The three philosophers envisioned variations on a world in which man was a solitary creature and that encounters with other humans were violent by necessity. It was only through overcoming this inherent violence that humans were able to establish societies and rules for governing human interactions. But, without question, this is choosing the chicken when asking whether the chicken or the egg came first. (Evolution tells us it was the egg, because there were plenty of species which laid eggs before there were birds, let alone chickens in particular.)

The fact is that humans are inherently social creatures. All other currently existing primates are social creatures and we have evidence that early hominids were as well. The earliest humans, those residing in a "state of nature", were not solitary creatures. They had families, often extended ones. Based on the behaviors of the other extant primates, when those extended families got large enough, they would split apart because of the stress they put on the food supply and other resources. Over time, after each group split enough times, the separate families would be unknown to each other. And when two distantly related families encountered each other, the result would often be a conflict over resources. In this, the philosophers were undoubtedly right. Violence was inherent in the life of early man. But it wasn't a violence of individual against individual,  it was a violence of tribe against tribe.

And this is the root of something which I'm becoming more aware of amongst the various folks who claim to support individual rights, and that they want to protect those rights against encroachment from the state. In proclaiming individual rights uber alles, people often ignore the fact that individual rights have always been suborned to some extent to the health and security of the tribe. In their everyday lives, however, people tacitly acknowledge this truth in their behavior, acting beneficially for not just themselves, but for their family and their friends, and often for a local community that they don't necessarily have close biological ties too.

It is a rare thing for a person who is defending individual rights to actually be a true individualist and not a voluntarily contributing member of a community. It is this seeming contradiction that has always kind of tickled at the back of my mind whenever political discussions develop. The truth is that almost everyone is a socialist to the extent that they want their social unit -- their tribe -- to be equitable to its members, and to ensure their health and safety.

What gets me curious is why some people are more able than others to expand the population of their "tribe" to include an entire nation, or even the global population as a whole. I seem to recall reading about some research study which found a potential connection between the presence of certain genetic markers and this ability, but my memory may be lying to me.

On a personal level, I'm continually getting better at recognizing that my tribe is as much of the world's population as wants to be part of a single tribe. On the national level, I tend to disapprove of the methodology of many of the policies we've enacted in an attempt to most effectively benefit the nation because I don't believe that the majority of them are effective at all.

It's a common complaint, and one I've made myself in the past. But this time it got me curious, so I went to look at just how many of the movies last year were original properties. I started going through the full list of movies originally released in the US, but too many of them never really got major releases, so I decided to just focus on the top 10 worldwide grossing movies originally released in the US (because it's what Wikipedia charts). This was my conclusion for the decade of 2001-2010:

For the last 10 years, 28 of the 100 highest grossing films were original screenplays. Of the other 72, all but 16 were reboots or sequels or later in film franchise.

I'm going to expand that a bit here, and take it a bit farther back in time if I can. So let me define my categories. First, "Original". Pretty simple. Original screenplays that aren't directly adapted from other sources. Second, "Remake". Again, simple. Screenplays which are revisionings of earlier movies. Third, "Franchise". These are films which are sequels/prequels or later in a series of movies. Fourth, "Adaptation". Movies which are adapted from other forms of media.

So, for a bit more clarification, if a movie is the first of a series of books, then it counts as an adaptation, such as the first Harry Potter, Twilight and Lord of the Rings movies. If a movie is a reboot of a franchise, such as Batman Begins, then it counts as a remake. The movies that follow a reboot (The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises) are counted as franchise films. A movie that is a loose revisioning of a fairy tale is an adaptation (think Tangled -> Rapunzel), but a movie that plays on cultural memes, like 2012, but isn't directly adapted from a book (despite there being books about the 2012 prophecy) is an original screenplay.

A few movies have complicated ancestry, so I will document how I counted them here.

• Sherlock Holmes, 2009 - remake (of the multiple earlier franchises, based on the series of books)
• Transformers, 2007 - remake (of the cartoon movie, based on the cartoon, based on the toys
• 300, 2007 - adaptation (of the comic, based on a movie)
• Casino Royale, 2006 - remake (of the original, based on the book)
• Troy, 2004 - adaptation (of The Iliad)
• Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, 2001 - adaptation (of the book, despite the existence of the animated film)
• A Bug's Life, 1998 - remake (loosely of Seven Samurai, influenced by one of Aesop's fables)
• Speed, 1994 - original (loosely inspired by some Japanese films)
• Bram Stoker's Dracula, 1992 - remake (of the earlier movies, based on the book)

Now, onto the data!

I tallied up the numbers for every year 1981-2010, and the results are pretty clear.

As you can see, from 1981-1990, only a single movie of the top 10 yearly grossing movies was a remake of an earlier movie. And from 2001-2010, franchise movies have dominated the top grossing charts. But that doesn't really clearly indicate any trends.

The numbers of remakes and direct adaptations have slight changes, but have for the most part stayed the same. But franchises have skyrocketed and original movies have taken a nose-dive.

