The Sovereign Individual, 20 Years Later…

sovind

Synopsis: The government is nothing more than a big fat stationary bandit that robs productive citizens to feed the welfare state. In the Information Age, the cognitive elite will take their business to cyberspace, under whatever jurisdiction they choose. Taxation can then become a voluntary exchange where the provision of protection is a business service, not a racket.

The Sovereign Individual was published in 1996. The first time I encountered it, I dismissed the authors as crackpot megalomaniacs. Two decades later, replace “welfare state” with “special-interest groups” and the predictions are not so ridiculous.

Forget Prostitution: Violence is the oldest profession

For 99% of human existence, hunter-gatherers assembled in tribes. Violent conflicts were usually resolved with the weaker group running away. Then came the Neolithic Age and agriculture. Farming created stationary capital, which presented an opportunity for theft. Those who didn’t farm could take up a career in violence to protect or plunder. Sometimes there was competitive plundering, or anarchy. In denser regions, warriors would organize a local monopoly of theft, protecting against outside marauders while stealing from their subjects. This is also known as government.

Governance was decentralized. Constrained by transportation and communication, even kings and pharaohs recognized their dependence on local authorities. This type of feudalism lasted until the Industrial Revolution.

Farmers are invested in their land, but factories require huge capital outlay and infrastructure. This upped the stakes for protection. Not only were industrial mills ripe for looting, machines also turned unskilled workers into taxable entities. Previously, rulers had to negotiate with powerful landlords to extract protection payment, because peasant incomes were not worth the cost of individual collection. While a cohesive nobility had the power to resist extortion, the scattered private citizens did not.

And that brings us to today.

Welcome to Galt’s Gulch

At the time of The Sovereign Individual’s publishing, cryptography was a regulated munition and DigiCash was gonna turn the internet into a tax haven. The authors thus urge productive citizens to move their business to “cyberspace”. We don’t need to pay the government for protection — in the future, assets will be secured using “unbreakable encryption”.

The authors are wealth managers, not engineers. Temporarily allow magical internet technology to be assumed into existence.

Individual sovereignty not only means freedom from government theft, it also means freedom from wage slavery. And by wage slavery, the authors mean that employers won’t be held hostage by minimum wage laws or labor unions. [Magical internet technology] will turn corporations into an assembly of free-market contractors, also known as a decentralized autonomous organization. Presumably secured with unbreakable encryption.

The authors of course acknowledge Oliver Williamson’s theory of the firm: Market negotiations are expensive, employee turnover is expensive. Modern corporations exist because a long-term employment contract reduces transaction and coordination costs. BUT! Self-sovereign organizations will use [magical internet technology] to automate these costs away. And organizational slack will be curtailed with mass surveillance. So, basically it’ll look like the inside of an Amazon warehouse today.

Free-Market Protection

Sovereign individuals still need some protection, of course. Encryption can’t protect us from physical assault, or morally repugnant things like universal health care.

People will learn to see themselves as customers of protection rather than wards of the nation-state. As customers, they can emigrate to any jurisdiction they like. The book recommends Switzerland, Singapore, and Hong Kong. Eventually we’ll see a proliferation of sovereign mini-states, like the feudal towns offering refuge to citizens of the pale.

Self-sovereigns are already working on alternatives to nation-states. Peter Thiel has his seasteading project, Larry Page has Google Island, Elon Musk is gonna colonize Mars, and Tim Draper wants to vivisect California to make Silicon Valley a ministate.

Capitalists can stop worrying about the tyranny of workers: It’ll be easy for the cohesive nobility to fight labor unions from the safety of Peter Thiel’s floating raft.

Thielville
Thielville

Missing Pieces

The authors expect that maybe 1% of the global population will accumulate enough wealth for individual sovereignty. If the aristocracy flees to Galt’s Gulch and abandons the underclass, how do they remain wealthy? What are they producing? Are they deploying capital to the hinterland and reaping returns from autonomous corporations? Who is buying their products? Are they simply circulating goods amongst themselves at increasing prices? Is this how art markets work? Is that how wealth is created?

The authors don’t propose a solution for what they call “constituencies of losers”, but those who worry about the future of the United States should remember that the future need not include the United States. Worrying about the fall of Rome would not have stopped the fall of Rome, and peasants ended up better off as freeholders anyway. During the Middle Ages, the clergy worried about the loss of church power and banned the printing press. It was the Protestant Reformation that pushed Western civilization into the modern age.

