From my perspective, the entire conversation ultimately formed around the key consideration in such a system design; that being "Risk Management". This is the fundamental issue at the heart of personal Sovereignty, and the management of valuable resources that simultaneously affect and are concerned with Individuals, organizations and National Sovereign integrity. In America, this is an important conversation dealing with the structure of identity assets and the nature of data flow that affects the integrity of socio-economic concerns as defined by the US Constitution and its legal authority to define such things.
Society and identity structure are very similar concepts... both Individuals and relationships construe the integrity and value of these concepts and structural outcomes. Prior to the advent of the internet, both existed in a dialogue that was devoid of the context of participatory structure that the internet alone is responsible for introducing to the conversation. Prior to the existence of a distributed and decentralized asset management framework, central administration was absolute. That Society was inaugurated by the registration event commencing a legal identity was both necessary and non-optional. Governing integrity had no options but to inaugurate this data structure with administrative precedence residing within the system that possessed these identity assets. 'John Hancock" became an idealized representation of personal Sovereignty that lacked structural follow through in the documents that followed from the act of personally "Declaring Independence" from a King's administrative Sovereignty. (An outcome I refer to as an "error of omission" due to the lack of a recursive signatory to the US Constitution by all citizens)
By definition of the process used to form a legal identity, and with deliberate intent in designing our National Sovereign model of authority, Individuals were born without personal Sovereign integrity, and were provided such integrity by registration of birth documents that simultaneously construed a legal identifier and transmuted the personal asset value of a baby Human life into a social liability defined by the Rights attributed to "citizens". This administrative precedence remains to this day, and is now being discussed in multiple different conversations concerning the nature of both privacy and publicity Rights, and the actual relationship that Individual Americans have with their governance model as a Society. It is a very important conversation with long term consequences affecting the actual nature of our founding documents and philosophies.
Enter the "Self IDP" conversation. What if you wanted to provide your own identity in Society? Does an administrative system hold a monopoly on the Rights of forming identities with Sovereign authority? How does a self-provisioned identity change the nature of "Risk Management Regimes" that current administrative structures deal with and have operational methods of managing predictably?
I have been talking about "Sovereign Source Authority" and why it is important for a long time. Until Facebook and Ed Snowden provided contextual understanding for the predictable outcomes of living within an administrative model of authority that lacks personal Sovereignty, it was very difficult to get any traction around these conversations. That has changed now. This is no longer a fringe conversation. It is no longer being misconstrued as concerns of people living on the fringes of Society seeking to remove themselves from legal authority all together. This is now a conversation about why a personal Sovereign design is actually the very essence of America's competitive advantage in the world as the leading authoritative model that is dependent on its very real existence in every case where our Society needs to be defended by man-made or natural disasters... let along menial everyday transactions of data value.
In order to move deeper into this conversation, we must start to discuss model of "Risk Management" related to the formation of personally Sovereign legal identities useful to Individuals, organizations and our Society's governance. In America, Individuals were never meant to be taken care of as the dogs of their Government... here our governance model is meant to be "man's best friend"... and the administrative precedence of authority is the defining measure of this administered reality.
We already have the ability to discuss "Levels of Assurance" with regards to the capabilities of any identity structure. What we lack is the personal Sovereign entry point that enables a model wherein Sovereign interests can be managed by Individual intent with systemic integrity across a distributed and perhaps even decentralized network of interests and actors.
The reason that personal Sovereignty has been a focus of mine for so long is that the equality discussion of participatory Rights within a socio-economic system is greatly affected by the manner in which structured identities are formatted and can affect issues as wide-ranging as tax leverage, health care, education, governing Rights administration and voting, etc. This all was true before the value of personal data started to climb exponentially because of the internet and its role in extending the creation and use of personally identifiable information in everyday life.
Without personal Sovereignty, our current Sovereign design implies that the only model of Human participation in Society is to be construed as a social liability with increasing costs on an infinite curve. This model of "citizenship" allows Society to leverage the actual asset value of an Individual Human life for social purposes, and confer upon those Individuals Rights and benefits as deemed both necessary and possible by generational leadership standards. Unfortunately, we are witnessing the lack of integrity in such a model, wherein generational leadership is also capable of looting the asset value from Individual lives, thus holding increased authority via debt leverage. I suggest that this is becoming altogether un-American structurally, if not in legal Terms as defined by the US Constitution, and requires amending.
In this regard, I believe the absence of a recursive personal signatory to the US Constitution, executed by Individuals at an appropriate age of accountability, rather than upon babies by systemic requirement, is an essential design parameter of personal Sovereign authority.
By design, this model of Sovereign authority changes many "Risk Management" considerations. Starting with the integrity of the asset value of an Individual Human life, and the relationship exchange of value that is required for Individuals to exist within a Society that honors law and justice and liberty and all of the advanced concepts of freedom and security that make Societies run well enough.
Individual babies are not zero-value entities to be leveraged and structured as social liabilities at birth and dependent on an education system that rewards via credentials the chance for gainful employment upon reaching an age of action. Instead, Individual babies are asset engines, creating value with every moment of their life in very explicit and intrinsic ways, and should be construed as entrepreneurial owners of their own opportunities in this life, with an impetus to educate themselves for the duration of their life by any and all means possible through participation in Society.
Risk management is the key consideration, expressed in both Individual and organizational Terms.
This is where this conversation is at and where we need to go deeper in our exploration of what the internet is making possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment