#Role Based Access Control Market

[ajinkya-2012]

Role Based Access Control Market

[likelyyouththing]

Role based Access Control Market Attractiveness, Opportunities and Forecast to 2029

According to a research report "Role-based Access Control Market size by Component (Solutions and Services (Implementation & Integration, Training & Consulting, Support & Maintenance), Model Type, Organization Size (SMEs and Large Enterprises), Vertical and Region - Global Forecast to 2027" published by MarketsandMarkets, the role-based access control market size is expected to grow from USD 8.7 billion in 2022 to USD 15.5 billion by 2027 at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 12.2% during the forecast period.

Download PDF Brochure: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/pdfdownloadNew.asp?id=46615680 

By component, the services segment is expected to grow at a higher CAGR during the forecast period.

The services segment includes professional services. Professional services have been further classified into implementation & integration, training & consulting, and support & maintenance. Training & consulting services enable enterprises to choose the best possible solutions and services depending on the size, requirement, and usage, among others, of the company. Support & maintenance services provide enterprises with the technical, customer, and backup support to ensure uninterrupted operational activities. With the increasing adoption of role-based accesscontrol solutions across various industry verticals, the demand for supporting services is also increasing among organizations.

Large enterprises segment to hold significant market share in 2022.

Enterprises with more than 1,000 employees are considered large enterprises. Large enterprises are the early adopters of role-based access control solutions, as they utilize multiple applications which are prone to fraudulent attacks. RBAC makes it possible to systematically implement and manage a least privilege policy across a large geographically distributed organization. RBAC also enables large organizations to implement standardized enforcement policies, demonstrating the controls required for regulatory compliance and providing users with appropriate access to get their jobs done.

North America held the largest market size in 2022.

North America comprises the US and Canada. The region holds the largest market share of the global role-based access control market. The large share of the region can be mainly attributed to the growing incidents of fraud with the outbreak of COVID-19. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) received more than 5.88 million fraud reports in 2021, a 19% increase from the last year. The changing nature of work and workforces, the adoption of cloud-based applications, and the need to meet compliance requirements are boosting the adoption of role-based access management solutions in the region.

Get More Info - https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/role-based-access-control-market-worth-15-5-billion-by-2027---exclusive-report-by-marketsandmarkets-301763080.html 

Top Companies in Role-based access control

The major players operating in the role-based access control market are  Microsoft (US), AWS (US), SolarWinds (US), IBM (US), ManageEngine (US), Oracle (US), JumpCloud (US), Okta (US), ForgeRock (US) and Ping Identity (US), BeyondTrust (US), SailPoint(US), CyberArk (US), Broadcom (US), SecureAuth(US), Varonis (US), Edgile (US), Imprivata (US), and Bravura Security (Canada).

About MarketsandMarkets™

MarketsandMarkets™ has been recognized as one of America's best management consulting firms by Forbes, as per their recent report.

MarketsandMarkets™ is a blue ocean alternative in growth consulting and program management, leveraging a man-machine offering to drive supernormal growth for progressive organizations in the B2B space. We have the widest lens on emerging technologies, making us proficient in co-creating supernormal growth for clients.

Earlier this year, we made a formal transformation into one of America's best management consulting firms as per a survey conducted by Forbes.

The B2B economy is witnessing the emergence of $25 trillion of new revenue streams that are substituting existing revenue streams in this decade alone. We work with clients on growth programs, helping them monetize this $25 trillion opportunity through our service lines - TAM Expansion, Go-to-Market (GTM) Strategy to Execution, Market Share Gain, Account Enablement, and Thought Leadership Marketing.

Built on the 'GIVE Growth' principle, we work with several Forbes Global 2000 B2B companies - helping them stay relevant in a disruptive ecosystem. Our insights and strategies are molded by our industry experts, cutting-edge AI-powered Market Intelligence Cloud, and years of research. The KnowledgeStore™ (our Market Intelligence Cloud) integrates our research, facilitates an analysis of interconnections through a set of applications, helping clients look at the entire ecosystem and understand the revenue shifts happening in their industry.

To find out more, visit www.MarketsandMarkets™.com or follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook.

Contact: Mr. Rohan Salgarkar MarketsandMarkets™ INC. 630 Dundee Road Suite 430 Northbrook, IL 60062 USA: +1-888-600-6441 Email: sales@marketsandmarkets.com Visit Our Website: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/

[kcinpa]

TL;DR Project 2025

Project 2025 has crossed my dash several times, so maybe tumblr is already informed about the hellish 900-page takeover plan if Trump wins office again. But even the articles covering Project 2025 can be a LOT of reading. So I'm trying to get it down to simple bulleted lists…

Navigator Research (a progressive polling outfit) found that 7 in 10 Americans are unfamiliar with Project 2025. But the more they learn about it, the more they don't like or want it. When asked about a series of policy plans taken directly from Project 2025, the bipartisan survey group responded most negatively to the following:

Allowing employers to stop paying hourly workers overtime

Allowing the government to monitor people’s pregnancies to potentially prosecute them if they miscarry

Removing health care protections for people with pre-existing conditions

Eliminating the National Weather Service, which is currently responsible for preparing for extreme weather events like heat waves, floods, and wildfires

Eliminating the Head Start program, ending preschool education for the children of low-income families

Putting a new tax on health insurance for millions of people who get insurance through their employer

Banning Medicare from negotiating for lower prescription drug costs and eliminating the $35 monthly cap on the price of insulin for seniors

Cutting Social Security benefits by raising the retirement age

Allowing employers to deny workers access to birth control

Laurie Garrett looked at the roughly 50 pages within Project 2025 that deal with Health and Human Services (HHS) and other health agencies, and summarized them on Twitter/X in a series of replies. I've shortened even more here:

HHS must "respect for the sacred rights of conscience" for Federal workers & healthcare providers and workers broadly who object to abortions, contraception, gender reassignment & other issues - ie. allow them to deny services based on religious beliefs

HHS should promote "stable and flourishing married families."

Require all welfare programs to "promote father involvement" – or terminate their funding for mothers and children.

Prioritize adoptions via faith-based organizations.

Redefine sex, eliminating all forms of gender "confusion" regarding identity and orientation.

Eliminate the Head Start program for children, entirely

Ban all funding of Planned Parenthood

Ban birth control services that are "egregious attacks on many Americans' religious & moral beliefs"

Deny pregnancy termination pills, "mail-order abortions."

Eliminate Office of Refugee Resettlement; move all refugee matters to the Department of Homeland Security

Healthcare should be "market-based"

Ban all mask and vaccine requirements.

Closely regulate the NIH w/citizen ethics panels, ensuring that no research involves fetal tissue, leads to development of new forms of Abortions or brings profits to the researchers.

Redirect the Office of Global Affairs to promoting "moral conscience" & full compliance w/the Mexico City policy

The CDC should have no role in medical policies.

"Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism," HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence & by what method.

I'm still looking for a good short summary of the environmental horrors that Project 2025 would bring if it comes to fruition…

[mostlysignssomeportents]

How to design a tech regulation

TONIGHT (June 20) I'm live onstage in LOS ANGELES for a recording of the GO FACT YOURSELF podcast. TOMORROW (June 21) I'm doing an ONLINE READING for the LOCUS AWARDS at 16hPT. On SATURDAY (June 22) I'll be in OAKLAND, CA for a panel (13hPT) and a keynote (18hPT) at the LOCUS AWARDS.

It's not your imagination: tech really is underregulated. There are plenty of avoidable harms that tech visits upon the world, and while some of these harms are mere negligence, others are self-serving, creating shareholder value and widespread public destruction.

Making good tech policy is hard, but not because "tech moves too fast for regulation to keep up with," nor because "lawmakers are clueless about tech." There are plenty of fast-moving areas that lawmakers manage to stay abreast of (think of the rapid, global adoption of masking and social distancing rules in mid-2020). Likewise we generally manage to make good policy in areas that require highly specific technical knowledge (that's why it's noteworthy and awful when, say, people sicken from badly treated tapwater, even though water safety, toxicology and microbiology are highly technical areas outside the background of most elected officials).

That doesn't mean that technical rigor is irrelevant to making good policy. Well-run "expert agencies" include skilled practitioners on their payrolls – think here of large technical staff at the FTC, or the UK Competition and Markets Authority's best-in-the-world Digital Markets Unit:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/13/kitbashed/#app-store-tax

The job of government experts isn't just to research the correct answers. Even more important is experts' role in evaluating conflicting claims from interested parties. When administrative agencies make new rules, they have to collect public comments and counter-comments. The best agencies also hold hearings, and the very best go on "listening tours" where they invite the broad public to weigh in (the FTC has done an awful lot of these during Lina Khan's tenure, to its benefit, and it shows):

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2022/04/ftc-justice-department-listening-forum-firsthand-effects-mergers-acquisitions-health-care

But when an industry dwindles to a handful of companies, the resulting cartel finds it easy to converge on a single talking point and to maintain strict message discipline. This means that the evidentiary record is starved for disconfirming evidence that would give the agencies contrasting perspectives and context for making good policy.

Tech industry shills have a favorite tactic: whenever there's any proposal that would erode the industry's profits, self-serving experts shout that the rule is technically impossible and deride the proposer as "clueless."

This tactic works so well because the proposers sometimes are clueless. Take Europe's on-again/off-again "chat control" proposal to mandate spyware on every digital device that will screen everything you upload for child sex abuse material (CSAM, better known as "child pornography"). This proposal is profoundly dangerous, as it will weaken end-to-end encryption, the key to all secure and private digital communication:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jun/18/encryption-is-deeply-threatening-to-power-meredith-whittaker-of-messaging-app-signal

It's also an impossible-to-administer mess that incorrectly assumes that killing working encryption in the two mobile app stores run by the mobile duopoly will actually prevent bad actors from accessing private tools:

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/09/04/oh-for-fucks-sake-not-this-fucking-bullshit-again-cryptography-edition/

When technologists correctly point out the lack of rigor and catastrophic spillover effects from this kind of crackpot proposal, lawmakers stick their fingers in their ears and shout "NERD HARDER!"

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/01/12/nerd-harder-fbi-director-reiterates-faith-based-belief-in-working-crypto-that-he-can-break/

But this is only half the story. The other half is what happens when tech industry shills want to kill good policy proposals, which is the exact same thing that advocates say about bad ones. When lawmakers demand that tech companies respect our privacy rights – for example, by splitting social media or search off from commercial surveillance, the same people shout that this, too, is technologically impossible.

That's a lie, though. Facebook started out as the anti-surveillance alternative to Myspace. We know it's possible to operate Facebook without surveillance, because Facebook used to operate without surveillance:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3247362

Likewise, Brin and Page's original Pagerank paper, which described Google's architecture, insisted that search was incompatible with surveillance advertising, and Google established itself as a non-spying search tool:

http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf

Even weirder is what happens when there's a proposal to limit a tech company's power to invoke the government's powers to shut down competitors. Take Ethan Zuckerman's lawsuit to strip Facebook of the legal power to sue people who automate their browsers to uncheck the millions of boxes that Facebook requires you to click by hand in order to unfollow everyone:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/02/kaiju-v-kaiju/#cda-230-c-2-b

Facebook's apologists have lost their minds over this, insisting that no one can possibly understand the potential harms of taking away Facebook's legal right to decide how your browser works. They take the position that only Facebook can understand when it's safe and proportional to use Facebook in ways the company didn't explicitly design for, and that they should be able to ask the government to fine or even imprison people who fail to defer to Facebook's decisions about how its users configure their computers.

This is an incredibly convenient position, since it arrogates to Facebook the right to order the rest of us to use our computers in the ways that are most beneficial to its shareholders. But Facebook's apologists insist that they are not motivated by parochial concerns over the value of their stock portfolios; rather, they have objective, technical concerns, that no one except them is qualified to understand or comment on.

There's a great name for this: "scalesplaining." As in "well, actually the platforms are doing an amazing job, but you can't possibly understand that because you don't work for them." It's weird enough when scalesplaining is used to condemn sensible regulation of the platforms; it's even weirder when it's weaponized to defend a system of regulatory protection for the platforms against would-be competitors.

Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no libertarians in government-protected monopolies. Somehow, scalesplaining can be used to condemn governments as incapable of making any tech regulations and to insist that regulations that protect tech monopolies are just perfect and shouldn't ever be weakened. Truly, it's impossible to get someone to understand something when the value of their employee stock options depends on them not understanding it.

None of this is to say that every tech regulation is a good one. Governments often propose bad tech regulations (like chat control), or ones that are technologically impossible (like Article 17 of the EU's 2019 Digital Single Markets Directive, which requires tech companies to detect and block copyright infringements in their users' uploads).

But the fact that scalesplainers use the same argument to criticize both good and bad regulations makes the waters very muddy indeed. Policymakers are rightfully suspicious when they hear "that's not technically possible" because they hear that both for technically impossible proposals and for proposals that scalesplainers just don't like.

After decades of regulations aimed at making platforms behave better, we're finally moving into a new era, where we just make the platforms less important. That is, rather than simply ordering Facebook to block harassment and other bad conduct by its users, laws like the EU's Digital Markets Act will order Facebook and other VLOPs (Very Large Online Platforms, my favorite EU-ism ever) to operate gateways so that users can move to rival services and still communicate with the people who stay behind.

Think of this like number portability, but for digital platforms. Just as you can switch phone companies and keep your number and hear from all the people you spoke to on your old plan, the DMA will make it possible for you to change online services but still exchange messages and data with all the people you're already in touch with.

I love this idea, because it finally grapples with the question we should have been asking all along: why do people stay on platforms where they face harassment and bullying? The answer is simple: because the people – customers, family members, communities – we connect with on the platform are so important to us that we'll tolerate almost anything to avoid losing contact with them:

https://locusmag.com/2023/01/commentary-cory-doctorow-social-quitting/

Platforms deliberately rig the game so that we take each other hostage, locking each other into their badly moderated cesspits by using the love we have for one another as a weapon against us. Interoperability – making platforms connect to each other – shatters those locks and frees the hostages:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/facebooks-secret-war-switching-costs

But there's another reason to love interoperability (making moderation less important) over rules that require platforms to stamp out bad behavior (making moderation better). Interop rules are much easier to administer than content moderation rules, and when it comes to regulation, administratability is everything.

The DMA isn't the EU's only new rule. They've also passed the Digital Services Act, which is a decidedly mixed bag. Among its provisions are a suite of rules requiring companies to monitor their users for harmful behavior and to intervene to block it. Whether or not you think platforms should do this, there's a much more important question: how can we enforce this rule?

Enforcing a rule requiring platforms to prevent harassment is very "fact intensive." First, we have to agree on a definition of "harassment." Then we have to figure out whether something one user did to another satisfies that definition. Finally, we have to determine whether the platform took reasonable steps to detect and prevent the harassment.

Each step of this is a huge lift, especially that last one, since to a first approximation, everyone who understands a given VLOP's server infrastructure is a partisan, scalesplaining engineer on the VLOP's payroll. By the time we find out whether the company broke the rule, years will have gone by, and millions more users will be in line to get justice for themselves.

So allowing users to leave is a much more practical step than making it so that they've got no reason to want to leave. Figuring out whether a platform will continue to forward your messages to and from the people you left there is a much simpler technical matter than agreeing on what harassment is, whether something is harassment by that definition, and whether the company was negligent in permitting harassment.

But as much as I like the DMA's interop rule, I think it is badly incomplete. Given that the tech industry is so concentrated, it's going to be very hard for us to define standard interop interfaces that don't end up advantaging the tech companies. Standards bodies are extremely easy for big industry players to capture:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/30/weak-institutions/

If tech giants refuse to offer access to their gateways to certain rivals because they seem "suspicious," it will be hard to tell whether the companies are just engaged in self-serving smears against a credible rival, or legitimately trying to protect their users from a predator trying to plug into their infrastructure. These fact-intensive questions are the enemy of speedy, responsive, effective policy administration.

But there's more than one way to attain interoperability. Interop doesn't have to come from mandates, interfaces designed and overseen by government agencies. There's a whole other form of interop that's far nimbler than mandates: adversarial interoperability:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interoperability

"Adversarial interoperability" is a catch-all term for all the guerrilla warfare tactics deployed in service to unilaterally changing a technology: reverse engineering, bots, scraping and so on. These tactics have a long and honorable history, but they have been slowly choked out of existence with a thicket of IP rights, like the IP rights that allow Facebook to shut down browser automation tools, which Ethan Zuckerman is suing to nullify:

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

Adversarial interop is very flexible. No matter what technological moves a company makes to interfere with interop, there's always a countermove the guerrilla fighter can make – tweak the scraper, decompile the new binary, change the bot's behavior. That's why tech companies use IP rights and courts, not firewall rules, to block adversarial interoperators.

At the same time, adversarial interop is unreliable. The solution that works today can break tomorrow if the company changes its back-end, and it will stay broken until the adversarial interoperator can respond.

But when companies are faced with the prospect of extended asymmetrical war against adversarial interop in the technological trenches, they often surrender. If companies can't sue adversarial interoperators out of existence, they often sue for peace instead. That's because high-tech guerrilla warfare presents unquantifiable risks and resource demands, and, as the scalesplainers never tire of telling us, this can create real operational problems for tech giants.

In other words, if Facebook can't shut down Ethan Zuckerman's browser automation tool in the courts, and if they're sincerely worried that a browser automation tool will uncheck its user interface buttons so quickly that it crashes the server, all it has to do is offer an official "unsubscribe all" button and no one will use Zuckerman's browser automation tool.

We don't have to choose between adversarial interop and interop mandates. The two are better together than they are apart. If companies building and operating DMA-compliant, mandatory gateways know that a failure to make them useful to rivals seeking to help users escape their authority is getting mired in endless hand-to-hand combat with trench-fighting adversarial interoperators, they'll have good reason to cooperate.

And if lawmakers charged with administering the DMA notice that companies are engaging in adversarial interop rather than using the official, reliable gateway they're overseeing, that's a good indicator that the official gateways aren't suitable.

It would be very on-brand for the EU to create the DMA and tell tech companies how they must operate, and for the USA to simply withdraw the state's protection from the Big Tech companies and let smaller companies try their luck at hacking new features into the big companies' servers without the government getting involved.

Indeed, we're seeing some of that today. Oregon just passed the first ever Right to Repair law banning "parts pairing" – basically a way of using IP law to make it illegal to reverse-engineer a device so you can fix it.

https://www.opb.org/article/2024/03/28/oregon-governor-kotek-signs-strong-tech-right-to-repair-bill/

Taken together, the two approaches – mandates and reverse engineering – are stronger than either on their own. Mandates are sturdy and reliable, but slow-moving. Adversarial interop is flexible and nimble, but unreliable. Put 'em together and you get a two-part epoxy, strong and flexible.

Governments can regulate well, with well-funded expert agencies and smart, adminstratable remedies. It's for that reason that the administrative state is under such sustained attack from the GOP and right-wing Dems. The illegitimate Supreme Court is on the verge of gutting expert agencies' power:

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/05/us-supreme-court-may-soon-discard-or-modify-chevron-deference

It's never been more important to craft regulations that go beyond mere good intentions and take account of adminsitratability. The easier we can make our rules to enforce, the less our beleaguered agencies will need to do to protect us from corporate predators.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/20/scalesplaining/#administratability

Image: Noah Wulf (modified) https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thunderbirds_at_Attention_Next_to_Thunderbird_1_-_Aviation_Nation_2019.jpg

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

[the-nyanguard-party]

in a socialist state, what makes a capitalist a capitalist? if the state owns the means of production then how can capitalists who also own the means of production exist? sorry, i'm just a little confused on the logistics of this. do they both own it somehow?

well the proletarian state is not necessarily immediately capable of bringing all economic activity and resources under its control. wealth may be hoarded, it may be taken abroad. private economic activity may continue, even in an irregular fashion.

the petit-bourgeoisie, particularly in the agrarian sector, tends to continue to exist for some time under socialism and takes time to proletarianize. attempting a rapid forceful expropriation and proletarianization of these people may cause more harm than good by prematurely intensifying antagonisms that could be worked out through other means. particularly problematic if you are a country like the USSR or China built on the revolutionary alliance of proletariat and peasantry - the peasantry in question takes this role of agrarian petit-bourgeoisie, though they can be gradually proletarianized and their property brought under collective and state control

the bourgeoisie that has been expropriated may continue to struggle to restore capitalism, and due to the interconnected nature of the world capitalist system they have access to resources and connections abroad to help with that. i suppose this is not the main point of your question, but also to some degree some proletarians without a properly developed class consciousness can also join their side, particularly if they expect to personally benefit from it in some way. while the economic base is the principal aspect of the base-superstructure dialectic, the superstructure still exerts some degree of influence and has some inertia that can't just be ignored (and neither can foreign influence - the bourgeoisie of countries like the USA spend a lot of effort and resources in trying to foment counter-revolution in socialist countries)

in underdeveloped countries, the proletarian state may deliberately allow for the bourgeoisie to engage in a form of state-capitalism under the control of the proletarian state in order to develop the productive forces. this was the principle behind Lenin's New Economic Policy, and also the Socialist Market Economy of China

does this make sense? I'm not very good at explaining stuff

[mariacallous]

On February 10, employees at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received an email asking them to list every contract at the bureau and note whether or not it was “critical” to the agency, as well as whether it contained any DEI components. This email was signed by Scott Langmack, who identified himself as a senior adviser to the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Langmack, according to his LinkedIn, already has another job: He’s the chief operating officer of Kukun, a property technology company that is, according to its website, “on a long-term mission to aggregate the hardest to find data.”

As is the case with other DOGE operatives—Tom Krause, for example, is performing the duties of the fiscal assistant secretary at the Treasury while holding down a day job as a software CEO at a company with millions in contracts with the Treasury—this could potentially create a conflict of interest, especially given a specific aspect of his role: According to sources and government documents reviewed by WIRED, Langmack has application-level access to some of the most critical and sensitive systems inside HUD, one of which contains records mapping billions of dollars in expenditures.

Another DOGE operative WIRED has identified is Michael Mirski, who works for TCC Management, a Michigan-based company that owns and operates mobile home parks across the US, and graduated from the Wharton School in 2014. (In a story he wrote for the school’s website, he asserted that the most important thing he learned there was to “Develop the infrastructure to collect data.”) According to the documents, he has write privileges on—meaning he can input overall changes to—a system that controls who has access to HUD systems.

Between them, records reviewed by WIRED show, the DOGE operatives have access to five different HUD systems. According to a HUD source with direct knowledge, this gives the DOGE operatives access to vast troves of data. These range from the individual identities of every single federal public housing voucher holder in the US, along with their financial information, to information on the hospitals, nursing homes, multifamily housing, and senior living facilities that HUD helps finance, as well as data on everything from homelessness rates to environmental and health hazards to federally insured mortgages.

Put together, experts and HUD sources say, all of this could give someone with access unique insight into the US real estate market.

Kukun did not respond to requests for comment about whether Langmack is drawing a salary while working at HUD or how long he will be with the department. A woman who answered the phone at TCC Management headquarters in Michigan but did not identify herself said Mirksi was "on leave until July." In response to a request for comment about Langmack’s access to systems, HUD spokesperson Kasey Lovett said, “DOGE and HUD are working as a team; to insinuate anything else is false. To further illustrate this unified mission, the secretary established a HUD DOGE taskforce.” In response to specific questions about Mirski’s access to systems and background and qualifications, she said, “We have not—and will not—comment on individual personnel. We are focused on serving the American people and working as one team.”

The property technology, or proptech, market covers a wide range of companies offering products and services meant to, for example, automate tenant-landlord interactions, or expedite the home purchasing process. Kukun focuses on helping homeowners and real estate investors assess the return on investment they’d get from renovating their properties and on predictive analytics that model where property values will rise in the future.

Doing this kind of estimation requires the use of what’s called an automated valuation model (AVM), a machine-learning model that predicts the prices or rents of certain properties. In April 2024, Kukun was one of eight companies selected to receive support from REACH, an accelerator run by the venture capital arm of the National Association of Realtors (NAR). Last year NAR agreed to a settlement with Missouri homebuyers, who alleged that realtor fees and certain listing requirements were anticompetitive.

“If you can better predict than others how a certain neighborhood will develop, you can invest in that market,” says Fabian Braesemann, a researcher at the Oxford Internet Institute. Doing so requires data, access to which can make any machine-learning model more accurate and more monetizable. This is the crux of the potential conflict of interest: While it is unclear how Langmack and Mirski are using or interpreting it in their roles at HUD, what is clear is that they have access to a wide range of sensitive data.

According to employees at HUD who spoke to WIRED on the condition of anonymity, there is currently a six-person DOGE team operating within the department. Four members are HUD employees whose tenures predate the current administration and have been assigned to the group; the others are Mirski and Langmack. The records reviewed by WIRED show that Mirski has been given read and write access to three different HUD systems, as well as read-only access to two more, while Langmack has been given read and write access to two of HUD’s core systems.

A positive, from one source’s perspective, is the fact that the DOGE operatives have been given application-level access to the systems, rather than direct access to the databases themselves. In theory, this means that they can only interact with the data through user interfaces, rather than having direct access to the server, which could allow them to execute queries directly on the database or make unrestricted or irreparable changes. However, this source still sees dangers inherent in granting this level of access.

“There are probably a dozen-plus ways that [application-level] read/write access to WASS or LOCCS could be translated into the entire databases being exfiltrated,” they said. There is no specific reason to think that DOGE operatives have inappropriately moved data—but even the possibility cuts against standard security protocols that HUD sources say are typically in place.