Unfortunately, we haven’t seen an exodus of the 1%. In fact, international “customers of protection” seem to be taking their business here.

The authors portray the USG as a burgeoning autocracy that brutalizes the wealthy, but everyone knows that rich people don’t pay taxes. Why would they need the government for protection? They can hire private security detail. You know, like lobbyists and high-powered lawyers.

Knight in shining armor, available for hire to the highest bidder!
Knight in shining armor, available to the highest bidder!

Maybe the other jurisdictions aren’t as nice to live in. Moving to Mars sounds pretty awful, as a matter of fact. Maybe we can use Thiel’s ocean rig as a penal colony, kind of like how Britain shipped all their convicts to America* (and then Australia, after the Revolution). State hospitals can send the homeless to Google Island, instead of shipping them to San Francisco like they currently do.

Everyone else can move to the blockchain.

*Only a quarter of colonial immigrants arrived with their freedom.

Google Doesn’t Believe in Privacy, episode 4772

Last night, I did a Google search in an incognito window. Twelve hours later, Groupon sent me an email with my search term in the subject line.

This was the first email I’d received from them in years. How did this happen? Nevermind the terrible life choices that led me to have a Groupon account in the first place.

For those who are curious, I searched for “Rosetta Stone v. Google”, a case where Rosetta Stone sued Google for displaying counterfeit-“Rosetta Stone” software ads.
For those who are curious, I searched for “Rosetta Stone v. Google”, a case where Rosetta Stone sued Google for displaying counterfeit-“Rosetta Stone” software ads. This is the email I got shortly thereafter.

Hints:

  • The Groupon email went to an address that isn’t hosted by Gmail.
  • Ads are blocked.
  • Cookies are blocked.
  • A Groupon employee was not standing behind my shoulder.

Ready for the answer? It’s in this sequence of events.

  • I log into my Groupon account. Could have been years ago, doesn’t matter.
    The Groupon website runs Google Analytics (GA). GA is a tracking script that creates a fingerprint for my browser and sends it to Google (more on browser fingerprinting).

    Groupon sets a UserId in the tracking script. Maybe UserId is my email, maybe it’s my name. It serves as a shared key between Groupon and GA, so Groupon can always identify me in GA’s data collection.

  • I log into Twitter. And Bank of America, Zenefits, HealthCare.gov. Each one runs a GA script, each one uploads their local UserId for my fingerprint. GA adds all these UserIds to my profile, along with a record of my interactions on each site.
    I traipse the internet with reckless abandon, leaving dirty fingerprints everywhere. 75% of the 100k most highly-trafficked sites run a GA tracking script.
  • My laptop is destroyed. Oops!

    I buy a new computer, install a fresh browser. I have a completely different fingerprint. Am I safe?

    Nope. I log into Twitter, which uploads my old UserId along with a new fingerprint. Google learns about the new device and associates it with the old one. There is no discontinuity in data collection.

  • Time passes. Last week, my mother forwards a Groupon to me because she doesn’t know how Groupon works. I click the link.

    Groupon doesn’t know I’m on their site, but Google does.

  • I do my search for Rosetta Stone v Google.
  • Groupon queues up their daily spam list.
    “Hey Google, we need a list of UserIds for recent web visitors who are in the market for some shitty items we’re shilling.”

    “Here they are, sorted by keyword!”

    “Thanks Google! Your valuable service more than justifies your $500 billion market cap.”

This last step could use some clarification.

Anyone who runs Google Analytics has access to a handy privacy-invasion dashboard. Here, we can filter users by demographics, interests, and other creepy criteria.

Screen Shot 2016-07-06 at 2.41.40 PM

A filter of my recent visitors shows that 12% of you are in the market for dating services. Don’t worry, I’m not judging anyone here; just abusing your privacy.

Google determines whether someone is In-Market based on their recent search queries and site interactions. In Google’s words, “they are researching products and are actively considering buying a service or product.” Maybe the users identified as “In the Market for Dating Services” have recently stopped by Match.com or Pornhub. Both run Google trackers.

Let’s look at these visitors.

Screen Shot 2016-07-06 at 4.29.02 PM

My users are shown as anonymous numbers because I don’t have any identifying info about them.

An employee at Twitter or Groupon, on the other hand, would see a list of personalized UserIds. The identifiers are linked to customer contact information in their own databases. When Groupon sees my UserId on the list, they send a targeted ad directly to my email.

