From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Jul 18 2002 - 10:29:41 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, July 17, 2002, at 07:39 pm, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>> An internal network is generally among a group of
>> trusted individuals, where the individuals behind the
>> firewall do not consider a need to verify each other,
>> but do verify those outside the group (i.e. the rest
>> of the world). Verification within the group usually
>> only occurs when a certain threshold of group size and
>> complexity is reached, or when the primary interest of
>> the individuals within the group are different or in
>> conflict. When such factionalism occurs, the group
>> should either fissure (secede) or institute control
>> protocols (i.e. police states) such as identity
>> verification, compartementalization and access
>> controls.
>>
>> Nation-states that reach this threshold point are
>> faced with a conundrum when the primary interests of
>> citizens transcend from mere difference to outright
>> conflict, where their interest can only be furthered
>> by forcing others.
>>
>> A nation-state without strict citizenship standards
>> will tend to reach this point faster than those which do.
>
>
> Excellent analogy between computer networks and nations. I agree
> totally with your security analysis.
>
> --
> Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
>
>
The mistake here is the assumption that the nation states are acting for
the benefit of their citizens. The nation-states act for the benfit of
the groups that control them. These are usually called legislators,
executives, and bureaucrats. The citizens usually don't feel able to do
anything about this, and usually aren't willing to gamble that
insurrection will result in anything better than the current state.
Misdirected anger and discouragement are both encouraged, frequently
unofficially, but the nation-state itself, so that the targets of the
anger tend to be sub-groups that really have little control over the
conditions, and so that discouragement tends to be attributed to groups
that feel less threatening. (It can be quite threatening to realize
that "your" government don't give a fig about whether or not it is
serving your interests.)
Note, that there still exists the network of trusted individuals. It's
just a lot smaller, and it's cohesiveness and loyalty tends to be
strengthened by the feeling of superiority over those not a member of
the in-group. Plus smaller networks have fewer security problems.
Assuming a hierachical system, which is one that people easily learn:
This in-group/out-group will tend to cause the creation of competing
groups, with differing centers of power, each considering itself the
in-group, and the others the out group. Thus you have the press, etc.
But at the top of each group will exist managers, or executives. These
will, in turn, form their own group, with mor loyalty to each other than
to the groups they nominally direct as members. Now the members of the
original group notice that the group they are a member of isn't
considering their interests, so they tend to withdraw their loyalty, and
attach it to another group. But their livlihood will still be dependant
on the group that they previously gave their loyalty to. At this point
we can call these people employees, and the directors management. So now
these people are dependent on two groups, the nation-state, and their
employers, and neither one have their interests at heart (though both
will attempt to convince them that they do). What will be the nature of
the tertiary group that they attach to? It will need to be able to
subsist on the residue of their available energy, as the state and the
employer are already consuming most of their life's time-energy
allotment. The local community, independent of the government, is one
option. Many people choose this. This tends to stabilize the social
structure, but is forever vulnerable to encroachment by government and
employers under the guise of assistence. Some choose labor unions, but
these are acted against vigorously by both the employers and the
government. Some choose family. REALLY local community. Even here
there are encroachments by both the government and the employers, though
substantially less.
If you are looking for conflict, enough basis seems to exist within the
structure of the nation-state that the only reason to look outside is
that external enemies serve to stabilize the social structure. And one
of the driving forces it is their agressive neglect of "the primary
interests of
citizens".
P.S.: I left out religion here. It seems to have been most important
at an earlier stage before the employers became such dominant features.
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:32 MST