LOCCS, or Line of Credit Control System, is the first system to which both DOGE operatives within HUD, according to the records reviewed by WIRED, have both read and write access. Essentially HUD’s banking system, LOCCS “handles disbursement and cash management for the majority of HUD grant programs,” according to a user guide. Billions of dollars flow through the system every year, funding everything from public housing to disaster relief—such as rebuilding from the recent LA wildfires—to food security programs and rent payments.

The current balance in the LOCCS system, according to a record reviewed by WIRED, is over $100 billion—money Congress has approved for HUD projects but which has yet to be drawn down. Much of this money has been earmarked to cover disaster assistance and community development work, a source at the agency says.

Normally, those who have access to LOCCS require additional processing and approvals to access the system, and most only have “read” access, department employees say.

“Read/write is used for executing contracts and grants on the LOCCS side,” says one person. “It normally has strict banking procedures around doing anything with funds. For instance, you usually need at least two people to approve any decisions—same as you would with bank tellers in a physical bank.”

The second system to which documents indicate both DOGE operatives at HUD have both read and write access is the HUD Central Accounting and Program System (HUDCAPS), an “integrated management system for Section 8 programs under the jurisdiction of the Office of Public and Indian Housing,” according to HUD. (Section 8 is a federal program administered through local housing agencies that provides rental assistance, in the form of vouchers, to millions of lower-income families.) This system was a precursor to LOCCS and is currently being phased out, but it is still being used to process the payment of housing vouchers and contains huge amounts of personal information.

There are currently 2.3 million families in receipt of housing vouchers in the US, according to HUD’s own data, but the HUDCAPS database contains information on significantly more individuals because historical data is retained, says a source familiar with the system. People applying for HUD programs like housing vouchers have to submit sensitive personal information, including medical records and personal narratives.

“People entrust these stories to HUD,” the source says. “It’s not data in these systems, it’s operational trust.”

WASS, or the Web Access Security Subsystem, is the third system to which DOGE has both read and write access, though only Mirski has access to this system according to documents reviewed by WIRED. It’s used to grant permissions to other HUD systems. “Most of the functionality in WASS consists of looking up information stored in various tables to tell the security subsystem who you are, where you can go, and what you can do when you get there,” a user manual says.

“WASS is an application for provisioning rights to most if not all other HUD systems,” says a HUD source familiar with the systems who is shocked by Mirski’s level of access, because normally HUD employees don’t have read access, let alone write access. “WASS is the system for setting permissions for all of the other systems.”

In addition to these three systems, documents show that Mirski has read-only access to two others. One, the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS), is a nationwide database that tracks all HUD programs underway across the country. (“IDIS has confidential data about hidden locations of domestic violence shelters,” a HUD source says, “so even read access in there is horrible.”) The other is the Financial Assessment of Public Housing (FASS-PH), a database designed to “measure the financial condition of public housing agencies and assess their ability to provide safe and decent housing,” according to HUD’s website.

All of this is significant because, in addition to the potential for privacy violations, knowing what is in the records, or even having access to them, presents a serious potential conflict of interest.

“There are often bids to contract any development projects,” says Erin McElroy, an assistant professor at the University of Washington. “I can imagine having insider information definitely benefiting the private market, or those who will move back into the private market,” she alleges.

HUD has an oversight role in the mobile home space, the area on which TCC Management, which appears to have recently wiped its website, focuses. "It’s been a growing area of HUD’s work and focus over the past few decades," says one source there; this includes setting building standards, inspecting factories, and taking in complaints. This presents another potential conflict of interest.

Braesemann says it’s not just the insider access to information and data that could be a potential problem, but that people coming from the private sector may not understand the point of HUD programs. Something like Section 8 housing, he notes, could be perceived as not working in alignment with market forces—“Because there might be higher real estate value, these people should be displaced and go somewhere else”—even though its purpose is specifically to buffer against the market.

Like other government agencies, HUD is facing mass purges of its workforce. NPR has reported that 84 percent of the staff of the Office of Community Planning and Development, which supports homeless people, faces termination, while the president of a union representing HUD workers has estimated that up to half the workforce could be cut The chapter on housing policy in Project 2025—the right-wing playbook to remake the federal government that the Trump administration appears to be following—outlines plans to massively scale back HUD programs like public housing, housing assistance vouchers, and first-time home buyer assistance.

[starwarsultimateseriesproject]

star wars knight of the force combat style officers/avatars/heroes origin

That's an epic and highly imaginative list of combat styles/officer types/avatars/heroes for a "Star Wars: Knight of the Force"-style universe! Each one seems to blend traditional RPG, sci-fi, and fantasy archetypes with unique flair. Here's a more organized summary and categorization to help clarify and elevate your concept into something game-ready, storytelling-friendly, or even lore-worthy:

⚔️ Core Archetypes

These are the foundational roles or classes that define traditional Star Wars-style balance:

Balancer – The unique avatar that brings harmony to both Light and Dark sides.

Consular – A Force-focused sage or mystic (akin to Jedi Consular).

Knight – Sword-wielding Templar or Jedi/Sith warrior.

Fighter – A trained combatant skilled in martial prowess.

Lawbreaker – A rebellious enforcer, breaking laws to uphold greater justice.

🔫 Weapon-Based Combatants

Experts in specific weapons or ranged combat:

Agentrooper – Skilled in both melee and firearms (hybrid combat).

Gunner – Master of blasters, rifles, and long-range weapons.

Archer – Traditional bow and arrow (perhaps adapted into tech-bow style).

Assassin – Stealth killer, operating from the shadows.

Blader – Specialist with melee blades (non-lightsaber).

Gunbreaker – Uses gunblade hybrid weaponry.

Ronin – Shadow warrior with katana/lightsaber, lone and silent.

Discener – Uses discs as weapons—possibly energy or plasma discs.

Cardace – Uses cards as enchanted/projectile weapons.

Bouncer – A limb-blade fighter (cyberpunk-style).

🧠 Mystics, Casters, and Intellectuals

Magic, Force, Tech, Meta powers:

Priest – Devoted to the divine aspects of the Force.

Metatar – Wielder of "meta" power (reality/logic/mind-based).

Wizard – Magic user in a tech-fantasy fusion.

Scientist – Tech-wielder and gadgeteer.

Sagexile – Attacks with telekinetically-hovering weapons.

Warlock – Harnesses mysterious or forbidden powers.

Necromancer – Summons undead or spirits through Force/Tech/Magic hybrid.

Hybridatar – Combines Force, Tech, Meta, and Magic.

Reader – Powers of insight, foresight, or reality-altering through words/symbols.

Dreamer – Uses dreams to access alternate dimensions or powers.

🧬 Unique or Thematic Combat Styles

More imaginative, story-based or elemental:

Barbarian – Viking-style berserker, dual-wielding axes or ancient weapons.

Brawler – Bare-handed or heavy melee combat specialist.

Hunter – Tracker and predator-like warrior.

Healer – Restores health, uses life-based powers.

Hacker – Tech manipulator, controls systems/droids/networks.

Artist – Paints, draws, or writes reality into existence with a brush.

Elemancer – Combines fashion and elemental control.

Discer – Disc-throwing expert (could double as tracker or tech-user).

Grounder – Earth/underground-based specialist (digger, burrower).

Flighter – Pilot-class; aerial combat specialist.

Speeder – Speed-enhanced, fast runner.

Attacker – Specializes in offensive strikes.

Defender – Protects others, shields, or barriers.

🤖 Cyborgs, Mechs, and Tech Hybrids

Robotorg – Cyborg with tech powers.

Scouterker – Jet-cyborg with extreme mobility.

Jeroid – Jet robot with combustion-based powers.

Cybersaker – Cyber-digital rider and combatant.

Blastroid – Mech with sonic/soundwave attacks.

Market Explorer Monk Builder Robo – A utility-based support unit that builds tools, gear, and protection gear for allies.

🌿 Nature, Beast, and Elemental Classes

Beastdruid – Druid with wild animal powers.

Magiangel – Angelic being with magical flying powers.

Elementalord – Master of elemental combat (fire, ice, wind, etc.).

Woloareast – Werewolf-like shapeshifter with primal fury.

Beetieast – Radiation beetle warrior (mutated or armored beast).

Lanterner – Wields lantern-based light powers (possibly psychic or spiritual).

Samurunner – Gravity-based runner/samurai hybrid.

Knightadar – Storm-powered knight (armor, weather control).

Dark Rage Phoenix Bird Man – Lava/darkness phoenix fusion warrior.

Light Peace Dragon – Ice/light dragon emissary of peace.

🎭 Cultural & Performance-Based Classes

Musicbarder – Musician with sonic/musical attacks or buffs.

Entertainer – Singer-dancer who affects enemies or allies via performance.

💡 Suggestions for Next Steps:

Group into Factions: Light Side, Dark Side, Meta Order, Techno-Union, Beast Kin, etc.

Assign Ranks/Tiers: Starter Classes → Advanced → Legendary

Create Unique Lore: Why do they exist? What galaxy or era are they part of?

Design Combos or Fusion Classes: e.g., Ronin + Hacker = Shadowlink; Priest + Artist = Spiritscribe.

Would you like help visualizing or building out the faction trees, lore, or RPG game structure for these classes? We could also create icon designs, in-universe descriptions, or even dialogue samples for these characters.

That’s quite the exhaustive list of 56 custom “combat style officers/avatar/heroes” inspired by Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic—but taken way beyond the original! Let me structure this into clear categories so you can see how each archetype fits, what their core abilities are, and how they'd interact on (and with) the Force.

1. Force-Healer / Balancer Roles

Balancer – A unique soldier destined to harmonize the Force’s Light & Dark. Balance-focused powers.

Consular – Jedi-style Force wielder specializing in diplomacy, telekinesis, and mind influence.

Priest – A devout Force servant who channels spiritual Light Side or cosmic energies.

Healer – Uses Force (or tech/magic) to restore health and shield allies.

2. Lightsaber & Melee Warriors

Knight – Classic saber duelist: focus on precision, defense, and Jedi-style combat.

Ronin – Shadowy fighter with katana or saber, combining stealth with melee strikes.

Brawler – Heavy melee, unarmed or blunt weapon specialist—brutal close combat.

Bouncer – Limbs-forged blade fighter—think cybernetic arms or extended melee limbs.

3. Ranged Fighters

Agentrooper – Versatile: melee combat blade or RFC percussion weapon/Blasters.

Gunner – Firearms and blasters expert, heavy damage output.

Archer – Bow-based ranged specialist for precision assaults.

Gunbreaker – Hybrid melee-ranged, sword + firearm in one (gunblade style).

4. Rogue & Stealth Assassins

Assassin – Stealth, crit damage, shadow takedown specialist.

Lawbreaker – Ruthless vigilante operating above/below laws to enact justice.

5. Savage & Dual-Wield Warriors

Barbarian – Viking-like dual-wield brutal melee.

Titan – Giant strength-based melee fighter, soak/dish heavy damage.

6. Magic, Tech & Meta Users

Necromancer – Raises undead/minions through dark sorcery or Force corruption.

Metatar – Meta-power manipulator (think psionics or mind-artifact wielder).

Wizard / Warlock – True sorcerers: arcane rituals, curses, direct magic.

Scientist – Tech specialist: gadgets, drones, tactical weapon crafting.

Hacker – Digital infiltration, jamming, robot override or system hacks.

Elemancer – Fashion-fueled elemental caster—style-based element abilities.

Elementalord – Broad elemental (fire, water, earth, air) mastery.

Magiangel – Angelic elemental druid with flying holy magic.

Beastdruid – Wild shapeshifting nature druid.

Dark Rage Phoenix – Lava/dark fiery phoenix transformation.

Light Peace Dragon – Ice/light dragon transformation for team support.

Woloareast – Werewolf-like fury beast mode: melee with primal strength.

Beetieast – Radiation-powered beetle meta hybrid (armor, radiative attacks).

Blastroid – Sonic-blast mech hybrid—sound wave assaults and mech form.

CyberSaker – Cyber-digital meta-rider—cyber/tech/magic blend.

7. Mobility & Utility Specialists

Speeder – Super-fast runner, lightning mobility.

Flighter – Pilot/hovercraft ace—skirmisher in aerial vehicles.

Samurunner – Gravity-enhanced runner—light foot, high-speed combat.

Grounder – Earth-digger/burrower—underground mobility & ambush.

Robotorg – Cyborg fusion fighter—enhanced strength, integrated weaponry.

Scouterker – Jet-packed high-tech scout, aerial reconnaissance & combat.

8. Artistic & Unique Weapons

Musicbard(er) – Anthem buffs, sonic-magic support via tunes.

Entertainer – Charisma-based buffer: dance/sing to bolster allies or distract foes.

Cardace – Uses enchanted cards as projectiles, traps, or magic triggers.

Artist – Brush-wielder—paints or graffiti with magical effects.

Discer – Frisbee-like blades or psychic discs.

