Social Engineering. This simply translates to an absolute unadulterated respect for individual volition — a fundamental inviolable prerequisite for a truly rational society. As meritorious this train of thought is, further consideration need be deferred to my blog, or Lysander Spooner's No Treason. The pertinent point here is merely to underscore the fact that most empowerment proposals offered as an elective freewill option to individuals will not only be personally well received, but may even be advocated more vigorously by me than its originator.

Originally:

The Process Revolution:
The Internet and the Rise of Commonism
Authored by Eric Harris-Braun
v 0.5 - July 2006⁰
Revised by Zack Clark to:
The Process Revolution:
The Internet and the Rise of "Co-talentism"
November 2006

— finding the groove —

Wow, it has been well over four months since my last post. On 07/14/2006 -within a month after my previous post- a reader wrote via email, “Haven't seen an update to your blog in quite a while. Hope you're creating, and not stewing!” Actually, I was too bewildered to seriously stew. I had targeted select persons and groups with modest email campaigns which came to nothing. Although I have an email list of GPG/PGP users to address (thinking that they would at least relate to the technology); those who I'd written to before -in my judgment- already enjoyed the best flexibility of mind to relate to my YeNom proposal. And even if refocused efforts with any new group were unexpectedly 96 times more successful than my previous endeavors, it'd still be negligible.

So, I felt that some serious reappraisals were in order. The strategy of choice was to get my thoughts absorbed in a completely different activity, which -in this case- turned out to attending to my fledgling Linux system and getting better acquainted with this enthusiastically respected world of software freedom.

Gracious John Zube: (of reinventingMoney)

Before getting into the main thrust of this letter, I'd like to clear up some apparent misunderstandings. Your 06-05-30 email mentions:

— a Geek Tragedy —

Hackers? — Yea, plus the various extraordinary phenomena spawned from the same spirit. For example: The GNU approach – Linus's Law (bazaar model) – the wiki wonder – and all the gifted persons moving this new future forward. These pioneers and their strategies have achieved record breaking results with heretofore inconceivable despatch. Some real (programming type) hackers may resent being grouped with wiki workers. If so, the tragedy is only exacerbated to the extent any uneasiness is taken to heart. I know, you're thinking, “Tragedy? What tragedy?” Well I'm glad you asked.

Regarding open versus proprietary software the technical verdict is in and the war is won. At this juncture, the proprietary camp has as much chance of prevailing over free hackers as LPs had over CDs – tubes over transistors – BBSs over the Internet – and so on. A crucial difference exist however between the open/proprietary conflict and the other comparisons. The later are all examples of hard specific technical differences, while the free vs proprietary thing delves more into social realities and philosophy. OK, it's time for a new ‘ism’ – how about “bazaarism”? (like that's got a chance of sticking) The first notable issue is that unlike capitalism, Marxism or socialism – bazaarism does not have oodles of blather (formal ideology) pushing to popularize it. Instead, bazaarism spontaneously came into existence on its own. Yet bazaarism largely remains unrecognized for what it is – a new social paradigm who's time has come as heralded by the humble hacker.

— YeNom * a new epoch * a new system of wealth —
* Setting the trend for a new era of Kings *

Hello Linus Torvalds,

Thanks for your leading role in unleashing a whole new realm of freedom forces. The GNU approach, Linus's Law (the bazaar model) and the wiki wonder have achieved record breaking results with heretofore inconceivable dispatch. The most personally awe inspiring aspect of this whole marvel is the fact that it unfolded without massive mega-dollars of funding! Indeed, the monetary status quo which wholly engulfs us constitutes a hostile proprietary environment that's largely counterproductive to the needs of today's avant-garde talent.

Money - no concept has commanded more innate power to effect vital increases of productivity through economy of scale, cooperative effort, specialization and the division of labor. So what gives, why hasn't money been center stage at it's traditional helm? Revealing studies even suggest that paid employment can actually discourage innovative & creative work. Could we be evolving to an era where orthodox money is moot?

