Re: nettime Will your insurance company subsidize your quantified
This sort of product is going to generate a sort of permanent electronic hypochondria, as you go chugging along on your daily jog and you ask your iWatch to send you on the shortest route to the hospital before your heart implodes. Putting aside the profound implications of nanny-state uses of such data, I'd imagine that such pervasive monitoring is more of the trend to medicalization -- as found here: http://harvardmagazine.com/2009/04/medicalization-of-our-culture --dan # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
Re: nettime Will your insurance company subsidize your quantified self?
| As Enzensberger's Rules for the Digital World suggest - somewhat | unintentionally -, freedom of electronic devices will be a privilege | of the wealthy. In the near future, to be upper class will no longer | mean that you carry the latest electronic gadget, but that you can | afford the luxury surcharge for a life without tracking devices. Absolutely right. When was the last time any member of the Fortune 400 list, or Obama for that matter, carried cash or keys? --dan # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
nettime Fwd: Recognition of third gender (in India)
Bwo Sarai Reader List/ Nagraj A -- Forwarded message -- From: chayanika shah chayanikas...@gmail.com Date: 15 April 2014 12:02 Subject: Some good news And here is one Supreme Court judgement given by Justice K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri, that came this morning, that can warm our hearts and be soothing balm for the troubled minds. It is in the context of transgender rights. The main features as shared by Lawyers Collective who were fighting this case: Appears to be a fantastic victory!! Here are the main points: 1. Recognition of third gender. 2. Recognition of people who identify in the opposite sex based on self-identification. Includes female identifying as male and male identifying as female. 3. Non-recognition of gender identity amounts to discrimination under Arts 14, 15 and 16. 4. Discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation and gender identity amounts to discrimination on the ground of sex under Art 15. 5. No SRS required for recogntition of gender identity. 6. Persons gender identity based on their choice is protected under the constitution. 7. A series of directions have been given to the Centre and States based on the above. We will have more details as the judgment is available. In solidarity, Amritananda Lawyers Collective For more news go to facebook or http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/treat-transgenders-as-third-gender-for-job-benefits-supreme-court-508705 http://barandbench.com/content/212/transgenders-third-gender#.U0zNtqLnZn0 # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
Re: nettime Will your insurance company subsidize your quantified self?
And still, while this analysis is correct it is also merely half-right. What it is not taking into perspective is the fact that the Internet itself fosters a new parallel class system of a netocracy versus a consumtariat. But that is of course because the members of Nettime themselves are all netocrats and therefore rather blind to this digital division. Power always blinds us, especially of course our very own power. For example, you can no longer ignore the fact that there is an enormous difference in power between somebody with 400,000 Twitter followers and those with merely 10. Not that the division between a bourgeosie (those with money) and workers (those without) in a Marxist sense no longer exists, just that the new division in attention arther than capital complicates things further. Unless Nettime begins to dig into this complexity of power, the themes of this forum will look rater banal in hindsight. Don't you agree? I'm sure Karl Marx himself would have. Just take Google, who by focusing on attention maximization (who is top if you google search engine if not Google themselves?) and ignoring mioneymaking in strategy is the fastest growing financial behemoth ever, merely as an ironic side-effect. Power is no longer just Fortune 400. It is just as much a sociogram as an income or wealth distribution. And will increasingly be so. I'm glad people like Slavoj Zizek are finally understanding this too. Best intentions Alexander 2014-04-15 1:39 GMT+02:00 d...@geer.org: | As Enzensberger's Rules for the Digital World suggest - somewhat | unintentionally -, freedom of electronic devices will be a privilege | of the wealthy. In the near future, to be upper class will no longer | mean that you carry the latest electronic gadget, but that you can | afford the luxury surcharge for a life without tracking devices. Absolutely right. When was the last time any member of the Fortune 400 list, or Obama for that matter, carried cash or keys? ... # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
nettime Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part Two, section #2
(section 2)
Libertarians - or a short history of capitalism on steroids
Libertarianism is a rather heterogeneous set of political currents which
came to the fore in the sixties promoting a radical strengthening of
individual liberties, this strictly within a 'free market' context. These
political positions have nothing in common with and are totally adverse to
any kind of socialist tradition or practice. Some of its representative
may admit to keeping a bare minimum of shared society, and may head under
the banner of /minarchism/ - proposing a minimalist state by deliberately
jumbling together social relationships with social institutions. But truly
radical individualism, posing as anarchist, as it is set out in the
works of the better known libertarian authors as Murray N Rothbard, Robert
Nozick or Ayn Rand, can only come to fruition if all oppressing social
institutions are dismantled, first and foremost the State; hence the
somewhat paradoxical definition 'anarcho-liberals' [anarcho-libertarians?