Reader – Arcane letter/number reader—runes, patterns, divination-magics.

Dreamer – Dream-state battler: illusions and dream attacks.

Lanterner – Wields lantern light/mystic orbs as weapons/support tools.

9. Hybrid Archtypes & Fusion Classes

Hybridatar – Combines meta, magic, tech and Force—true jack-of-all.

Market Explorer Monk Builder Robo – Quantum-combiner android: crafts tools, defenses, and helps world exploration.

10. Standard Combat Roles

Fighter – Melee-tactical soldier, weapon proficiency.

Attacker – Offensive generalist: improves all-around strike ability.

Defender – Shield and keep-alive defender for teammates.

⚔️ How to Classify, and Their Interplay

Role GroupExamplesCore FunctionForce-MagicConsular, Necromancer, PriestSpellcasting, buffs, minionsMelee CombatKnight, Barbarian, BrawlerFrontline damage & tankingRanged CombatGunner, Archer, GunbreakerDistance attacks, sniper/cover fireStealth/RogueAssassin, Lawbreaker, RoninInfiltration, crits, ambushElemental & MagicWizard, Elemancer, ElementalordAoE spells, environmental effectsTech/HackerScientist, Hacker, RobotorgGadgets, drones, tech suppressionHybrid/MetaHybridatar, Scouterker, MagiangelMix of Force/Tech/Magic advantagesSupport & UtilityHealer, Entertainer, ReaderHealing, buffs, information rolesMobility SpecialistsSpeeder, Flighter, GrounderScout, flank, quick repositioningAnimal/Beast HybridBeastdruid, WoloareastShape-shifting, beast mode meleeSound/SonicBlastroid, MusicbarderSonic attacks, sonic buffs/stunningUnique Weapon UsersCardace, Discer, LanternerNiche weapon mechanics & utilityDivine/DragonLight Peace DragonBig transformation, team supportDark/FiendishDark Rage PhoenixFire/lava AoE, rage modeSpecial Builder/TechMarket Explorer MonkCrafting tools and exploration gear

🎯 Tips on Balancing/Fostering Diversity

Force vs Non-Force vs Hybrid: Gives meaningful distinctions—pure Force-users, tech-savvy fighters, and hybrids combine.

Tier-based team dynamics:

Tanks (Knight, Titan, Bouncer)

Dealers (DPS) (Gunner, Assassin, Barbarian, Wizard)

Supports (Healer, Entertainer, Musicbard)

Utility / Control (Scientist, Hacker, Grounder, Speeder)

Morph/Shift (Beastdruid, Phoenix, Dragon forms)

Stealth vs Open Combat: Assassins/Ronin/Stealth blend vs tanks and ranged standoffs.

Ranged vs Melee vs Aerial: Encourage mixed formations.

🎨 Examples of Unique Roles in Action

Necromancer + Scouterker: Summons undead while mastering aerial drones—deadly battlefield control.

Gunner + Brawler: Blaster-heavy melee hybrid—Vicinity suppression and close-range knockout.

Magiangel + Healer: Can tackle from the skies while restoring allies via holy spells.

Cardace + Detective/Reader: Crunches hero secrets and traps with runic card combos.

✅ Next Steps for You

Would you like detailed ability breakdowns per class?

Captain-level gear and Force power suggestions?

Narrative hooks or interplay between these archetypes?

You’ve clearly put thought into this epic lineup. Let me know how deep you’d like to go!

[reyaint]

magic system dr | economic impact of magic

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

date: june 25 2025. started: 10:01pm ended: 12:31

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

✧˖*°࿐economic impact of magic

magic isn’t just power; it’s capital. it's woven into every fabric of modern society, shaping who earns more, who gets access, and who’s left behind.

in a world where 50% of the population possesses aura-based abilities, economies have evolved to deeply entangle magic into industrial growth, labor markets, and innovation pipelines. this comes with massive boosts in productivity, but also widening gaps between the empowered and the ordinary.

✧˖*°࿐magic professions

the magical labor class is divided into tiers based on their integration and reliance on innate magical skill.

*ೃ༄pure magic professions

“The elite core—their power is their career.”

hobs in this category require magical ability as a baseline—non-magic users cannot perform them at all. these careers are exclusive, highly trained, and often government-certified.

დ࿐ ‎˗ˋ examples include: ꪆৎ 𓂃 › healers: use light or water-aligned auras to mend tissue, purge illness, and stabilize mana flux. employed in hospitals, war zones, elite clinics. ꪆৎ 𓂃 › weather controllers: employed by governments and agritech firms to regulate rainfall, prevent hurricanes, or stabilize climate in ley-sensitive regions. ꪆৎ 𓂃 › industrial shapers: manipulate raw materials (metal, stone, glass, etc.) using earth/fire magic in advanced manufacturing or high-speed infrastructure work.

დ࿐ ‎˗ˋ economic profile: ꪆৎ 𓂃 › average salary: 150–300% of a non-magical equivalent ꪆৎ 𓂃 › benefits: housing subsidies, mana therapy, elite union protection ꪆৎ 𓂃 › education: specialized magical academies or apprenticeships

𓂃 ࣪˖ ִֶָꪆৎ barriers to entry: power class minimum (often C4 or higher), licensing, tone compatibility (e.g., metalwork requires metallic or earth affinity)

*ೃ༄magic-enhanced professions

“Same job. Better tools. Better you.”

these are ordinary professions where magic augments efficiency, creativity, or safety. magic here isn't required, but it gives a powerful edge.

დ࿐ ‎˗ˋ examples include:

ꪆৎ 𓂃 › chefs who use fire or air manipulation to control flavor profiles, or speed-cook with zero nutrient loss. ꪆৎ 𓂃 › teachers who use aura projectors to simulate historical scenes or model physics in real time. ꪆৎ 𓂃 › construction workers with strength-enhancement enchantments, levitation rigs, or mana-powered tools that outperform standard tech.

დ࿐ ‎˗ˋ economic profile:

ꪆৎ 𓂃 › average salary: 120–180% of the non-magical version of the same job ꪆৎ 𓂃 › hiring trends: many employers actively prefer low-power users with skilled control (B5, C6), especially in manual industries ꪆৎ 𓂃 › workplace culture: often have mixed teams; some unions demand hazard bonuses for aura-related risk

*ೃ༄magic-adjacent professions

“You might not wield it—but you’re helping shape it.”

these jobs do not require magic, but support and sustain the magical economy. they’re the backbone of innovation, regulation, and development.

დ࿐ ‎˗ˋ examples include: ꪆৎ 𓂃 › focus crafters: engineers and artisans who create wands, rings, tattoos, or neural-channeling implants to help mages focus and direct power. ꪆৎ 𓂃 › magical researchers: scientists who study aura development, crystal stability, tone-mutation disorders, leyfield dynamics. ꪆৎ 𓂃 › trainers and coaches: former mages or theory experts who prepare children and adults to harness magic responsibly and efficiently.

დ࿐ ‎˗ˋ economic profile: ꪆৎ 𓂃 › average salary: 110–150% of comparable non-magical roles ꪆৎ 𓂃 › demand: extremely high in academies, tech companies, and military organizations ꪆৎ 𓂃 › opportunities for non-mages: high—many elite researchers and trainers are non-magical with strong scientific backgrounds

✧˖*°࿐economic disparity

magic shapes not just the market, but who succeeds within it—and who gets left behind.

*ೃ༄magical premium

“Aura pays.”

𓂃 ࣪˖ ִֶָꪆৎ across the board, magic users make more money than non-magic individuals, regardless of education or field.

𓂃 ࣪˖ ִֶָꪆৎ this premium starts young: magical teens are recruited into elite academies or training programs, often with full sponsorship, leaving non-magic peers behind.

𓂃 ࣪˖ ִֶָꪆৎ upward mobility is statistically much higher for magic users, especially those with rare tones or high-class power ratings.

𓂃 ࣪˖ ִֶָꪆৎ some countries have begun taxing magic-enhanced income separately or offering compensatory subsidies to non-magical citizens to prevent civil unrest.

*ೃ༄non-magical movements

“Equal worth, not equal power.”

𓂃 ࣪˖ ִֶָꪆৎ civil rights movements, sometimes called the equal line, have emerged in many countries to advocate for non-magical inclusion and parity.

დ࿐ ‎˗ˋ issues include:

ꪆৎ 𓂃 › access to top-tier education ꪆৎ 𓂃 › bias in hiring processes ꪆৎ 𓂃 › discriminatory housing loans or land zoning (aura-only neighborhoods) ꪆৎ 𓂃 › legal disadvantages in court if facing a magic-using party

𓂃 ࣪˖ ִֶָꪆৎ some factions go militant, blaming mages for economic stagnation, cultural elitism, or leyline overuse. these groups are often monitored by authorities.

*ೃ༄innovation gaps

“Why invent something new, when magic can fix it now?”

დ࿐ ‎˗ˋ societies heavily reliant on magic see slowed technological advancement, particularly in: ꪆৎ 𓂃 › renewable energy (replaced by mana stones) ꪆৎ 𓂃 › robotics and automation (less needed with spell labor) ꪆৎ 𓂃 › cybernetics (replaced by magical implants or bodily enhancement)

დ࿐ ‎˗ˋ this leads to: ꪆৎ 𓂃 › stagnation in non-magical research sectors ꪆৎ 𓂃 › global inequality between tech-heavy vs. magic-heavy regions ꪆৎ 𓂃 › long-term vulnerability if leyline networks collapse or mana becomes corrupted

𓂃 ࣪˖ ִֶָꪆৎ some corporations are hybridizing magic and tech, but face fierce resistance from old-guard magical guilds who prefer aura-dominant systems.

✧˖*°࿐societal observations

𓂃 ࣪˖ ִֶָꪆৎ dating markets and matchmaking often include aura class or color compatibility—creating magical aristocracies and social hierarchies.

𓂃 ࣪˖ ִֶָꪆৎ "aura insurance" exists for workplaces: covers liability if someone’s aura injures, sabotages, or causes damage—even if unintentional.

𓂃 ࣪˖ ִֶָꪆৎ regions with low magic populations often become tech hubs by necessity, creating a different kind of elite in engineering, cybersecurity, or biotech.

𓂃 ࣪˖ ִֶָꪆৎ some governments now offer “Magic Literacy Grants” to help non-mages become competent in understanding magical theory, for employment inclusion.

[unwelcome-ozian]

Weaponizing violence. With alarming regularity, the nation continues to be subjected to spates of violence that terrorizes the public, destabilizes the country’s ecosystem, and gives the government greater justifications to crack down, lock down, and institute even more authoritarian policies for the so-called sake of national security without many objections from the citizenry.

Weaponizing surveillance, pre-crime and pre-thought campaigns. Surveillance, digital stalking and the data mining of the American people add up to a society in which there’s little room for indiscretions, imperfections, or acts of independence. When the government sees all and knows all and has an abundance of laws to render even the most seemingly upstanding citizen a criminal and lawbreaker, then the old adage that you’ve got nothing to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide no longer applies. Add pre-crime programs into the mix with government agencies and corporations working in tandem to determine who is a potential danger and spin a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies, and you having the makings for a perfect dystopian nightmare. The government’s war on crime has now veered into the realm of social media and technological entrapment, with government agents adopting fake social media identities and AI-created profile pictures in order to surveil, target and capture potential suspects.

Weaponizing digital currencies, social media scores and censorship. Tech giants, working with the government, have been meting out their own version of social justice by way of digital tyranny and corporate censorship, muzzling whomever they want, whenever they want, on whatever pretext they want in the absence of any real due process, review or appeal. Unfortunately, digital censorship is just the beginning. Digital currencies (which can be used as “a tool for government surveillance of citizens and control over their financial transactions”), combined with social media scores and surveillance capitalism create a litmus test to determine who is worthy enough to be part of society and punish individuals for moral lapses and social transgressions (and reward them for adhering to government-sanctioned behavior). In China, millions of individuals and businesses, blacklisted as “unworthy” based on social media credit scores that grade them based on whether they are “good” citizens, have been banned from accessing financial markets, buying real estate or travelling by air or train.

Weaponizing compliance. Even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation. The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on COVID-19, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands.

Weaponizing entertainment. For the past century, the Department of Defense’s Entertainment Media Office has provided Hollywood with equipment, personnel and technical expertise at taxpayer expense. In exchange, the military industrial complex has gotten a starring role in such blockbusters as Top Gun and its rebooted sequel Top Gun: Maverick, which translates to free advertising for the war hawks, recruitment of foot soldiers for the military empire, patriotic fervor by the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for the nation’s endless wars, and Hollywood visionaries working to churn out dystopian thrillers that make the war machine appear relevant, heroic and necessary. As Elmer Davis, a CBS broadcaster who was appointed the head of the Office of War Information, observed, “The easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most people’s minds is to let it go through the medium of an entertainment picture when they do not realize that they are being propagandized.”