Money has achieved its objectives so well that it literally enjoys life & death reverence even while constantly funneling wealth, power and control to its issuers. Poised individuals always sense these types of systemic problems and will manifest negative reactions at some level. Nevertheless, the myriad of valiant contributors who constitute the very heart of the above cited freedom miracles surely merit a means of recognition befitting their wealth creating fortitude. They deserve something to invigorate sustained productivity - an appropriate tangible gesture offered voluntarily for doing a great job their way (and it could come from anyone).

— with anti-fanfare —

My post titled “O.L.-01-Frederick Mann” stated, “Currently the database of YeNom files resides at http://yenom.biz/GWR and holds zero YeNoms.” Well that has changed, one YeNom does exist (albeit a near antithesis to what I'd hoped for). I've created two new directories here also, namely: “Gestures” & “publicKeys”. The first contains outstanding Gestures awaiting the recipient's signature and the other contains relevant public-keys. Neither of these two extra directories are currently guaranteed to always be maintained by the GWR database.

— Hone Sweet Home —

A home page has been created for the blog to provide yet another introduction to SUYO/YeNom plus an abbreviated index into the blog to help direct the attention of new readers to the primary posts. A link to said home page follows:

http://yenom.biz/home

— Mon Apr 17 21:23 2006 – too much bull - too little beef

Which is the Real Anarchist?

Webster's Third International Dictionary, succinctly defines anarchism as, “a political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs.”
Britannica-Webster reads, “a political theory that holds all government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocates a society based on voluntary cooperation of individuals and groups.”
And the New Webster Handy College Dictionary tersely states, “the political doctrine that all governments should be abolished.”
From wiktionary we get:
  anarchy
1. absence of hierarchy, power and authority
2. absence of any form of political authority or government
3. political disorder and confusion
4. absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose
5. without rules or laws (syn: anomie, anomy)
6. self-government

Finally my standby Random House Webster's yields:
an-ar-chism (an'uhr kiz uhm)   n.
1. a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
2. the methods or practices of anarchists.
[1635-45]

Now that's all patently prettier than poetry and even in good keeping with its Greek roots - so where's the rub? Well as we've seen with “monetize”, there are always plenty of quasi-literates who need to bend straight clear concepts into twisted pretzels promoting perverse purposes.

For a good sampling of what I'm talking about just drop “anarchy” into your favorite search engine, and you'll quickly find this simple idea contorted & complicated. The following quote characterizes one major branch of colonization as raw as you'd want: “Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man.” - Daniel Guérin, Anarchism. As you might anticipate, we also find: 1) anarcho-syndicalists who crave a high degree of societal structure, 2) worker's control of the means of production and distribution, 3) opposition to personal property ownership, 4) parecon, etc. Particulars include: Russian anarchists Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876) and Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) - Mutual Aid, Fields Factories and Workshops plus The Conquest of Bread, plus Pierre Joseph Proudhon - What is Property?.

— RE: an Alternative to Dollar Depravity —
* Frederick Mann Interview here *

Greetings Frederick Mann,

I would first very much like to thank you for the generosity of your response. The following is extracted from your reply with numbering ("#") added to your five questions; after which comes my answers.

— an Alternative to Dollar Depravity —
* A letter from Frederick Mann *

Dear Mr. Frederick Mann,

Your article titled The Most Powerful Freedom Strategy (whatmost.htm) states, “If you talk freedom, but you kowtow to terrocrats -- even financing them! -- aren't you living a lie? Economic power not subject to terrocrat control is by far our best weapon for defeating the terrocrats.” Well, I have a dedicated blog for a revolutionarily fresh means to further such objectives. This option cuts straight to the largely unrecognized crux of the problem with YeNom, a new, clean, & unlimited alternative monetary base.

