Expanding Theory of Internet Government Model .OBS to Stage 4
Expanding Theory of Internet Government Model .OBS to Stage 4
Previously published under title “Disruptive Technologies proposed by UK Northern Stimulus 49 link USA PDD63X Agreement”
The importance to this model is governments must finance new debt accumulated, in a stable way. The model evolved to fit the new medical power by point 3: “grid to protect old & vulnerable”. The taxation role may reduce government debts ultimately to 2008 GDP % debt levels. It is “payback period” to that specific 2008 level that “new debt” stability will depend. It offers a special type of Keynes “central planning” tool without being Keynes. The model is explained more in shown image and details are elsewhere. The model is not part of a Keynesian package. It stands alone for task.
Original doc. USA .obs: https://link.medium.com/HcnmGay3I6docu
(scanned at end) provides providence to the mentioned below.
By nature “disruptive technologies” undermine state’s tax powers and Monetarism (a lost decade of unpaid debt). This model is a “magic bullet” and imagination the only limit. Taxing of email was considered in 2001, very unlikely to be useful now, but the value was in spam cost spend not tax collected. Disruptive technologies must similarly be tackled as two edge swords, creating new hidden spend for government and avoiding tax by innovation.
Ultimately the granularity of control the model, internet governance by farming out “who controls after the dot”, to the free market and national choices provides a good opportunity for democracy and accountability. This model cannot happen in isolation as the Stage 1 global step is required in America. Stage 2 “national civilian infrastructure” steps gives new control granularity of “gateway & lockdown protocol”, in theory a “firewall of country” as elsewhere may be possible. Realistically cultural practices determine use of technology, not vice-versa.
One opportunity for democracy begins at election time to raise a national drawbridge collection of granular controls to limit specific media types but permit others. The price to limit Bob in Country A to only lightly communicate to Bill in Country B around election times, restricting say video, is democracy’s decision. This illustrates a point, TLD granularity controls unless a social media company uses a national TLD specifically to permit this. What would be more obvious is for some national TLDs to be blocked during election times and political parties to adopt others for whatever agreed purpose.
It is worth noting, as explained in the below image point 6, the basic normal blocking of any TLD is determined by your choice of anti-virus software to install. The new control granularity of “gateway & lockdown protocol” is a very recent evolution. It is worth noting what “evolved to fit the new medical power”, namely stage 2 is expensive to implement and multiple ways to bypass. As stated it evolved as an adaptation “to protect old & vulnerable”.
The obvious way to therefore complete the job of acting as some type of firewall during election time (and logically if forced) would be to intervene in the free choice of which anti-virus package to use. This could be done by a variety of methods. However this model is not one that lends itself to excessive state control. In theory a global market might insert some type of viral updates to fit election cycles. You can always turn it off. This model favors the principle that a collective accord drives the democratically minded to switch something on, preferably out of a basket, to ensure their updates do keep out some of the prankster spirit best kept national.
However see: “Lockdown Path to Disruptive Technologies Tax or Orwellian Threat?” https://link.medium.com/95E1dme7I6
There is a stage 4. If you have not first read the above I am going to express this in the reverse logical way, so not to confuse you. The stage 4 by this model of adaptation (not include below but mentioned here) is to “highly tax people” and stifle those in what Communist countries was called “dissent”. The long essay referred to above, written prior to the adaptation by a week or so, explains a certain reversal of position in meaning to that word “dissent”. I cannot use the “dissent” word without reference to the shared origins of Keynesian theory, namely the classical model which was not replaced until the central planning idea Communism planted.
In conclusion two things. As previously stated the model is not part of a Keynesian package. It stands alone for task. That can apply just to stage 1, or the addition of stage 2 (from which all other stages flow). The stage 1 alone can be considered alone “a special type of Keynes “central planning” tool without being Keynes.” That would depend on reference to details elsewhere, although the image gives some reference as does the previous mention of taxing email back in 2001. A country failing to tax email would find all the TLDs registered in that country being used to spam as so block. A very blunt method but considered useful for purpose at time. There are no doubt countless methods by which stage 1 is useful without moving to stage 2.
The model for stage 2 is also new and multiple variants no doubt possible. The greatest insight might be from reading the essay in which the stage 4 type of control emerges, although it is less focused on dissent but on the power of stage to hide how to hide the “mystery becoming of becoming rich”. If that sounds daft, perhaps you might want to consider why “mental illness” has generated 3 million citizens and you think “that’s normal”. Read the essay. If you cannot understand it, perhaps your high taxation is in order? I joke not.
Finally note the efforts steps 1 and 2 will require for the model to be implemented are not insignificant. Of specific division is that:
Stage 1 is a global step.
Stage 2. is a national step.
Here is the basic model as first introduced as adapted “to fit the new medical power” model as explained above and elsewhere.
This model requires the following:
1. Anglo-American accord for Maypole 18,252 or 17,576 TLD for Internet Governance as first proposed in 1997 by April Major of Chicago School in place.
2. State licensing system of wired & wireless to meet requirements within MOD’s national civilian infrastructure cyber defence provision for TLD gateway & lockdown protocol.
3. NHS medical decision review panel to override home residential gateway mapping of MOD’s Northern Cyber Defence Centre TLD range held by grid to protect old & vulnerable.1.