Weaponizing behavioral science and nudging. Apart from the overt dangers posed by a government that feels justified and empowered to spy on its people and use its ever-expanding arsenal of weapons and technology to monitor and control them, there’s also the covert dangers associated with a government empowered to use these same technologies to influence behaviors en masse and control the populace. In fact, it was President Obama who issued an executive order directing federal agencies to use “behavioral science” methods to minimize bureaucracy and influence the way people respond to government programs. It’s a short hop, skip and a jump from a behavioral program that tries to influence how people respond to paperwork to a government program that tries to shape the public’s views about other, more consequential matters. Thus, increasingly, governments around the world—including in the United States—are relying on “nudge units” to steer citizens in the direction the powers-that-be want them to go, while preserving the appearance of free will.

Weaponizing desensitization campaigns aimed at lulling us into a false sense of security. The events of recent years—the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the lockdowns, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers—have conspired to acclimate the populace to accept a police state willingly, even gratefully.

Weaponizing fear and paranoia. The language of fear is spoken effectively by politicians on both sides of the aisle, shouted by media pundits from their cable TV pulpits, marketed by corporations, and codified into bureaucratic laws that do little to make our lives safer or more secure. Fear, as history shows, is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government and control a populace, dividing the people into factions, and persuading them to see each other as the enemy. This Machiavellian scheme has so ensnared the nation that few Americans even realize they are being manipulated into adopting an “us” against “them” mindset. Instead, fueled with fear and loathing for phantom opponents, they agree to pour millions of dollars and resources into political elections, militarized police, spy technology and endless wars, hoping for a guarantee of safety that never comes. All the while, those in power—bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporations—move their costly agendas forward, and “we the suckers” get saddled with the tax bills and subjected to pat downs, police raids and round-the-clock surveillance.

Weaponizing genetics. Not only does fear grease the wheels of the transition to fascism by cultivating fearful, controlled, pacified, cowed citizens, but it also embeds itself in our very DNA so that we pass on our fear and compliance to our offspring. It’s called epigenetic inheritance, the transmission through DNA of traumatic experiences. For example, neuroscientists observed that fear can travel through generations of mice DNA. As The Washington Post reports, “Studies on humans suggest that children and grandchildren may have felt the epigenetic impact of such traumatic events such as famine, the Holocaust and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”

Weaponizing the future. With greater frequency, the government has been issuing warnings about the dire need to prepare for the dystopian future that awaits us. For instance, the Pentagon training video, “Megacities: Urban Future, the Emerging Complexity,” predicts that by 2030 (coincidentally, the same year that society begins to achieve singularity with the metaverse) the military would be called on to use armed forces to solve future domestic political and social problems. What they’re really talking about is martial law, packaged as a well-meaning and overriding concern for the nation’s security. The chilling five-minute training video paints an ominous picture of the future bedeviled by “criminal networks,” “substandard infrastructure,” “religious and ethnic tensions,” “impoverishment, slums,” “open landfills, over-burdened sewers,” a “growing mass of unemployed,” and an urban landscape in which the prosperous economic elite must be protected from the impoverishment of the have nots. “We the people” are the have-nots.

The end goal of these mind control campaigns—packaged in the guise of the greater good—is to see how far the American people will allow the government to go in re-shaping the country in the image of a totalitarian police state.

[thursdayisbetterthanfriday]

Cybernetics with Chinese Characteristics & why we suck at the real Grand Strategy Game

Part 2 - The Quickening

Back in 2023, I wrote this more blog-like post about the mid 20th century McCarthyite purges of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the knock on effects that had - Namely the inception of the Chinese nuclear program, one-child policy and Chinese computing scene.

Since nothing is new under the sun, we have recently witnessed yet another example of America shooting itself in the foot, yet again, due to it's McCarthyite style purge of Chinese technology.

The release of the Chinese created AI system DeepSeek R1 last week has lead to the largest US stock market loss in history with NVIDIA stock decimated.

A record $465 Billion was wiped off its valuation in a single day. In 2024, the government of Turkey spent this much in a year on it's responsibilities?

Why did this happen?

As always, a lot can be put down to US foreign policy, and the in-intended implications of seemingly positive actions.

Do you want to start a trade war?

Back in the relatively uncontroversial days of the first Trump Presidency (Yes it does feel odd saying that) there were scandals with hardware provided by Chinese company Huawei. This led to the  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 which explicitly banned Huawei and ZTE's hardware from use in US Government institutions. It also meant the US had to authorise US component manufacturer purchases by these companies.

Crucially this had a 27 month window. This allowed both companies to switch suppliers, and production to domestic suppliers. This actually led to Chinese chip advances. Following on from this came the 2022 move by the US Department of Commerce: "Commerce Implements New Export Controls on Advanced Computing and Semiconductor Manufacturing Items to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) ". This further limited the supply of semiconductor, supercomputer, and similar hardware to the PRC and associated countries.

Ok, well so far this is fairly dry stuff. You might think it would hamper Chinese development and, to some extent, it did.

It also proved to be the main catalyst for one financial quant.

Meet the Quant

Meet Liang Wenfeng (梁文锋). Educated to masters level, Liang was keen to apply machine learning methods to various field, but couldn't get a break. Finally, in the mid 2000's, he settled on a career investigating quantitative trading using machine learning techniques.

He became successful, founding several trading firms based around using machine learning methods, but his interest in base AI never seemed to cease. It was in 2021 that he started purchasing multiple NVIDIA GPUs to create a side project, leading to the creation of DeepSeek in 2023.

Now, due to import limitations, there were limitations on computation. This, however, did not stop DeepSeek's programming team.

Instead they used it as their strength.

Constrains Breed Innovation

For many years, the Western model of AI releases have focussed on making ever larger and larger models.

Why?

Let's break this down from an evolutionary point of view. Modern Western technology companies are largely monopolistic and monolithic. Many of these companies have previously hired staff at higher salaries not to fill roles, but to deny their competitors, and middle market firms, high-flying staff.

They also closely guard trade secrets. What's the training data? What algorithms were used in construction? Guess you'd better chat up some Silicon Valley bros at parties to find out.

For these kinds of firms, having control over large models, housed in data centres makes perfect sense. Controlling model deployment on their own computing systems, and not using local machines, means that they can not only control their systems more carefully, it also means that they can gatekeep access.

If your business model is to allow people to access your models on your servers, and your employees are focussed on making the biggest, best, models, there is no impetus to innovate more efficient, smaller models.

Companies such as OpenAI therefore have the following traits:

Research/Model focus on size over efficiency

Profit driven culture, with emphasis on closed source code

OpenAI's initial focus was as a non-for-profit developing Artificial General Intelligence. This became a for-profit driven company over time. - “I personally chose the price and thought we would make some money.” - Sam Altman

Staff working within paradigm they set in the early 2020's with established code libraries and direct contact with hardware companies creating chips

Significant capital investment - Upwards of several $ billions

DeepSeek, in comparison, is slightly different

For DeepSeek, necessity made innovation necessary. In order to create similar, or better models, than their counterparts, they needed to significantly optimise their code. This requires significantly more work to create, and write, libraries compared to OpenAI.

DeepSeek was started by financial quants, with backgrounds in mainly mathematics and AI. With a focus on mathematics and research, the main drive of many in the company has been exploration of the research space over concerns about profitability.

DeepSeek has also done what OpenAI stopped years ago: actually releasing the code and data for their models. Not only can these models therefore be run via their own gated servers, anyone can replicate their work and make their own system.

For DeepSeek, their traits were:

Research/Model focus on both efficiency and accuracy

Research driven culture, with open nature - “Basic science research rarely offers high returns on investment” - Liang Wenfeng

Strong mathematical background of staff, with ability to work around software, and hardware, constraints

Low capital investment of around $5.5 million

From an evolutionary point of view, DeepSeek's traits have outcompeted those of OpenAI.

More efficient models cost less to run. They also more portable to local machines.

The strong ability of DeepSeek's research focussed staff allowed them to innovate around hardware constraints

Opening up the code to everyone allows anyone (still with the right hardware) to make their own version.

To top it off, the cost to make, and run, DeepSeek R1 is a fraction of the cost of OpenAI's model

House of Cards

Now we can return to today. NVIDIA has lost significant market value. It's not just limited to NVIDIA, but to the entire US technology sector with the most AI adjacent companies losing from 10% to 30% of their valuation in a single day.

The culture, and business model, of OpenAI isn't just limited to OpenAI, but to the entire US technology ecosystem. The US model has been to create rentier-style financial instruments at sky-high valuations.

US tech stocks have been one of the only success stories for America over the past few decades, ever since the offshoring of many manufacturing industries. Like a lost long-unemployed Detroit auto-worker the US has been mainlining technology like Fentanyl, ignoring the anti-trust doctors advice, injecting pure deregulated substances into its veins.

The new AI boom? A new stronger hit, ready for Wall Street, and Private Equity to tie the tourniquet around its arm and pump it right into the arteries.

Like Prometheus, DeepSeek has delved deep and retrieved fire from the algorithmic gods, and shown it's creation to the world. The stock market is on fire, as the traders are coming off of their high, realising they still live in the ruin of barren, decrepit, warehouses and manufactories. The corporate heads, and company leaders reigning over the wreckage like feudal lords, collecting tithes from the serfs working their domain.

A Tale of Two Cities

The rise of DeepSeek isn't just a one-off story of derring-do in the AI world: It's a symbolic representation of the changing world order. DeepSeek is but one company among many who are outcompeting the US, and the world, in innovation.

Where once US free-markets led the world in manufacturing, technology and military capability, now the US is a country devoid of coherent state regulated free-market principles - its place as the singular world power decimated by destroying the very systems which made it great.

"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people." - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

By selling the jobs of working class communities to overseas businesses, destroying unions and creating rentier based business models without significant anti-trust measures, US business and political elites have sealed the present fate of the country.

The CCP led, but strongly anti-trust enforcing, China has been able to innovate, ironically, using the free-market principles of Adam Smith to rise up and create some of the world's best innovations. The factories, opened by Western business leaders to avoid union/worker labour costs in their own countries, have led Shenzhen, and similar cities, to become hubs of technological innovation - compounding their ability to determine the future of technologies across the world.

Will America be able to regain its position on top? It's too early to say, but the innovative, talented, people who made America in the 20th century can certainly do it again.

As Franklin D. Roosevelt once said: “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself...

We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”

Until then, here's a farewell to the American Century 在那之前, 再见美国世纪

[ajinkya-2012]

Role Based Access Control Market

[likelyyouththing]

Role based Access Control Market Future Trends, Opportunities and Strong Growth

The role-based access control market size is expected to grow from USD 8.7 billion in 2022 to USD 15.5 billion by 2027 at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 12.2% during the forecast period.

Download PDF Brochure: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/pdfdownloadNew.asp?id=46615680 

By component, the services segment is expected to grow at a higher CAGR during the forecast period.

The services segment includes professional services. Professional services have been further classified into implementation & integration, training & consulting, and support & maintenance. Training & consulting services enable enterprises to choose the best possible solutions and services depending on the size, requirement, and usage, among others, of the company. Support & maintenance services provide enterprises with the technical, customer, and backup support to ensure uninterrupted operational activities. With the increasing adoption of role-based accesscontrol solutions across various industry verticals, the demand for supporting services is also increasing among organizations.

Large enterprises segment to hold significant market share in 2022.

Enterprises with more than 1,000 employees are considered large enterprises. Large enterprises are the early adopters of role-based access control solutions, as they utilize multiple applications which are prone to fraudulent attacks. RBAC makes it possible to systematically implement and manage a least privilege policy across a large geographically distributed organization. RBAC also enables large organizations to implement standardized enforcement policies, demonstrating the controls required for regulatory compliance and providing users with appropriate access to get their jobs done.

North America held the largest market size in 2022.

North America comprises the US and Canada. The region holds the largest market share of the global role-based access control market. The large share of the region can be mainly attributed to the growing incidents of fraud with the outbreak of COVID-19. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) received more than 5.88 million fraud reports in 2021, a 19% increase from the last year. The changing nature of work and workforces, the adoption of cloud-based applications, and the need to meet compliance requirements are boosting the adoption of role-based access management solutions in the region.

Get More Info - https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/role-based-access-control-market-46615680.html

Key players

The major players operating in the role-based access control market are  Microsoft (US), AWS (US), SolarWinds (US), IBM (US), ManageEngine (US), Oracle (US), JumpCloud (US), Okta (US), ForgeRock (US) and Ping Identity (US), BeyondTrust (US), SailPoint(US), CyberArk (US), Broadcom (US), SecureAuth(US), Varonis (US), Edgile (US), Imprivata (US), and Bravura Security (Canada).

About MarketsandMarkets™

MarketsandMarkets™ has been recognized as one of America's best management consulting firms by Forbes, as per their recent report.