-transl] or 'anarcho-capitalists' [1].
A good start to understand the theoretical context in which
anarcho-capitalism came into being, is the work of Murray Rothbard, the
first author to use the 'libertarian' monicker in his writings. Rothbard,
an economist who was also a student of Ludwig von Mises in New York in the
40s, manages a quirky synthesis between the ferocious anti-socialism of
the Austrian (economic) School and American individualist thinkers,
especially Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker. According to the Austrian
School, free market capitalism is the only economic system that will
vouchsafe individual freedom: it is good 'by nature'. Equally, property
rights are 'natural rights', and expanding property forms the only bulwark
to protect 'true liberty'. Any system interfering between the individual
and the enjoyment of her/his private property is oppressive by definition,
and constitutes a tyranny which should be gotten rid of by all means
available. Being a staunch advocate of individual freedom as supreme good,
Rothbard criticises the moral legalism of those libertarians who
accommodate to the institutional status quo. For Rothbard market freedom
can only be effective if the political practice itself is free of
oppressive laws and regulatory measures by the State.
This approach shorts the definition of liberty at its core, since the only
liberty that matters then, is that of the capitalist market, itself the
outcome of the free agency of totally free individuals motivated by their
purely private interest in accumulation and consumership. And since
individualist anarchism constitutes the apex of individual liberty and
that the free market is itself the realisation of that liberty, anarchism
and capitalism are, according to Rothbard, one and the same thing.
(W)e are anarcho-capitalists. In other words, we believe that capitalism
is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest
expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't
really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and
true capitalism will be anarchism. [2]
We will see further on what are the paradoxes underlying this blind belief
in the goodness of the free market. For now let us just underline the
affinities between the libertarian economic and political orthodoxy and
the actual practices of Californian turbo-capitalism [3]: individual
liberty can only be validated through economic and monetary transactions;
individuals are taken to be free 'by nature', and they assign, in a
totally subjective fashion, value to goods, services, and utilities that
are available in an ideal free, capitalist market; full and absolute
de-regulation is the necessary condition to bring about a market that is
'benign by nature', without statist or 'over-individual' intervention;
private property, as a 'natural right' is the bedrock of individual
identity; and the accumulation of goods and utilities constitutes the very
substance of (the concept of) liberty.
(to be continued)
Next time: society, individuals, aims, and actions - in the libertarian
perspective.
..
[1] A libertarianist '101', with many references to the 'foundation texts'
check out the anarcho-capitalist site
[2] http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard103.html
[3] Conservative economist Edward Luttwak coined the term
'turbo-capitalism' in his book /Turbo-Capitalism: Winners and Losers in
the Global Economy/, New York, Harpers 1999. We use the term in a much
more polemic way, since it has become clear that today's economic trends
have gone much further - for the worse - than Luttwalk's analyses. We may
refer to the second chapter of our book The Dark Side of Google ('The
Googleplex, or Nimble Capitalism at Work'), where we draw a tentative
description of Google's 'abundance capitalism' , and of the 'Silicon
Valley model' in general.
-
Translated by Patrice Riemens
This