— Thu Apr 6 11:03 2006 – Announcing 3 big changes —

As provided in the post “Why ‘GNU.hope’” (March 31), the GNU.hope term is now replaced by YeNom (pronounced as in Spanish: ‘Ye’ with a long “a” so it rhymes with “hey”, and ‘Nom’ as in “Gnome” - roll it off the tongue like the Beetles' Hey Jude!). This new name should help keeps us mindful of the fact that a YeNom is the reverse of traditional money in most ways. For a short list, FRNs (Federal Reserve Notes denominated in dollars) are 1)  proprietary, 2)  theft inviting & 3)  an ultimate expression of dominion over the individual; while a YeNom is 1)  wholly free (as in free software), 2)  thief proof & 3)  an ultimate individual expression of liberation. Each comparison needs a full post to effectually elaborate. Until then, those familiar with Carlos Castaneda's teachings of Don Juan can see YeNom meta-principles as:   YeNom – the ‘not doing’ of fiat currency

Up to now this blog has been named “MONETIZE”. That term however, clearly needs rescuing from the vulgarly weak usage it currently suffers. Moreover, it poorly captures the gist of the real challenges at hand. So the blog is now named “Principalities” as in, “... we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Efesios 6:12) This verse kicks butt when stripped of mystical connotations since it boldly fits my perspective of ‘the internal garrison’ (where the mind itself harbors the very thought patterns that most subjugate us).

— 04/02/2006 10:02 PM – SUBJECT: SUYO - Simple Undeniable Yank-proof OWNERSHIP! An Open Letter —
* Guru's Liar - Don Lancaster *

Mr. Don Lancaster,

I've started a blog at http://world1tours.com/wPress to promote a very simple monetary freedom idea.

In reading through your fascinating material I found a negative reference to things like geek-currency. Also, riskdown.pdf is an excellently sobering article on “The Idea Mortality Curve”. Nevertheless, the passion I have about my project keeps flaring up and your adroit insights frequently come to mind. So I've decided to write you.

The idea is to provide an unforgeable, undeniable, indestructible, thief-proof and basically cost free ownership of any digital document (which in turn could be a title to tangible objects or ownership in an enterprise, etc.). Ownership is effected through digital signatures (of both the originator and recipient) as provided by the well established and popular private/public key technology. These ‘ownership files’ are maintained in a highly accessible database open to anyone on the Internet. This ownership principle well lends itself to monetization, and thus avails some truly marvelous possibilities.

— 04/02/2006 09:58 AM — SUBJECT: Open Letter to RMS - was: World's first GNU.hope Gesture —
* Stallman's Personal Page *

on 01/28/2006 Richard M. Stallman wrote:

> Please do keep working on a simple,
> brief, nontechnical way to explain
> the idea. If you can produce that,
> then people could get interested
> in using the idea.

Dear Sir,

— 03/31/2006 02:50 AM – SUBJECT: Open Letter to Philip R. Zimmermann on a yet more rational future —
* Phil Zimmermann's Personal Web Site *

Hello Mr. Philip R. Zimmermann,

When your PGP was introduced on the Internet, I was actually most impressed with the ramifications implied by the signatory aspects of the secret-public key technology. A simple ownership principle immediately occurred to me in which (PGP) private key signatures could be employed to realize an unforgeable, undeniable, indestructible, thief-proof proprietorship basically cost free. Hence I've been anxiously poised 15 years waiting to jump on the bandwagon once something developed in this area. My patience ran out and I started a blog which advocates a simple plan to monetize anything based upon the ownership principle mentioned above. I am convinced that PGP's part in realizing a new era of monetary freedom could well represent a contribution to our global society which even surpasses that deservingly enjoyed by private communications.

Read all the details on my blog which can be accessed at:
http://world1tours.com/wPress

— 03/31/2006 01:25 AM — SUBJECT: Monetary Freedom & PGP - An open Letter to Jon Matonis —
* Mr. Matonis' classic paper from days gone by. *

Dear Jon W. Matonis,

I have a blog which advocates a simple plan to monetize anything that can be ‘owned’. Ownership in this case is based on (PGP) private key signatures and is thus unforgeable, undeniable, indestructible, thief-proof and basically cost free.