Screen Shot 2016-07-07 at 12.03.36 AM

Most people generate so much noise with their internet activity that it’s hard to draw a clear connection between an action and an ad. I’ve been blocking all Google trackers for the last two years, but recently disabled the blocker to test some code. Google interpreted my sudden tracker activity as INTENTION TO SPEND MONEY. When Google discovers a user with commercial intent, it does whatever it can to make that user look at high-priced ads.

And that is how Google drives customer value, increases business performance, and ensures peace and prosperity for all.

Are you blocking trackers yet?

See Also:
1. Don’t Hate the Ad, Hate the Ad-Tracker
2. Facebook is just as shameless about abusing personal data. Richard Stallman has a good overview. (h/t Warren)
3. See everything that Google knows about you at My Activity.

Let’s Take a Cyber Squat

andy

Back in college, my friends bought web domains on classmates’ names and held them for ransom. The domain names redirected to increasingly offensive sites until tribute was paid. For about two weeks in 2001, elaineou.com went straight to goatse.

This is called domain squatting. Before Google completely destroyed any semblance of control over digital reputation, a vanity URL was proof of a person’s online existence. Today, digital reputation is encapsulated in a Google search query.

Organic search results are subject to Google’s editorial judgment [1], but sponsored results can come from anybody. What more, they’re triggered by whatever keywords the advertiser wants.

Consider my favorite victim, George. George is interviewing for jobs. Prospective employers who want to conduct a background check will enter his name into Google. To protect my friend from the oppression of wage labor, I place ads triggered by searches on his name.

george

Good luck with that job hunt, George.

Google displays up to four ads in a search result, pushing legitimate links below the fold. On mobile, four ads renders organic results way beyond the point of user attention.

Ads are reserved by bidding on a cost-per-click. The final price is one cent above the next-highest bid, and it’s only incurred if a customer clicks the ad. If I really want my ad to appear first, I’ll set a high max bid. It’s unlikely that someone will click on one of my terrible ads, so actual advertising costs will be low.

Trademarks and AdWords

People generally don’t use AdWords to be a dick. More commonly, an advertiser will bid on AdWords for a competing brand’s trademark. For example, a search for “GEICO” could turn up ads for State Farm and Progressive Auto Insurance.

Not only can an advertiser trigger ads based on someone else’s trademark, the advertiser can even use the trademark in the ad itself. This is great for Google: Encourage bidding wars between competing brands and drive up the cost-per-click.

Trademark owners have tried to sue over competitive keyword advertising, but rarely win. To prevail on a trademark infringement, the plaintiff must prove that the defendants’ ad causes consumer confusion. “Confusion” is measured by ad click-through-rate; ie, the number of times users clicked on the ad versus total impressions. Minimum click-through-rates to characterize “confusion” have ranged from 2.6% to 10% [2].

These cases never win because NO ONE EVER CLICKS ADS. Most ad viewers aren’t even human!

Publicity Rights

What about non-trademarked keywords? I didn’t actually place ads on George’s name, but search results for my own name turn up ads for Equidate.

eo

I don’t know what Equidate is (Tinder for horses, I presume?). Should I care that Equidate is trying to profit off my identity? Should I care that Google has sold my name as a keyword for ads?

In the US, we have something called a right of publicity, which is “the right of every person to control the commercial use of his or her identity [3].” It mostly comes up when a celebrity’s identity is used to imply endorsement. Like if I were to put Donald Trump’s face on a billboard for Imodium, for instance.

The fact that someone is using my name for AdWords suggests that it has some commercial value. But who owns it? My name is not unique in this universe; there might be a dozen of us out there. When someone violates my publicity rights, are they violating the publicity rights of all the Elaine-Ous? Should the Elaines join forces and file a class action lawsuit against Google?

Plaintiffs have brought AdWords lawsuits under state publicity rights laws. In Habush and Rottier v. Cannon & Dunphy [4], one Milwaukee law firm took out AdWords on the names of partners at a competing firm. Search queries for “Habush” or “Rottier” returned ads for the rival firm, Cannon & Dunphy. Being personal injury lawyers, Habush and Rottier sued Cannon & Dunphy, citing both publicity and privacy rights.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals decided in favor of the defendants, comparing the AdWords strategy to opening a Cannon & Dunphy branch office next to an established Habush, Habush & Rottier office. That’s called proximity advertising, and it’s fine.

bmw v audi

Internet law commentator Eric Goldman further supports the decision with an analogy to retail product placement [5]. Safeway places branded Cheetos next to generic store-brand cheese puffs. I frequently go to Safeway for the express purpose of buying Cheetos, only to leave with the store brand because it was cheaper. Frito-Lay might not like that, but that’s fine too.