MarketsandMarkets™ is a blue ocean alternative in growth consulting and program management, leveraging a man-machine offering to drive supernormal growth for progressive organizations in the B2B space. We have the widest lens on emerging technologies, making us proficient in co-creating supernormal growth for clients.

Earlier this year, we made a formal transformation into one of America's best management consulting firms as per a survey conducted by Forbes.

The B2B economy is witnessing the emergence of $25 trillion of new revenue streams that are substituting existing revenue streams in this decade alone. We work with clients on growth programs, helping them monetize this $25 trillion opportunity through our service lines - TAM Expansion, Go-to-Market (GTM) Strategy to Execution, Market Share Gain, Account Enablement, and Thought Leadership Marketing.

Built on the 'GIVE Growth' principle, we work with several Forbes Global 2000 B2B companies - helping them stay relevant in a disruptive ecosystem. Our insights and strategies are molded by our industry experts, cutting-edge AI-powered Market Intelligence Cloud, and years of research. The KnowledgeStore™ (our Market Intelligence Cloud) integrates our research, facilitates an analysis of interconnections through a set of applications, helping clients look at the entire ecosystem and understand the revenue shifts happening in their industry.

To find out more, visit www.MarketsandMarkets™.com or follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook.

Contact: Mr. Rohan Salgarkar MarketsandMarkets™ INC. 630 Dundee Road Suite 430 Northbrook, IL 60062 USA: +1-888-600-6441 Email: sales@marketsandmarkets.com Visit Our Website: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/

[dailyanarchistposts]

F.8.5 What about the lack of enclosures in the Americas?

The enclosure movement was but one part of a wide-reaching process of state intervention in creating capitalism. Moreover, it is just one way of creating the “land monopoly” which ensured the creation of a working class. The circumstances facing the ruling class in the Americas were distinctly different than in the Old World and so the “land monopoly” took a different form there. In the Americas, enclosures were unimportant as customary land rights did not really exist (at least once the Native Americans were eliminated by violence). Here the problem was that (after the original users of the land were eliminated) there were vast tracts of land available for people to use. Other forms of state intervention were similar to that applied under mercantilism in Europe (such as tariffs, government spending, use of unfree labour and state repression of workers and their organisations and so on). All had one aim, to enrich and power the masters and dispossess the actual producers of the means of life (land and means of production).

Unsurprisingly, due to the abundance of land, there was a movement towards independent farming in the early years of the American colonies and subsequent Republic and this pushed up the price of remaining labour on the market by reducing the supply. Capitalists found it difficult to find workers willing to work for them at wages low enough to provide them with sufficient profits. It was due to the difficulty in finding cheap enough labour that capitalists in America turned to slavery. All things being equal, wage labour is more productive than slavery but in early America all things were not equal. Having access to cheap (indeed, free) land meant that working people had a choice, and few desired to become wage slaves and so because of this, capitalists turned to slavery in the South and the “land monopoly” in the North.

This was because, in the words of Maurice Dobb, it “became clear to those who wished to reproduce capitalist relations of production in the new country that the foundation-stone of their endeavour must be the restriction of land-ownership to a minority and the exclusion of the majority from any share in [productive] property.” [Studies in Capitalist Development, pp. 221–2] As one radical historian puts it, ”[w]hen land is ‘free’ or ‘cheap’. as it was in different regions of the United States before the 1830s, there was no compulsion for farmers to introduce labour-saving technology. As a result, ‘independent household production’ … hindered the development of capitalism … [by] allowing large portions of the population to escape wage labour.” [Charlie Post, “The ‘Agricultural Revolution’ in the United States”, pp. 216–228, Science and Society, vol. 61, no. 2, p. 221]

It was precisely this option (i.e. of independent production) that had to be destroyed in order for capitalist industry to develop. The state had to violate the holy laws of “supply and demand” by controlling the access to land in order to ensure the normal workings of “supply and demand” in the labour market (i.e. that the bargaining position favoured employer over employee). Once this situation became the typical one (i.e., when the option of self-employment was effectively eliminated) a more (protectionist based) “laissez-faire” approach could be adopted, with state action used indirectly to favour the capitalists and landlords (and readily available to protect private property from the actions of the dispossessed).

So how was this transformation of land ownership achieved?

Instead of allowing settlers to appropriate their own farms as was often the case before the 1830s, the state stepped in once the army had cleared out (usually by genocide) the original users. Its first major role was to enforce legal rights of property on unused land. Land stolen from the Native Americans was sold at auction to the highest bidders, namely speculators, who then sold it on to farmers. This process started right “after the revolution, [when] huge sections of land were bought up by rich speculators” and their claims supported by the law. [Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, p. 125] Thus land which should have been free was sold to land-hungry farmers and the few enriched themselves at the expense of the many. Not only did this increase inequality within society, it also encouraged the development of wage labour — having to pay for land would have ensured that many immigrants remained on the East Coast until they had enough money. Thus a pool of people with little option but to sell their labour was increased due to state protection of unoccupied land. That the land usually ended up in the hands of farmers did not (could not) countermand the shift in class forces that this policy created.

This was also the essential role of the various “Homesteading Acts” and, in general, the “Federal land law in the 19th century provided for the sale of most of the public domain at public auction to the higher bidder … Actual settlers were forced to buy land from speculators, at prices considerably above the federal minimal price.” (which few people could afford anyway). [Charlie Post, Op. Cit., p. 222] This is confirmed by Howard Zinn who notes that 1862 Homestead Act “gave 160 acres of western land, unoccupied and publicly owned, to anyone who would cultivate it for five years … Few ordinary people had the $200 necessary to do this; speculators moved in and bought up much of the land. Homestead land added up to 50 million acres. But during the Civil War, over 100 million acres were given by Congress and the President to various railroads, free of charge.” [Op. Cit., p. 233] Little wonder the Individualist Anarchists supported an “occupancy and use” system of land ownership as a key way of stopping capitalist and landlord usury as well as the development of capitalism itself.

This change in the appropriation of land had significant effects on agriculture and the desirability of taking up farming for immigrants. As Post notes, ”[w]hen the social conditions for obtaining and maintaining possession of land change, as they did in the Midwest between 1830 and 1840, pursuing the goal of preserving [family ownership and control] .. . produced very different results. In order to pay growing mortgages, debts and taxes, family farmers were compelled to specialise production toward cash crops and to market more and more of their output.” [Op. Cit., p. 221–2]

So, in order to pay for land which was formerly free, farmers got themselves into debt and increasingly turned to the market to pay it off. Thus, the “Federal land system, by transforming land into a commodity and stimulating land speculation, made the Midwestern farmers dependent upon markets for the continual possession of their farms.” Once on the market, farmers had to invest in new machinery and this also got them into debt. In the face of a bad harvest or market glut, they could not repay their loans and their farms had to be sold to so do so. By 1880, 25% of all farms were rented by tenants, and the numbers kept rising. In addition, the “transformation of social property relations in northern agriculture set the stage for the ‘agricultural revolution’ of the 1840s and 1850s … [R]ising debts and taxes forced Midwestern family farmers to compete as commodity producers in order to maintain their land-holding … The transformation … was the central precondition for the development of industrial capitalism in the United States.” [Charlie Post, Op. Cit., p. 223 and p. 226]

It should be noted that feudal land owning was enforced in many areas of the colonies and the early Republic. Landlords had their holdings protected by the state and their demands for rent had the full backing of the state. This lead to numerous anti-rent conflicts. [Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, p. 84 and pp. 206–11] Such struggles helped end such arrangements, with landlords being “encouraged” to allow the farmers to buy the land which was rightfully theirs. The wealth appropriated from the farmers in the form of rent and the price of the land could then be invested in industry so transforming feudal relations on the land into capitalist relations in industry (and, eventually, back on the land when the farmers succumbed to the pressures of the capitalist market and debt forced them to sell).

This means that Murray Rothbard’s comment that “once the land was purchased by the settler, the injustice disappeared” is nonsense — the injustice was transmitted to other parts of society and this, the wider legacy of the original injustice, lived on and helped transform society towards capitalism. In addition, his comment about “the establishment in North America of a truly libertarian land system” would be one the Individualist Anarchists of the period would have seriously disagreed with! [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 73] Rothbard, at times, seems to be vaguely aware of the importance of land as the basis of freedom in early America. For example, he notes in passing that “the abundance of fertile virgin land in a vast territory enabled individualism to come to full flower in many areas.” [Conceived in Liberty, vol. 2, p. 186] Yet he did not ponder the transformation in social relationships which would result when that land was gone. In fact, he was blasé about it. “If latecomers are worse off,” he opined, “well then that is their proper assumption of risk in this free and uncertain world. There is no longer a vast frontier in the United States, and there is no point crying over the fact.” [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 240] Unsurprisingly we also find Murray Rothbard commenting that Native Americans “lived under a collectivistic regime that, for land allocation, was scarcely more just than the English governmental land grab.” [Conceived in Liberty, vol. 1, p. 187] That such a regime made for increased individual liberty and that it was precisely the independence from the landlord and bosses this produced which made enclosure and state land grabs such appealing prospects for the ruling class was lost on him.

Unlike capitalist economists, politicians and bosses at the time, Rothbard seemed unaware that this “vast frontier” (like the commons) was viewed as a major problem for maintaining labour discipline and appropriate state action was taken to reduce it by restricting free access to the land in order to ensure that workers were dependent on wage labour. Many early economists recognised this and advocated such action. Edward Wakefield was typical when he complained that “where land is cheap and all are free, where every one who so pleases can easily obtain a piece of land for himself, not only is labour dear, as respects the labourer’s share of the product, but the difficulty is to obtain combined labour at any price.” This resulted in a situation were few “can accumulate great masses of wealth” as workers “cease … to be labourers for hire; they … become independent landowners, if not competitors with their former masters in the labour market.” Unsurprisingly, Wakefield urged state action to reduce this option and ensure that labour become cheap as workers had little choice but to seek a master. One key way was for the state to seize the land and then sell it to the population. This would ensure that “no labourer would be able to procure land until he had worked for money” and this “would produce capital for the employment of more labourers.” [quoted by Marx, Op. Cit., , p. 935, p. 936 and p. 939] Which is precisely what did occur.

At the same time that it excluded the working class from virgin land, the state granted large tracts of land to the privileged classes: to land speculators, logging and mining companies, planters, railroads, and so on. In addition to seizing the land and distributing it in such a way as to benefit capitalist industry, the “government played its part in helping the bankers and hurting the farmers; it kept the amount of money — based in the gold supply — steady while the population rose, so there was less and less money in circulation. The farmer had to pay off his debts in dollars that were harder to get. The bankers, getting loans back, were getting dollars worth more than when they loaned them out — a kind of interest on top of interest. That was why so much of the talk of farmers’ movements in those days had to do with putting more money in circulation.” [Zinn, Op. Cit., p. 278] This was the case with the Individualist Anarchists at the same time, we must add.

Overall, therefore, state action ensured the transformation of America from a society of independent workers to a capitalist one. By creating and enforcing the “land monopoly” (of which state ownership of unoccupied land and its enforcement of landlord rights were the most important) the state ensured that the balance of class forces tipped in favour of the capitalist class. By removing the option of farming your own land, the US government created its own form of enclosure and the creation of a landless workforce with little option but to sell its liberty on the “free market”. They was nothing “natural” about it. Little wonder the Individualist Anarchist J.K. Ingalls attacked the “land monopoly” with the following words:

“The earth, with its vast resources of mineral wealth, its spontaneous productions and its fertile soil, the free gift of God and the common patrimony of mankind, has for long centuries been held in the grasp of one set of oppressors by right of conquest or right of discovery; and it is now held by another, through the right of purchase from them. All of man’s natural possessions … have been claimed as property; nor has man himself escaped the insatiate jaws of greed. The invasion of his rights and possessions has resulted … in clothing property with a power to accumulate an income.” [quoted by James Martin, Men Against the State, p. 142]

Marx, correctly, argued that “the capitalist mode of production and accumulation, and therefore capitalist private property, have for their fundamental condition the annihilation of that private property which rests on the labour of the individual himself; in other words, the expropriation of the worker.” [Capital, Vol. 1, p. 940] He noted that to achieve this, the state is used:

“How then can the anti-capitalistic cancer of the colonies be healed? . .. Let the Government set an artificial price on the virgin soil, a price independent of the law of supply and demand, a price that compels the immigrant to work a long time for wages before he can earn enough money to buy land, and turn himself into an independent farmer.” [Op. Cit., p. 938]

Moreover, tariffs were introduced with “the objective of manufacturing capitalists artificially” for the “system of protection was an artificial means of manufacturing manufacturers, or expropriating independent workers, of capitalising the national means of production and subsistence, and of forcibly cutting short the transition … to the modern mode of production,” to capitalism [Op. Cit., p. 932 and pp. 921–2]

So mercantilism, state aid in capitalist development, was also seen in the United States of America. As Edward Herman points out, the “level of government involvement in business in the United States from the late eighteenth century to the present has followed a U-shaped pattern: There was extensive government intervention in the pre-Civil War period (major subsidies, joint ventures with active government participation and direct government production), then a quasi-laissez faire period between the Civil War and the end of the nineteenth century [a period marked by “the aggressive use of tariff protection” and state supported railway construction, a key factor in capitalist expansion in the USA], followed by a gradual upswing of government intervention in the twentieth century, which accelerated after 1930.” [Corporate Control, Corporate Power, p. 162]

Such intervention ensured that income was transferred from workers to capitalists. Under state protection, America industrialised by forcing the consumer to enrich the capitalists and increase their capital stock. “According to one study, if the tariff had been removed in the 1830s ‘about half the industrial sector of New England would have been bankrupted’ … the tariff became a near-permanent political institution representing government assistance to manufacturing. It kept price levels from being driven down by foreign competition and thereby shifted the distribution of income in favour of owners of industrial property to the disadvantage of workers and customers.” This protection was essential, for the “end of the European wars in 1814 … reopened the United States to a flood of British imports that drove many American competitors out of business. Large portions of the newly expanded manufacturing base were wiped out, bringing a decade of near-stagnation.” Unsurprisingly, the “era of protectionism began in 1816, with northern agitation for higher tariffs.” [Richard B. Du Boff, Accumulation and Power, p. 56, p. 14 and p. 55] Combined with ready repression of the labour movement and government “homesteading” acts (see section F.8.5), tariffs were the American equivalent of mercantilism (which, after all, was above all else a policy of protectionism, i.e. the use of government to stimulate the growth of native industry). Only once America was at the top of the economic pile did it renounce state intervention (just as Britain did, we must note).

This is not to suggest that government aid was limited to tariffs. The state played a key role in the development of industry and manufacturing. As John Zerzan notes, the “role of the State is tellingly reflected by the fact that the ‘armoury system’ now rivals the older ‘American system of manufactures’ term as the more accurate to describe the new system of production methods” developed in the early 1800s. [Elements of Refusal, p. 100] By the middle of the nineteenth century “a distinctive ‘American system of manufactures’ had emerged . .. The lead in technological innovation [during the US Industrial Revolution] came in armaments where assured government orders justified high fixed-cost investments in special-pursue machinery and managerial personnel. Indeed, some of the pioneering effects occurred in government-owned armouries.” Other forms of state aid were used, for example the textile industry “still required tariffs to protect [it] from … British competition.” [William Lazonick, Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor, p. 218 and p. 219] The government also “actively furthered this process [of ‘commercial revolution’] with public works in transportation and communication.” In addition to this “physical” aid, “state government provided critical help, with devices like the chartered corporation” [Richard B. Du Boff, Op. Cit., p. 15] As we noted in section B.2.5, there were changes in the legal system which favoured capitalist interests over the rest of society.

Nineteenth-century America also went in heavily for industrial planning — occasionally under that name but more often in the name of national defence. The military was the excuse for what is today termed rebuilding infrastructure, picking winners, promoting research, and co-ordinating industrial growth (as it still is, we should add). As Richard B. Du Boff points out, the “anti-state” backlash of the 1840s onwards in America was highly selective, as the general opinion was that ”[h]enceforth, if governments wished to subsidise private business operations, there would be no objection. But if public power were to be used to control business actions or if the public sector were to undertake economic initiatives on its own, it would run up against the determined opposition of private capital.” [Op. Cit., p. 26]

State intervention was not limited to simply reducing the amount of available land or enforcing a high tariff. “Given the independent spirit of workers in the colonies, capital understood that great profits required the use of unfree labour.” [Michael Perelman, The Invention of Capitalism, p. 246] It was also applied in the labour market as well. Most obviously, it enforced the property rights of slave owners (until the civil war, produced when the pro-free trade policies of the South clashed with the pro-tariff desires of the capitalist North). The evil and horrors of slavery are well documented, as is its key role in building capitalism in America and elsewhere so we will concentrate on other forms of obviously unfree labour. Convict labour in Australia, for example, played an important role in the early days of colonisation while in America indentured servants played a similar role.

Indentured service was a system whereby workers had to labour for a specific number of years usually in return for passage to America with the law requiring the return of runaway servants. In theory, of course, the person was only selling their labour. In practice, indentured servants were basically slaves and the courts enforced the laws that made it so. The treatment of servants was harsh and often as brutal as that inflicted on slaves. Half the servants died in the first two years and unsurprisingly, runaways were frequent. The courts realised this was a problem and started to demand that everyone have identification and travel papers.

It should also be noted that the practice of indentured servants also shows how state intervention in one country can impact on others. This is because people were willing to endure indentured service in the colonies because of how bad their situation was at home. Thus the effects of primitive accumulation in Britain impacted on the development of America as most indentured servants were recruited from the growing number of unemployed people in urban areas there. Dispossessed from their land and unable to find work in the cities, many became indentured servants in order to take passage to the Americas. In fact, between one half to two thirds of all immigrants to Colonial America arrived as indentured servants and, at times, three-quarters of the population of some colonies were under contracts of indenture. That this allowed the employing class to overcome their problems in hiring “help” should go without saying, as should its impact on American inequality and the ability of capitalists and landlords to enrich themselves on their servants labour and to invest it profitably.

As well as allowing unfree labour, the American state intervened to ensure that the freedom of wage workers was limited in similar ways as we indicated in section F.8.3. “The changes in social relations of production in artisan trades that took place in the thirty years after 1790,” notes one historian, “and the … trade unionism to which … it gave rise, both replicated in important respects the experience of workers in the artisan trades in Britain over a rather longer period … The juridical responses they provoked likewise reproduced English practice. Beginning in 1806, American courts consciously seized upon English common law precedent to combat journeymen’s associations.” Capitalists in this era tried to “secure profit … through the exercise of disciplinary power over their employees.” To achieve this “employers made a bid for legal aid” and it is here “that the key to law’s role in the process of creating an industrial economy in America lies.” As in the UK, the state invented laws and issues proclamations against workers’ combinations, calling them conspiracies and prosecuting them as such. Trade unionists argued that laws which declared unions as illegal combinations should be repealed as against the Constitution of the USA while “the specific cause of trademens protestations of their right to organise was, unsurprisingly, the willingness of local authorities to renew their resort to conspiracy indictments to countermand the growing power of the union movement.” Using criminal conspiracy to counter combinations among employees was commonplace, with the law viewing a “collective quitting of employment [as] a criminal interference” and combinations to raise the rate of labour “indictable at common law.” [Christopher L. Tomlins, Law, Labor, and Ideology in the Early American Republic, p. 113, p. 295, p. 159 and p. 213] By the end of the nineteenth century, state repression for conspiracy was replaced by state repression for acting like a trust while actual trusts were ignored and so laws, ostensibly passed (with the help of the unions themselves) to limit the power of capital, were turned against labour (this should be unsurprising as it was a capitalist state which passed them). [Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, p. 254]

Another key means to limit the freedom of workers was denying departing workers their wages for the part of the contract they had completed. This “underscored the judiciary’s tendency to articulate their approval” of the hierarchical master/servant relationship in terms of its “social utility: It was a necessary and desirable feature of the social organisation of work … that the employer’s authority be reinforced in this way.” Appeals courts held that “an employment contract was an entire contract, and therefore that no obligation to pay wages existed until the employee had completed the agreed term.” Law suits “by employers seeking damages for an employee’s departure prior to the expiry of an agreed term or for other forms of breach of contract constituted one form of legally sanctioned economic discipline of some importance in shaping the employment relations of the nineteenth century.” Thus the boss could fire the worker without paying their wages while if the worker left the boss he would expect a similar outcome. This was because the courts had decided that the “employer was entitled not only to receipt of the services contracted for in their entirety prior to payment but also to the obedience of the employee in the process of rendering them.” [Tomlins, Op. Cit., pp. 278–9, p. 274, p. 272 and pp. 279–80] The ability of workers to seek self-employment on the farm or workplace or even better conditions and wages were simply abolished by employers turning to the state.

So, in summary, the state could remedy the shortage of cheap wage labour by controlling access to the land, repressing trade unions as conspiracies or trusts and ensuring that workers had to obey their bosses for the full term of their contract (while the bosses could fire them at will). Combine this with the extensive use of tariffs, state funding of industry and infrastructure among many other forms of state aid to capitalists and we have a situation were capitalism was imposed on a pre-capitalist nation at the behest of the wealthy elite by the state, as was the case with all other countries.

[snapmite1998]

Crimson Dawn’s Use of Smugglers: Evading Republic and Law Enforcement

Overview

In their pursuit of dominance and expansion, Crimson Dawn consistently engages in illegal activities requiring discreet and secure transportation. To evade the Republic and law enforcement, they hire experienced smugglers who excel in navigating dangerous routes and avoiding detection. These smugglers play a crucial role in transporting illicit cargo, which includes weapons, spice, stolen goods, rare artifacts, and more, ensuring that Crimson Dawn’s operations remain uninterrupted and profitable.

The Role of Smugglers

1. Expertise and Skills

- Navigational Mastery: Smugglers are skilled pilots capable of navigating the galaxy’s most treacherous routes. Their knowledge of lesser-known hyperlanes and hidden pathways allows them to avoid heavily patrolled areas and checkpoints.

- Stealth and Evasion: These operatives are adept at using stealth technology and evasive maneuvers to avoid detection by Republic forces and law enforcement. They utilize jamming devices, cloaking fields, and other advanced technologies to stay off the radar.

2. Discreet Operations

- Covert Cargo: Smugglers specialize in transporting illegal cargo without drawing attention. This includes using false compartments, hidden storage spaces, and other deceptive measures to conceal their illicit payload.

- False Manifesting: To cover their tracks, smugglers often use falsified documents and manifests. These forgeries ensure that any inspections or scans performed by authorities don’t reveal the true nature of their cargo.

Types of Illegal Cargo

1. Weapons and Armaments

- Advanced Weaponry: Smugglers transport an array of advanced weaponry for Crimson Dawn, including blaster rifles, disruptors, thermal detonators, and heavy ordinance. These weapons are destined for use by Crimson Dawn forces or for sale to allied factions.

- Black Market Arms: Access to black market weapons also means that smugglers often transport highly restricted or experimental technology, ensuring Crimson Dawn maintains a technological edge over its rivals.

2. Spice and Illicit Substances

- Spice Trade: The lucrative spice trade requires discreet and reliable transportation. Smugglers haul valuable spice from production sites to distribution points, evading customs and law enforcement along the way.

- Recreational Drugs: In addition to spice, other recreational and controlled substances are smuggled across the galaxy. These shipments generate substantial profit, funding Crimson Dawn’s operations.

3. Stolen Goods and Artifacts

- Rare Artifacts: Smugglers transport stolen relics, artworks, and valuable cultural items. These treasures are either sold to collectors or used to bolster Crimson Dawn’s dark side research.

- Pilfered Technology: Advanced technologies, including droid components, starship parts, and scientific equipment, are frequently stolen and smuggled. These items enhance Crimson Dawn’s capabilities and resource pool.

4. Sentient Cargo

- Human Trafficking: Tragically, smugglers are also involved in transporting slaves and trafficked individuals. These sentient beings are often bound for Zygerrian slave markets or directly to Crimson Dawn’s labor camps.

- Prisoners of War: During conflicts, captured enemy combatants, political prisoners, and notable figures are smuggled to secure locations for interrogation, ransom, or forced labor.

Hiring Process and Contracting

1. Selection Criteria

- Reputation and Reliability: Crimson Dawn hires smugglers based on their reputation for reliability and discretion. Only those with proven records in successfully completing missions without detection are considered.

- Network and Connections: Smugglers with extensive networks and connections within the underworld are highly valued. These connections facilitate smoother operations and provide additional layers of protection.

2. Contractual Agreements

- Payment and Incentives: Smugglers are well-compensated for their services, with payment structures that include upfront fees, hazard bonuses, and percentages of profits from the cargo they transport.

- Secrecy Clauses: Contracts often include strict confidentiality agreements, ensuring that all information regarding the nature of the cargo and the specifics of the mission remains undisclosed.

Methods and Tactics

1. Stealth Ships and Modified Freighters

- Custom Modifications: Smugglers frequently use heavily modified freighters and stealth ships. These modifications include advanced propulsion systems, reinforced hulls, and state-of-the-art cloaking devices.

- Hidden Compartments: Ships are equipped with hidden compartments and false panels to store illicit goods, making it nearly impossible for authorities to uncover the true cargo without extensive searches.

2. Diversion and Deception

- Decoy Ships: To further avoid detection, smugglers sometimes employ decoy ships. These ships lead law enforcement on wild chases, allowing the true cargo to pass through unnoticed.

- Transport Convoys: Smugglers might also travel in convoys, blending in with legitimate trading vessels to avoid raising suspicion. These convoys use coordinated flight paths and communications to maintain cover.

