Community involvement and the moral case for applying to ICE, private prisons, surveillance companies, et al. [Pt. 3 of 3]

some metaphors about community-building and the beginnings of some thoughts on reform.

Jul 18, 2025

So, here’s the Milton Friedman quote I stole from a Doctorow blog post on Pluralistic:

Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.
-Milton Friedman, 1972

I’ve mentioned multiple times what I think the best course of action and the most moral things you can do would be, it should come as no surprise that Milton Friedman, even when not in sandworm form, had no involvement with and would probably argue against these courses of action. However, there are a series of other alternatives that kind of ripple out from this quote. Firstly, there is work to be done on policy, hopefully drastic and transformative work— both large-scale and small.

As I believe has been born out through studies of regime change, and sociopolitical movements, it’s best to build structures of change and mutual support on smaller scales in communities (in a somewhat decentralized fashion) and organize progressively larger structures from there, no matter any Leninist argument for a revolutionary cadre. In some ways, it makes sense to think of building social movements in terms of ecology, like a complex jungle ecosystem. It’s organic in nature, best understood through its web of connections, on a certain level self-repeating, and ultimately stronger due to its diversity of form.

As you build larger structures, it’s easier to think of their relative power to provide support and instigate change, i.e the effectiveness of the movements behind these structures, in fractal-curve-like terms, much like the coastline paradox. The closer you measure the length of a coastline, the longer it becomes due to its self-repeating nature. So, by doing the community work on small scales, like in labor organizing where you start with discussions with the individual, move to the department, to the location or branch, to the company, to sympathy strikes nationwide, the power increases exponentially like the length of the coastline.

The problems faced by our communities, due to the ravages of neoliberalism and climate change, also seem to be fractal-like or self-repeating as they scale. The apparent, and in some cases actual, power of these problems seems to increase as well, but the only way to solve these problems is to approach them more like the study of the gravid ecosystem of a tropical jungle. By examining the web of connections, it’s easier to get an understanding of the potential leverage points or keystone species by starting with studying and learning from things on a smaller scale or in an area with less volume.

Luckily for us, we get to build these webs of connections and study on small scales by interacting with humans, while humans might also have painful bites, there at least aren’t as many varieties of them with potentially fatal venom as there are among biting species in the rain forest. This means we can talk to the communities we interact with that are closest to the problem and have the best understanding of what they need.

So, in addition to progressing from smaller scales to larger ones, when considering this type of policy work, you also want to make sure you approach it from an emic or internal perspective. Listen to the problems people have in their own words and figure out policies from there. If we’re ever lucky enough to have a nationwide jobs guarantee, this should be an integral part of semi-regular discussions that take place when doing community care jobs. Many of these problems will be local, but like a coastline or a vibrant ecosystem there will be a number of problems or tropes that are self-repeating, and by learning from the people that understand it best, those who usually have the closest perspective, we can extrapolate larger policies and look into putting them into effect.

Understanding these problems can be used to help develop practical and flexible alternatives to existing exploitative power structures. There are big changes that need to be made that are very likely to require another constitutional convention to solve. So, in addition to looking into which of the larger problems can be broken down into smaller, self-similar problems, it is beneficial to begin figuring out what potential transformative structural changes could be made to begin to address these problems. Determine how to implement them and what the potential effects will be; build economies of scale for currently existing technologies; and. most importantly, building larger communities out of the smaller, local communities you are working with and active in.

The arguments made above are essentially that those of us who want to see transformative structural change should be using activism, mutual aid, and community involvement to essentially get on political war footing when it comes to devising political and economic policy. The concept of war footing is about more than just the “ideas lying around,” however, they are also about the (hypothetical or theoretical) “actions that are taken.”

It should be obvious that actions have potential consequences. Consequences that come from getting active in certain communities, from even considering engaging in actions such as widespread tactical and strategic nonviolent tactics of civil disobedience and purposefully utilized deception campaigns, wherever possible, in whatever legal means possible, or whatever means fit your moral schema, but the potential consequences of hypothetical actions does not determine their morality.