Physical world comparisons are not fair. If Habush and Rottier really hate their new neighbor, they can pack up and move elsewhere. If Safeway decides to have branded Cheetos placed next to generic adult diapers, the manufacturer could stop distributing its product to Safeway’s retail outlet.

A person, or a trademark owner, cannot pack up their identity and remove it from Google. Privacy and publicity rights don’t always play well with Google’s First Amendment rights. The only real way to tamp down undesirable search results is to displace them by buying lots of ads, and placing higher bids than any unwanted advertisers.

Google wins again.

References:
1. Eugene Volokh, First Amendment Protection for Search Engine Search Results, 2012.
2. Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., No. 11-1258 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2012)
3. J. Thomas McCarthy, The Human Persona as Commercial Property: The Right of Publicity, 19 Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & Arts 129 (1995).

4. Habush v. Cannon, 2013 WL 627251 (Wisc. App. Ct. Feb. 21, 2013)
5. Goldman, Eric, Brand Spillovers. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 22, 2008; Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-01.

If you don’t know what “goatse” is, consider yourself blessed and move on.

China and 圓 and 元

Until the yuan, coins were minted with holes so they could be strung together by thousands.
Until the yuan, coins had holes so they could be strung together hundreds at a time. Cuz they were so worthless.

For thousands of years, the idea of China’s money as a unit of account was divorced from money as a store of value [1,2]. Precious metals were rare, and jade was the most valuable commodity available. But jade is worthless when divided into units of account, so it could never be both.

Gold, silver, jade, were things to be hoarded; copper coins and paper money were things to be spent [3].

When the Spanish arrived and brought silver coins as money, the Chinese were so impressed that they called them yuan 圓: “round” [4]. Prior to yuan 圓, silver had only exchanged in slug form, the boat shape stereotypically associated with wealth.

These slugs were called 元寶: "primary treasure".
These slugs were called 元寶: “primary treasure”.
圓   round
貝 is the word for “cowry”. Add a mouth 口 to a cowry and you have the character for “personnel”: 員. Draw a box around the person and you have yuan 圓, which means “round”. (etymology)
Spanish peso de ocho (pieces of eight): the first yuan.
Spanish peso de ocho (pieces of eight): the first yuan.

Silver pesos circulated in East Asia as unofficial currency until local governments issued their own. Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, and China all named their currencies after Spanish pesos. Yen, won, and yuan all mean “round”.

Mexican silver dollar, stamped by Chinese merchants after verifying weight and silver content.
Mexican silver dollar, stamped by Chinese merchants after verifying weight and silver content.
A Mexican dollar used as Japanese currency, marked with 改三分定 (fixed exchange of 3 分, the Tokugawa coin).
A Mexican dollar used as Japanese currency, marked with 改三分定 (fixed exchange of 3 分, the Tokugawa coin).
Japan adopted the silver yen in 1871.  L: 明治三年 · 一 圓 · 大日本 (Meiji 3 years · one yen · Empire of Japan)
Japan adopted the silver yen in 1871.
明治三年 · 一 圓 · 大日本 (Meiji 3 years · one yen · Empire of Japan)
光緒元寶 (Emperor Guangxu primary treasure).
China issued the first silver yuan in 1889.
光緒元寶 (Emperor Guangxu primary treasure).
Korea issued the first won in 1902. Denominations were 1/2 won (silver), 5, 10, 20 won (gold).
Korea issued the first won in 1902.

There was confusion over whether to write yuan as 圓 or 元. Both words are pronounced “yuan”. 元 comes from 元寶, the silver treasure boats. But the new silver was round!

China had low literacy, so the simpler 元 was adopted for written transactions, while 圓 became the character for printed currency.

In the 50s, traditional Chinese characters were abandoned for simplified characters as part of Chairman Mao’s plan to abolish Chinese altogether and adopt a global unified language governed by communists. That second part never happened. As a result, China ended up with a malformed instruction set that is as nonsensical to nationals as it is to foreigners.