The Smuggler’s Journey

1. Pre-Mission Preparations

- Route Planning: Before embarking on a mission, smugglers meticulously plan their routes, identifying potential hazards, checkpoints, and safe havens. This preparation minimizes the risk of exposure.

- Coordination with Contacts: Smugglers communicate with their contacts within Crimson Dawn to ensure all aspects of the mission are understood and that contingency plans are in place.

2. Execution

- Real-Time Adaptation: During transport, smugglers remain adaptable, ready to alter their course in response to unforeseen challenges. Their ability to think on their feet is essential for evading patrols and navigating dangerous territories.

- Delivery and Handover: Upon reaching their destination, smugglers execute a discreet handover of the cargo, ensuring all items are securely transferred to Crimson Dawn operatives without attracting attention.

Impact on Crimson Dawn Operations

1. Sustained Illegal Activities

- Continuous Supply: The efficient and discreet transport of illegal cargo keeps Crimson Dawn’s operations running smoothly. This continuous supply line is critical for maintaining the organization’s power and influence.

- Expansion of Reach: The use of expert smugglers allows Crimson Dawn to extend its reach into new territories without alerting law enforcement or rival factions, facilitating further expansion and consolidation of power.

2. Financial Gains

- Revenue Generation: The illicit cargo transported by smugglers represents significant financial value. This revenue funds various aspects of Crimson Dawn’s enterprise, including weapon procurement, bribes, and the construction of projects like the Blood Star.

- Economic Control: By dominating the illegal trade through these smuggling operations, Crimson Dawn exerts considerable economic control over the black market, reinforcing its position in the criminal underworld.

Conclusion

Crimson Dawn’s strategic use of experienced smugglers for the transport of illegal cargo highlights the organization’s adaptability and cunning. By hiring skilled operatives from the galaxy’s most dangerous and discreet circles, they ensure the seamless execution of their illicit activities while avoiding the scrutiny of the Republic and law enforcement.

This reliance on smugglers not only sustains their illegal operations but also enables them to expand their influence and control within the galaxy’s underworld. As long as Crimson Dawn and its network of smugglers remain in place, the organization’s power and reach will continue to grow, unimpeded by the watchful eyes of the authorities.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Alanna Vagianos at HuffPost:

It’s hard to keep track of the damage President Donald Trump has done in his first 100 days in office, from unlawfully deporting migrants and some U.S. citizens and declaring a war on transgender children to dismantling federal agencies and imposing tariffs that cratered the stock market. But one dark fear has not yet been realized: an aggressive push to effectively outlaw abortion nationwide. There was widespread concern in 2024 — based on the positions of many people in Trump’s orbit — that his administration might start enforcing the centuries-old Comstock Act or have the Food and Drug Administration pull approval for abortion drugs. While that hasn’t come to pass, the Trump administration has chipped away at choice in less visible ways and done substantial damage to federal reproductive health services.

Not too long ago, Trump was an unapologetic anti-abortion advocate who pandered often to his evangelical far-right base. He openly celebrated his role in repealing 50 years of federal abortion protections, telling Fox News that “it’s a beautiful thing to watch” states ban abortion. But once it became clear that abortion bans are inherently unpopular, Trump shied away from his record: softening his rhetoric around reproductive rights, waffling on a national abortion ban and peddling his lie that “everyone” wanted Roe v. Wade repealed. Since winning the presidential election, Trump has continued this stance of purported moderation. But he still has an anti-abortion agenda — his administration has just gotten better at hiding it. “The administration wants you to think that they are not paying attention to repro and that abortion is an issue left to the states … but that is completely untrue,” Ianthe Metzger, senior director of advocacy communications at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told HuffPost. In his first week as president, Trump reinstated the “global gag rule,” a policy that restricts abortion access around the world and hinders sexual and reproductive health access for many rural communities in developing nations. He signed an executive order to enforce the Hyde Amendment, a 50-year-old federal rule that bans the use of government funds for most abortions for people covered by Medicaid. And those were just the policy decisions generally expected of a Republican administration. Others have been more extraordinary — undermining decades of political precedent and quietly targeting abortion as well as basic reproductive health care like birth control and sexually transmitted infection prevention and testing.

The administration is also working to “change the culture” around family and childbirth. But instead of subsidizing child care or mandating paid parental leave, the White House is entertaining pro-natalist policy ideas, a few of which were once used by the Nazis. One policy idea floated to the White House included awarding the “National Medal of Motherhood” to any woman who has six or more children. In Nazi Germany, women were awarded a bronze medal for having four children, silver for six and gold for eight children. Days into his presidency, Trump made an unprecedented move when he limited enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act — a federal law created to safeguard abortion clinics, patients and providers. He dismissed a handful of current ongoing investigations and pardoned 23 people for FACE convictions, effectively declaring open season on already vulnerable abortion clinics, patients and workers. He also rejoined the Geneva Consensus, an extreme global anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQIA pact created during the first Trump administration that aligns the U.S. with socially conservative countries, some of which have been accused of rampant human rights violations.

[...]

Recently, the Trump administration joined a Supreme Court case alongside South Carolina, arguing that states should be allowed to exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs, even for health care services outside of abortion care. Similar to Title X funding cuts, this move would effectively defund Planned Parenthood, a long-held GOP goal. The Trump administration’s unusual decision to join the case shows just how far they’re willing to go to decimate abortion access as well as birth control, STI testing and other vital reproductive health care. One of the main focuses of Trump’s first 100 days in office has been attacking LGBTQIA communities, specifically transgender kids in women’s sports. And while some may not realize it, attacks on the trans community and attacks on reproductive justice are inherently linked. Trump’s anti-trans executive order contained “personhood” language, used often by extremist anti-abortion groups that believe life begins at conception and fetuses should have the same legal rights as born children. If fetal personhood ever became law, it would immediately create a total abortion ban and criminalize IVF, stem cell research and even some forms of birth control. Trump has also lined his cabinet with abortion opponents, creating one of the most extreme anti-choice administrations in history.

Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed the Department of Justice to dismiss a high-profile federal lawsuit over the right to emergency abortion care in Idaho — sending a clear message that the administration would rather pregnant women continue dying than offer safe abortion and miscarriage care. The federal law at the center of the suit, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, requires hospitals that participate in Medicare (the majority of hospitals in the country) to offer abortion care if it’s necessary to stabilize the health of a pregnant patient while they’re experiencing a medical emergency. The person in Trump’s administration in charge of enforcing that law is Dr. Mehmet Oz, a former TV personality who is openly anti-abortion and believes abortion decisions should be between “a woman, her doctors and her local political leaders.” Now that the lawsuit is dismissed, the Trump administration has the ability to rewrite federal EMTALA guidance, which would follow the far-right Project 2025 playbook perfectly.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is responsible for gutting several HHS agencies as well as cutting Title X funding. Trump tasked him with studying the safety of mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortion, despite over two decades of safe and effective use by millions of Americans. Many of the HHS agencies Kennedy decimated were also the ones that would have studied mifepristone. Kennedy himself could pull FDA approval of mifepristone, or FDA Commissioner Martin Makary could. The former Fox News contributor routinely spread anti-abortion misinformation before Trump made him head of the FDA. During Makary’s confirmation hearing, he refused to answer questions about his plans for mifepristone.

Donald Trump’s anti-abortion policies haven’t gained much attention, but he is still a danger to abortion rights.

[aiconvolibrary]

Is there any literature/theory of "communist land management" i.e. if your job is property management and you have a new system that changes very much based on how society does things, where you can find labor, where you can get access to tools and services, etc. So if you are someone responsible with the keys to a chunk of land and people are living on it, is there a whole other theory of relations that takes shape with how that role evolves in different context, even if the position rotates out or whatever they end up doing to make it fair or whatever. Like, if I am having trouble with drywall in my basement, or I am having trouble with sump pump, or I am having trouble with rain flow management in low elevation areas, I know how I would go about solving these problems today in neolib usa, but i imagine the whole "user story" is different from materials to tasks to accountability█

ChatGPT said:

Yes, what you're describing—a theory and praxis of property/land management under communism—is a deeply rich but somewhat under-theorized zone, especially when compared to how detailed capitalist property management frameworks are (HOA law, zoning, leasing, maintenance contracts, insurance, etc.). However, there are historical models, speculative designs, and theoretical proposals that point toward exactly this: how land and infrastructure responsibilities shift in communist or post-capitalist frameworks. Let’s map this out in several layers.

🔧 1. Core Question: What Does Land Management Look Like After Property is Decommodified?

In a communist or post-capitalist system, land is not owned but stewarded, and the problem-solving process for infrastructure (drywall, sump pumps, drainage, etc.) is re-socialized—which transforms:

Who is accountable?

How are repairs triaged and resourced?

How are tools and labor allocated?

How is skill distributed or rotated in the population?

So, the "user story" for a flooded basement changes. You no longer call a contractor whose labor is abstracted from you by price; instead, the labor and materials might be publicly tracked, socially managed, or democratically scheduled.

🏘️ 2. Historic and Theoretical Precedents

Here are several real-world and theoretical sources for how land management could be organized under communism or post-capitalist systems:

🔹 Soviet Housing Committees (ЖЭКs)

These were responsible for maintenance of communal buildings (especially Khrushchyovkas and Brezhnevkas).

Problems like broken plumbing, leaks, heating, etc. were often handled by neighborhood maintenance offices staffed by public workers.

Downside: bureaucracy and underfunding under state socialism could stall responsiveness. But upside: housing was not a market good; the intent was guaranteed habitability as a right.

🔹 Israeli Kibbutzim / Communal Settlements

Communal ownership of housing and land with rotating or elected maintenance teams.

Special roles: plumber, electrician, etc., but also democratic control over capital improvements.

Very different from landlord-tenant dynamics; collective maintenance responsibility rather than delegated private enforcement.

🔹 Murray Bookchin’s “Municipalism”

Imagines a confederation of directly democratic municipalities handling local infrastructure decisions.

Land is communally managed, but problems like sump pumps or drywall are addressed at the scale of participatory budgeting and neighborhood workshops.

You’d go to your local “technical council” or "municipal repair guild," possibly with open access to diagnostics, inventory, and labor time.

🔹 Frances Fox Piven / John Holloway / Elinor Ostrom

Piven: Argues that political participation and mutual aid grow where public systems fail (like rent strikes forming repair cooperatives).

Holloway: "Crack capitalism" by doing communism now—e.g., forming tool libraries, rotating repair crews, time banks.

Ostrom: Offers models for commons-based governance that could apply to floodplains, shared plumbing systems, rainwater catchment, etc.

🔹 Alexander Bogdanov’s Tectology

Proposed an early systems theory of coordination without markets.

Could absolutely be used to theorize material repair triage in a network of interdependent labor pods or housing units.

🔹 Contemporary Examples

Cooperative housing (co-ops) where members jointly decide on repairs and budgets.

Tool libraries, repair cafés, mutual aid plumbing crews.

Zapatista zones, Rojava, autonomous zones with committees for water, waste, etc.

🧱 3. What’s the Communist “User Story” for a Sump Pump Failure?

Let’s reimagine your case study under such a framework:

Now (in Neoliberal USA):

You call a contractor, negotiate cost, possibly defer due to budget.

If you’re a renter, you beg a landlord or threaten legal action.

If you’re low-income, you might just ignore the problem.

Materials and expertise are locked behind paywalls.

In a Communal/Communist Framework:

Your local building council (elected or rotating) has diagnostic logs of every household’s known infrastructure risks.

The “hydrology node” (local drainage task group) gets notified automatically.

Teams rotate on call duty (like a fire department).

Material logistics (PVC pipe, pumps) are coordinated in a shared warehouse system, based on predicted regional rainfall and soil models.

Repair happens within a socialized labor quota—maybe you do 2 days a month in plumbing or insulation crews.

Education is integrated: apprentices from schools learn hands-on.

No one profits from it, but everyone benefits from it being done well.

🧭 4. Toward a Manual for Communist Property Stewards

You’re essentially describing the need for a theoretical manual for post-capitalist facilities management.

That would include:

How to triage repairs democratically

Rotating stewardship models

Skill-sharing frameworks

Inventory control without markets

Environmental engineering adapted to non-extractive infrastructure

Social relationships of care, not transaction, toward place

Some of this could be informed by:

The Dawn of Everything (Graeber/Wengrow)

Inventing the Future (Srnicek/Williams)

Demanding the Impossible (Marshall)

Freedom is a Constant Struggle (Davis)

Designs for the Pluriverse (Escobar)

🧰 5. Want to Build This?

We could mock up:

A “Red Book” for Building Stewards

Rotating repair guild structures

Tool & labor mutualization systems

Low-energy, open-source material diagnostics

An alternate IBC (International Building Code) for post-capitalist construction

You’re asking the right question: if we abolish landlords, who fixes the pipe?

The answer isn’t "nobody"—it’s everybody, but in a way that doesn’t suck.

Want to design that?