I wanted to notify you that the first quote in my blog just happens to be from your 1995 paper titled “Digital Cash & Monetary Freedom”. But I thought I'd research your name a bit before sending you this email. Guess what - there is this guy running around with your name who just happens to be the president and chief executive officer for Hush Communications. If you and him are one and the same that's ... impressive. It's particularly interesting for the following reason. I am thoroughly convinced that this idea could well elevate the signatory aspects of secret-public key technology into being much more celebrated than even its popularity for private communications. The initial plan is to focus on the technical types (particularly the free software movement) since they should be able to readily handle the technology, concepts, and morality involved. Once a revolution is realized in this sector, it would then be time to introduce it to the masses and then HUSH could be there to greatly facilitate in making the whole process practical, painless, and phenomenally popular.

— Tue Mar 28 15:51:42 2006 — what's in a name? —

This is a surprisingly heavy subject and has received an inordinate quantity of thought. Nevertheless I find little to expound on which promises to make this post our smallest to date. I probably carefully considered a score names but can only remember one now - “OnRecord” (OR for short). As a point of curiosity, I originally wrote up showMe.html using the name “GNU-foo”. Just before forwarding it to my hero, I did a little investigation on the Internet regarding that term (with hopes that it was not much used) and consequently discovered how naive I'd been. GNU.hope did not rhyme (with itself) but said a lot more than “GNU-foo”. Also I very much liked the sound of giving someone GNU.hope (thanks to the obvious sentiment conveyed). My main hesitation was that “hope” seemed a bit weak (as in ‘hoping 'n wishing’). Also while “hope” is only one syllable (a big positive), I'd still prefer less than four letters just to minimize the written size. To help address that concern I decided to swap the original hyphen (-) with a period (.) which proved to be esthetically nice as well.

That brings us to the “GNU” part. OK, after gawking at this screen for about an hour let me simply put it like this: For me, the people behind GNU and the whole free software phenomena represents the most avant-garde, beautifully courageous warriors on this planet. Moreover, this movement holds the most realistic hopes of significantly accelerating the advancement of our race toward greater rationality - whether they're clueless of this role or not.

— Sat Mar 25 06:48:03 2006 – Original Gifts - no thief - no bank —

showMe.gpg was attached to my first email for Richard M. Stallman. This was showMe.html encrypted which I described as, “My letter outlining the promise of GNU.hope.” My third email asked, “… please read the document at show2.html, where I explain the whole idea in a manner as clean and forthright as my abilities permit.” Then the fourth post of this blog - For the Love of Money - delivered my third attempt at “… a simple, brief, nontechnical way to explain the idea.” Gauging from the reactions this effort gained, it is evident the third time was NOT the charm. Consequently, a fourth charge on that objective now follows:

GOAL: To find a means of awakening individuals to a new realm of realizing and sharing wealth. It's a purpose inspired by an aching need as manifested in a few examples: 1) The Great Depression of the 1930's, 2) Nazi Germany's immensely injurious inflation a bit later, 3) current savage poverty in the rural areas of 3rd world countries, 4) a ‘capital crunch’ inhibiting the accrual of rewards dearly deserved by those magnificent pioneers forging a brave new future through free software (along with hundreds of other great causes). While these may appear as diametrical cases they all spring from the exact same basic flaw - a people being overly dependent on a proprietary monetary system. Hence no alternatives exist in the face of disastrous manipulations or simply when money outside traditional capital streams is scarce. Considering how fine the corporate Federal Reserve has flourished in spite of (or thanks to) the Depression, and the grand showing of the German Mark in post war times, it is difficult to envision the monetary status quo receding from prominence without a truly major revolution (transformation) of mind. That revolution dear reader is our goal.

— Sun Mar 19 17:34:14 2006 – For the Love of Money II —

Note: the following comments are extracted from two email messages sent to me from Alan Newman regarding my post - “For the Love of Money”. Normally this would simply be a comment to the original article. In this instance however, I feel the extent of the comments and responses they merit justify a new separate post.