References:
1. Richard von Glahn, Fountain of Fortune: Money and Monetary Policy in China, 1000-1700. 1996.
2. 管子: 乘馬
3. 管子: 揆度
4. 香港和中國貨幣單位的「員」、「圓」和「元」問題 –灼見名家
5. China and 錢

China and 錢

cyprea-mappa-pink-base

Humans have long been fond of cowry shells. Cowries have turned up in archaeological sites from Australia to Egypt to Germany, Russia, Scandinavia, and even North America. Some anthropologists attribute this global fancy to a cowry’s resemblance to the female reproductive orifice, and if that’s how they manage to convince themselves they’ve gotten to third base then okay sure.

Ancient Chinese believed that giving cowries to a woman improved fertility. The character for infant, 嬰, is a pictograph of two cowries above a woman. 貝 is cowry, 女 is woman.

The cowry 貝 forms the root component of many Chinese words associated with wealth and exchange:

則   law_cowry knife
rule, regulation, law. a cowry next to a knife. (etymology)
買   buy cowry net
buy, purchase. a net over a cowry. (etymology)
貪   greedy mouth now
greedy. a talking mouth and a cowry. 今 means “now”. (etymology)
賊   thief
thief. a cowry and a weapon and armor. (etymology)

By 6th or 7th century BC, the number of cowries in circulation could no longer keep up with economic expansion. Near the Yangtze River in the south, states started minting imitation cowries.

In the northeast and Shandong peninsula, states issued coins shaped like knives. Early knife coins looked much like real knives. They were called 化, a word meaning “conversion”: It’s a pictograph of a person 人 next to an upside-down person 匕. The knife coins were intended to convert into some other commodity. (The character for “commodity” is 貨, a conversion above a cowry).

Knife coin from Shandong, 5th century BC.
Knife coin from Shandong, 5th century BC.
齊佱化: "Qí standard conversion"  400 to 220 BC
齊佱化: “Qí standard conversion”. 400 to 220 BC

In the Yellow River valley, states issued coins shaped like gardening tools. Maybe they were even used as gardening tools. Some had hollow sockets to attach the tool to a handle.

Inscriptions in ceremonial bronze vessels refer to these coins as 布. 布 is the character for “cloth”, but these things are obviously not cloth. It’s possible that a spade coin represented a value equal to a bolt of cloth.

Early spade with hollow handle. In the lower half of the second column, you can barely see the character 貝.  c. 650-400 BC.
Early spade with hollow handle. In the lower half of the second column, you can barely see the character 貝. c. 650-400 BC.

Around 350 BC, states began to use standard weights to measure denominations. Coins were stamped with the character 釿, the word for hand-axe. It is an ideogram of metal 金 and axe 斤.

Zhou dynasty hand axe 釿. Actual weight of an axe blade: 200g. Weight of 釿 coins: 12g.  The ring is for tying the blade to the handle.
Hand axe 釿. The ring is for tying the blade to the handle.

The word for metal 金 is a pictographic bell. Other metal objects like weapons and jewelry existed before bells, but could be fashioned from other materials. Bells were recognizably metallic.

金 is the root component of many Chinese words for metal objects.

針   
needle. (etymology)
釦   
button. (etymology)
鈴   
bell. there’s that talking mouth again. (etymology)
錢   
qian, gardening spade. (etymology)

China was a big country with many different states minting their own currencies. Not everyone understood what a hand-axe 釿 was supposed to weigh. To keep things straight, some states cast coins with printed exchange rates.

梁重釿五十當爰. "Liang heavy hand-axe 50 equals Yuan," where Yuan is some currency in another state. This coin is twice the weight of standard 釿 coins, so "heavy 釿" is equivalent to two 釿.
梁重釿五十當爰. “Liang heavy hand-axe 50 equals Yuan,” where Yuan is some currency in another state – not to be confused with RMB 元. This coin is twice the weight of standard 釿 coins, so “heavy 釿” is equivalent to two 釿. c. 400 BC
殊布當釿
殊布當釿. “Special cloth equals hand-axe.” This coin represents the value of a bolt of cloth, and hand-axe is the 釿 denomination.
The back says 十化, “ten conversion,” where “conversion” is the 化 denomination that refers to knife coins or bronze cowries. c. 475-221 BC

Even back then, state officials didn’t believe in free-market exchange rates.

Once the hand-axe 釿 became a widespread unit of account, texts and inscriptions stopped referring to coins as “cloth” 布, but instead called them “spades” 錢.

So 錢 is the Chinese word for money today.

Reference:
彭信威, 中國貨幣史. 1967.

IMG_2715