We all have skill sets, subjective degrees of risk tolerance, including the possible increased risk of violence towards you and the people you care about, the tolerance to potential legal risks, willingness to compromise on morals and engage in deception, and limits to what we are willing to accept. It’s again worth pointing out that potential risks of consequences, depending on any actions that someone might hypothetically take, can be incredibly severe, and some of these actions, such as violence, can sometimes be manifestly unhelpful in generating lasting social change, as well as carrying severe legal consequences.

However, laws are used by fascist governments as cudgels. In the short term you are much more likely to face legal risks than the current masked ICE thugs holding American citizens hostage at a legal California business until they deleted information from their phones concerning somebody these ICE agents allegedly murdered. This is something to be well aware of, I’m not explicitly urging that you commit crimes or anything. One of the easiest ways to conceptualize this is the fact that. if a police officer follows you for long enough while you’re driving, you will inevitably commit a traffic offense. Even the most law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide will run afoul of a law or two.

Regardless of your legal knowledge and law-abiding nature, you are especially likely to be in legal jeopardy with an aspiring fascist government which appears to be refusing to abide by the law, funding a massive law enforcement and surveillance apparatus, building a network of even more detention centers, rounding up citizens and immigrants alike, and partnering with tech companies that have a vested interest in profiting off fascism. All of this occurring in a country with absolutely useless, outdated privacy laws an already heavily militarized police who have court-endorsed ways to exploit the law to their benefit, and where certain prosecutors are focused more on obtaining convictions than rehabilitative measures.

You do not have to be a sociopath to see the logic and moral necessity behind a hypothetical person who might be willing to lie, within the bounds permissible by law, and commit acts of civil disobedience that push those bounds, in order to accomplish morally just aims.

I’m not arguing for callous lawbreaking. I’m certainly not arguing that we begin robbing the banks to fund our revolution or anything like that at this point, and likely will never be caught dead making these kinds of arguments because, again, for legal purposes doing so could be considered similar to urging people to commit illegal acts and would thus likely be a crime. Nor am I arguing that you lie in court or anything like that. The rule of law, when all parties are operating in good faith, can be a powerful thing. I strongly support judicial and legal reform, but recognize that our legal and judicial system is largely a place where facts and reasoning matter. There are mechanisms in place to ensure people are telling the truth and operating in good faith.

All I’m arguing is that we use all of the tools available to us in our narrative toolbox of epistemology to see if it could be used to fix certain things, build other things, or if severely threatened, use the metaphorical and rhetorical tools available to wallop fascists. Any acts of hypothetical infiltration or theoretical sabotage that I discuss or the other forms of nonviolent direct action I’m hypothetically exploring the moral ramifications of here shouldn’t be done by anybody not comfortable with, and cognizant of, both the legal risk and the other risks involved in committing acts like whistleblowing, labor agitating including discussion of traditional methods, or sabotage — and even those well aware of the risks shouldn’t do it.

Let’s discuss some actions that imaginary, or hypothetical people whom I’ll refer to as constructs here, and look at the various levels of risk tolerance, moral compromise, ramifications, and benefits. Any actions taken by the fictional people that I’ll be discussing should only be taken with a robust understanding of the potential risks, and should only be taken if the construct doing so has solid plans to document the truth and how it differs from any official details or actions. This is more in lines with the whistleblowing aspect of things, and any actions should be taken bearing in mind and planning for the testimony they would likely need to give in front of a potential truth and reconciliation commission. While the potential risks to the theoretical whistleblower are nonzero, and there are certainly potential consequences, this is probably one of the course of actions that has a lower barrier of entry.

So, who are the imaginary human constructs who might engage in whistleblowing or other forms of nonviolent direct action? Well, a certain subset of the people who might hypothetically read this that are wondering what they can do to help. They might not have specific skills, or they might be exceptionally skilled and have lost a job doing something they were passionate about. Imagine a kid, about to graduate high school, or a young adult just finishing with their undergraduate degree. Imagine someone who lost their job due to downstream economic effects of “mass deportations now,” and the tariffs, or imagine someone who used to do counterintelligence work for the national security apparatus or whatever, and is now out of a job.

There are better, more directly beneficial things that can be done to help in times of crisis, but depending on the degree or skillsets these hypothetical people might have, they likely have certain amount of flexibility with a number of potential career paths open to them either within their specialty or because they’re just starting out in a field. Furthermore, if these imaginary constructs are having difficulty finding jobs that they feel align with their moral compass, they will likely be willing to accept some form of moral compromise.

Obviously, it would be most moral to pursue something different that they felt better about, but these jobs are often harder to find during periods of transition and economic uncertainty. Everybody needs to eat and is willing to operate within their own level of risk tolerance, using their skillsets to earn money in whatever field or company they can requiring varying degrees of moral flexibility on their part.

If these imaginary people I’m discussing are willing to exhibit any moral flexibility at all, assuming they have the right skillsets, risk tolerance, and a willingness to do so, why shouldn’t they try to get hired at the absolute worst, most evil companies that they are able. Many of the people, agencies, and industries profiting the most during this administration seem to be doing so either illegally or because they are willing to make money on human suffering. I imagine that many of the hypothetical people I’m discussing now wouldn’t feel comfortable doing this, but here is where we can get into making transformative changes through building communities and taking nonviolent direct action. If your plan isn’t to whistle blow, there are other sorts of ways you can make a positive impact from within evil organizations.

From connecting with outside groups, to labor organizing and exploiting discontent among fellow workers by organizing slowdowns, work-to-rule, walkouts, longer strikes, and other nonviolent direct actions. As any labor organizer will tell you, you’ll have to build a community within your workplace and listen to the problems that individuals are having. Some of your coworkers, likely a large percentage, will be unsympathetic to downright hostile if you’re unable to mimic the beliefs they hold about their ideologies or frame things using the narratives they believe and understand. It becomes more dangerous to challenge them about their beliefs if you’re doing any organizing or anything that would make you stand out, but that doesn’t mean you wouldn’t be able to theoretically lower the overall effectiveness of evil organizations like ICE, private prisons, oil companies and the like, nor does it mean that doing these things would be immoral.

There are things these imaginary people could hypothetically do that would inconvenience private prisons, big oil companies, or private equity companies. The concept of monkeywrenching was popular in the 1960’s and it still exists in various environmental movements, but it certainly seems that the antiwar student movement at the time would’ve benefited from more concerted organizing and durable community building with a stronger focus on policy and more dedication towards scaling up organizational structures. Also, like many other leftist organizations, the environmental movement was to a certain extent infiltrated by law enforcement with some working as agent provocateurs and some working to sew discord.

Property-damaging versions of monkeywrenching through direct infiltration like this would probably be considered the most dangerous and legally risky hypothetical actions an imaginary person reading this could take that I would personally consider to still be moral. However, the effects of property damage on popular opinion means that tactically it isn’t always going to be the most effective option. You can be incredibly ineffective, incompetent, overly inquisitive, excessively obsessed with following regulations, and just barely within the bounds of keeping your job insofar as you’re theoretically causing the whole organization and it’ll be easier to do if you were also lying by mimicking their ideology to a certain degree without damaging property.

Getting involved in the worst companies in the worst industries, though, could be considered an efficient and moral way to begin the process of reforming those industries and “producing real change” as Milton Sandworm would say. It’s not the most moral thing to hypothetically do. and could seriously open anybody who attempted it up to a number of risks. However, it could be effective and doesn’t seem impossible.

These jobs could theoretically be difficult to get hired for because there will be background checks in order to get clearance, and there would be serious legal consequences if someone were to hypothetically lie to attempt to gain clearance. I’m certainly not recommending anybody lie at all in the attempt to acquire one of these jobs. I imagine there will be some MAGA true believers hypothetically conducting these security clearances, but there also might be some institutionalists left or people otherwise unhappy with the way things are going. It all goes back to building out communities on small scales and expanding them. There is also about to be a massive hiring spree. If a moral person were to get one of these jobs, they’d be taking money that might otherwise potentially going to fascist secret police or more malicious people.

Furthermore, there have been massive layoffs throughout the government, hypothetically leaving the people who conduct these security clearences massively overworked. Fascists are generally concerned about spectacle than skill or substance. Not that there wouldn’t hypothetically be some skilled fascists these imaginary constructs would need to deceive, but usually it’s easier to control less qualified people when you prmote them to jobs outside their ability.

For the other theoretical and fictional people with different skillsets, unwilling to take this level of risk, it’s important to spend time studying the most effective forms of nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience. They don’t always require large groups of people to be effective, but often seem work better with strong systems of community support and when the actions taken are conducted against vulnerable economic leverage points. Build mutual aid structures, listen to the people who have been affected by these problems the most severely in order to find out about those leverage points. Be truthful and act in good faith to those who are truthful to you and act in good faith, but don’t be overly trusting and lie relentless to those in power to the maximum limit of what is legally permissible.

When so much of the current administration is acting lawlessly and defining the law to suit their purposes, hypothetically breaking the law by lying to them would certainly seem to be morally just. If you get arrested, don’t talk until you see your attorney (which hopefully you will), absolutely don’t discuss your actions, organization structure, or anything concrete, but you can certainly discuss politics and political ideology with the other people in the jails. Study the civil rights movement. Fill the jails and to the maximally allowable extent that it is legally permissible agitate and organize the other people in there with you, economic leverage points are the most effective, so walk-outs, slowdowns, and wildcat strikes are the most effective if one were to hypothetically organize these things, or if one were uncomfortable with deciet and infiltration.

Lie strategically, tactically, and creatively, but stick to your morals, don’t be a lying scumbag in general or anything, but you don’t owe to the truth to those with power, or otherwise, who are acting illegally and immorally. Consensus reality and epistemological respect are both social constructs in much the same way that tolerance is in the paradox of tolerance. Thinking about how fascist states build out infrastructure and surveillance states are built, actions and ideas like this need to be laying around and put to use during times of crisis.

The way the current regime is acting, it feels to a certain degree that our government is operating as an occupying force within America. Obviously not to the same extent as the more explicitly evil occupying forces currently committing atrocities across the globe. However, I also still have some (likely misplaced or overly optimistic) faith that we’ll be able to ensure free and fair elections and can push changes on a global scale, but to do so we need to get people involved. We need to organize acts of civil disobedience beyond just filing permits for marches.

If you’ve read any dystopian works of fiction, books about history, or pay any attention to politics, doesn’t it make sense to begin mobilizing now? Why would you wait until the mechanisms of control and infrastructure to greatly expand detention center and surveillance is already in place?

Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation said something like “the second American Revolution will be bloodless if the left lets it.” I’m pretty sure what he meant is that it will be bloodless as long as we don’t resist, and even nonviolent resistance will engender more bloodshed, human rights violations, and stochastic terrorism committed by the rightwing. It’s risky, and nobody should feel required to do anything they’re uncomfortable with, but I think it’d be worth it to escalate a campaign of nonviolent civil disobediance to call his bluff.

The absolute least risky way to get involved, and still noble in its own small way, would be to apply for these jobs honestly and get involved with the government as much as possible. Do as much as you can to document the lawlessness in whatever ways possible so that people can be charged if we are lucky enough to get a truth and reconciliation commission, you don’t have it to release it right away if you don’t feel safe doing so.

Also, you absolutely shouldn’t feel bad about being terribly inefficient at the parts of your job that hurt people or cause harm, build community structures with the highly theoretical good people that all organizations are supposed to have, and begin seriously thinking about the reforms we need to make and having conversations with the people who you trust about them. Large scale reform happens by building progressively larger interlocking structures where the highest levels surrounding the broadest issues make up the biggest coalitions.

In all honesty, if one of these people were to hypothetically get hired by ICE or at a concentration camp, I am hoping that the positions they were hired for nor the organization that hired them to still be operational. I would hope this imaginary person is well aware that many people working with them will be potentially liable for serious crimes. They would need to find a way to honestly document things and to a certain extent build trust or work with certain legal organizations, journalists and collectors.

Such an imaginary person, would have gained organizational experience and would be well positioned to help rebuild or reform whatever industry or government agency once the 2nd Reconstruction period begins. If you don’t get hired, and you think you have a case, sue the bastards for unfair hiring practices and discrimination.

Things are going to change, though, and obviously need to. We are going to be embarking on a generational project of rebuilding the damage done to the government on a federal level. Climate catastrophes and collapse mean that we will likely need to get on war footing as soon as possible. Our job is to have actionable ideas, concrete policies, and potential action plans that we can move from the fringe to the center politically . There are so many changes that need to be made, and we need to all be working together to ensure the changes we‘re fighting for have the highest chances of success.1