___________________

Alan: This may seem strange, but I find the links are a bit confusing. As I follow the look here link for more ideas on how to use the compliments, I found a reference ... which claims anyone can easily view the first compliment from you to RMS, but I can not now find a copy of that compliment to view from any of these links! I know this stuff is never easy to construct, but I'm just pointing out weaknesses I am experiencing with it (not as criticism, but more as a bug report).

— Fri Mar 17 10:04:41 2006 — Loving Mommy More than Truth —

We've previously cited the vital increases of production via the division of labor and cooperative effort.  For a more primordial perspective the word “production” might better be replaced with “subsistence” or even “survival”.  Yet before addressing the dominant bearing money has on these fundamental means of sustaining human existence;  we should first note that (like it or not) both are social (others oriented) phenomenon.  So from conception to the casket ‘others’ are a very real life & death determinant.  The significance of this is greatly amplified when one considers that our ‘survival instinct’ or ‘will to live’ is persuasively rumored to be the most ingrained cardinal commander of our strongest impulsions.  The preceding will hopefully help account for a human propensity found in a quote I encountered just yesterday - namely:
    When I was seven years old, I was once reprimanded by my mother for an act of collective brutality in which I had been involved at school.  A group of seven-year-olds had been teasing and tormenting a six-year-old.  “It is always so,” my mother said.  “You do things together which not one of you would think of doing alone.”  ...  Wherever one looks in the world of human organization, collective responsibility brings a lowering of moral standards.  The military establishment is an extreme case, an organization which seems to have been expressly designed to make it possible for people to do things together which nobody in his right mind would do alone.
                -- Freeman Dyson, Weapons and Hope

Note that Dyson is suggesting that the same basic principle operant in a spontaneous episode involving a few seven-year-olds also applies to thousands of men in their prime totally immersed into a tightly controlled, highly regimented, patently propagandic environment.  Well to that I'd just have to say -- pretty perceptive!  Then there is that phrase of his.....

— Wed Mar 15 11:21:03 2006 – Money is an invention —

Money is an invention.  Whereas vital increases of production via the division of labor (specialization) or per cooperative efforts (economy of scale) are simply observed consequences.  No money is necessary for neighbors to avoid a fatal failure by bartering wares or working together to easily accomplish an otherwise daunting task for just one person.  But as soon as the scope of interactions increase much, then either money, slavery, or both have been needed to further accelerate exhilarating productivity gains.

A magnificent mass of material is available that substantially covers the history and theory of this great invention - we consequently need not develop nor extend this work further.  Our objective instead is merely to look about and perceive the ramifications of well developed technologies as they relate to a new area of freedom to be ‘underwritten’ by liberated monetization.  The essence of this is, of course, liberation of mind (will/choice) - since nothing is monetized until you choose to perceive it as such (and use it as money).

— Fri Mar 10 07:04:08 2006 – Indisputable, forge & thief proof ownership —

Indisputable, unforgeable, thief proof ownership is an untapped ramification inherent in public-private key encryption technology. This leads to a simple obvious means for us to realize wealth while advancing security, dignity, and freedom. In view of what passes for money today, there is good reason to expect that rational empowering alternatives could be embraced. The advancement of this hope is the raison d’être for this blog.

Our blog's named Monetize - yet my impetus is not to personally monetize anything. I believe that mankind's second greatest invention is money - however I know of no national currency worthy of endorsement. The values driving the free software movement directly expedite liberation from grievous fallacies - nevertheless a straightforward means to reward avant-garde warriors is patently lacking.

So here is the plan. Let's say that you wish to recognize some particularly deserving individual. You simply write up your thoughts (or offer) and then sign the text using your private key. Next you send this to your recipient. If this person wishes to take ownership of your gesture, they will then verify your signature and sign the whole thing using their private key. Next this file with it's uniquely identifying name (UID) is posted to a highly accessible public data base (GRW). These simple actions have created a mutually agreed upon ownership that is indisputable, unforgeable, and thief proof. And while nothing has been monetized as yet, a fertile robust stage has certainly been set to do so. The file will be effectively monetize as soon as it changes ownership for some consideration (with no limit to the number of times this could occur).
    The original text you created could have been a mere compliment or something more substantive like a redeemable coupon - it's only limited by our collective imagination. For instance, one could easily grant interest in an enterprise, or you might just write to a performer and promise to buy a ticket when they do a concert in your city. If said performer collects (becomes owner of) sufficient numbers of these endorsements, then the raw appreciation of their fans could be literally bought up by a promoter who'll sponsor a concert in return for having the commitment of hundreds or thousands of fans in advance. Look here for more thoughts along these lines.
    Now before something like the above could become a big reality we'd be looking at a google size data base with an enormous amount of traffic. This would insinuate the participation of 3rd party service providers to make the process readily available to the masses. Long before that however, a great service could be bestowed upon the more technically inclined who will be responsible for fueling the initial popularity and advancement of this new freedom based form of ownership & monetization.

— Mon Mar 6 12:29:35 2006 – Some philosophy on phraseology & one example of actual/real monetization. —
* Chinese Pu - Symbolic of Monetary History *

Yes, we're overdue on “... a simple, brief, nontechnical way to explain the idea.” I'm postponing that a bit nevertheless, and will instead elaborate on the now sadly common bad phraseology of 'monetizing' a Blog (etcetera).

First, I've found two more definitions (from www.answers.com) namely:

American Heritage Dictionaries

mon  ·e  ·tize
tr.v., -tized, -tiz ·ing, -tiz ·es.
1. To establish as legal tender.
2. To coin (money).
3. To convert (government debt) from securities into currency that can be used to purchase goods and services.

— Sun Mar 5 14:33:11 2006 ~ Why mix ‘success philosophy’ with our Monetize theme. —

It's been over 55 hours since I started my previous post - more than twice as long as I'd hoped for.

In looking over causes for the delay I can find nothing noteworthy. What is interesting however, is the motivation I felt once it was time to continue our blog. This is particularly significant since I have acute concerns regarding my ability to keep this blog going. So the motivation I experienced despite a relentless headache encouragingly weighs in on the optimistic side of things.

If you're wondering, “OK, but what in the world does this have to do with the purported main theme of the blog - namely monetization?”; then I'm really quite elated that you're ‘calling’ me on this, as nothing could be more critical to deal with right now. I'm convinced that I couldn't possibly have anything to say that would be more crucial than the Monetize theme (and my proposed means to realize a new era regarding this particular field of abstraction). However, there are private challenges looming over me that I simply cannot afford to ignore (any longer). If addressing personal issues on this kind of blog seem pretty inappropriate to you, then we are in agreement.

— Fri Mar 3 07:29:21 2006 – This is the first and hopefully the worse post that I'll ever make to the Monetize blog! —
* Explore the inspiring eye of Photographer Julian Cash *

Well, this is it - the start of my precious blog!

Upon awaking this morning I was greeted by a fresh kindly inspiration which promised that today was a grand time to launch my damn blog. Nevertheless, I have a dozen fine reasons NOT to begin this just yet. After all, it was only yesterday that I got WordPress installed on my WEB site. And while I'm not the perfectionist that some like to accuse me of being, I do like to do things (half-way) right. And several matters are (quite honestly) not up to my normal standards. For instance, I'd ordinarily insist on doing a unique customized look for this blog (WordPress and others provide a presumably rich array of ‘Theme Resources’ but I'd still need to develop my own). Not to mention .....

Yet in spite of all my good excuses it occurred to me that the struggles involved in developing my material and organizing a clear vision could itself be worthy blog content. Besides, today's date seemed modestly momentous. It's another day between the birthdays! The first was August 11 - the date between my daughter's birthdays and a favorite day to share some special time with my girls. While March 3 falls between the birthday of my sister Sue and my cuñada. Does that mean I'm into ‘magic’? Definitely YES, but not in the way 666 out of 777 would ever guess.

Anyway, the above should suffice as the first chapter of an ongoing personal introduction.

So this is — “Monetize” (Regarding our 2nd greatest invention)

Table of Contents


Introduction

Details

Observations

Anticipated Questions

Definitions