Of course, it's important to remember that this doesn't give the full picture of the movie industry as a whole. Without looking at the full yearly releases, we can't really draw any solid conclusions. We'd have just as much reason to assume the rest of the top 20 movies are all remakes as we would to assume they are all original screenplays (neither of which is particularly likely). Also, if you split things differently — say counting original screenplays against adaptations (both new and franchised) against remakes — or counted as adaptations the remakes of movies where the original movies were adaptations, you might have a rather different count. At some point I might actually take the time to do all of that and more.

As such, I decided to create a tumblr to document those video and headline mismatches. It's called Reader Fail. You should check it out. But here's a sample:

Last weekend was the 10th annual DC Lindy Exchange — in the scene's parlance, DCLX. A lindy exchange, is traditionally a weekend where the local scene hosts a series of dances and invites folks from outside of the area to come and "exchange" their knowledge and style of dance with the locals, often featuring local bands. DCLX this year featured two bands which are set up so that they have both a big band ensemble and a smaller group, allowing the bands to perform at different style and size venues. The core of both bands are musicians from LA and Seattle, but also included local musicians. And the DCLX organizer's planned something special. Jonathan Stout's Campus Five and full Orchestra and Glenn Crytzer's Syncopaters would share a stage for two nights, with alternating sets, and would participate in a Battle of the Bands of sorts, in which the two bands would trade two songs, transitioning back and forth mid-song.

At most dances, you're lucky to have a live band. People are generally pretty happy to dance to a DJ, but most will admit that they much prefer a live band, even if their reasoning isn't much more explanatory than, "It just has a better feel." And you shouldn't expect much more than that; most dancers aren't musicians. There are definitely dancers who really appreciate a quality live performance for the musicality, but I think they are still a small portion of the scene. But, at a dance with a live band, if you're lucky, the crowd will be feeling the music enough that you'll get a spontaneous jam circle or two. A few people might hang out near the front of the stage, clapping and cheering the band on. But for the most part, everyone is still just dancing.

So, having two bands on one stage, and having them involved in a bit of a competition, driving themselves to try to outperform each other is a pretty phenomenal event. Friday night, the bands set up their small groups and played one long set each. The crowd at the Glen Echo Bumper Car Pavilion was ridiculous, with a solid group of people cheering each band on during their set while taking a break from dancing. I could see members of each band hanging out in the wings and cheering the other band on as well. The atmosphere was definitely one of the best I've experienced since I started dancing.

Little did I know what was waiting for me on Saturday. There was a great jam circle during Jonathan Stout's second set, which really got the dancers ready for the battle. And as the battle began, a pretty solid crowd was forming at the front of the stage. Not long after the two bands started playing together on Jumpin’ At The Woodside and Fats Waller’s Honeysuckle Rose I looked at the crowd behind me, I realized that I couldn't see anyone who was dancing. That. Doesn't. Happen.

Russ Reinberg, a clarinetist in Stout's orchestra wrote about the weekend, and it's hard to trump his words about it:

At that point the music took on an intensity I never have experienced at a dance festival. All the musicians played harder and the vocalists sang better and the dancers began to notice. About fifty had stopped dancing during Jonathan’s second set and crowded up to the stage. As the music swung on, more and more couples stopped dancing and moved toward the bandstand. Soon hundreds, all but a couple of dozen people at the very back of the hall, had stopped dancing and began to cheer for the soloists. That was unprecedented. Today’s Swing dancers go to dance, not listen. Music is merely fuel for their feet.

The music pounded on. Glenn had found a young blond guy from Wisconsin who played tenor and baritone sax. His solos on both instruments knocked me out and, on that final tune, Honeysuckle, he really belted out a winner on tenor. I doubt more than a few people realized it.

But Glenn’s secret weapon was his bass player because he doubled on Sousaphone. So, in the middle of Honeysuckle, Glenn traded his guitar for a banjo and the bass player picked up the Sousaphone. The crowd went nuts. They always are suckers for unusual instruments like tubas, washboards, bones, and spoons; it’s a cheap old trick from Vaudeville dog acts. But then half of Glenn’s band dropped out and the rest slid into a Dixieland chorus: Trumpet, trombone, clarinet, and rhythm section. Now that was showmanship!

Jonathan roared back with an unrehearsed sax section riff and the section played it slightly wrong. Somewhere along the line he tossed me a second solo. Then the drummers went head to head and our drummer, Paul Lines, played a final volley that took down the house. Glenn’s band answered with a great riff from Benny Goodman’s Fletcher Henderson arrangement they had practiced that afternoon. Jonathan shot back with a riff from Count Basie’s The King and, at the bridge, I threw in Benny’s short 1938 solo. Both bands together blasted out a final chorus and the place broke out into hysteria.

He goes on to conclude, in words that probably incite a frisson or chills in any swing dancer or musician who is familiar with the history of our musical culture:

My father was at the Palomar Ballroom in Los Angeles that famous night in August 1935 when Benny Goodman made history and launched the Swing era. Our experience in Glen Echo, Maryland came as close to that as is possible today. It was an electrifying night for the musicians and the dancers.

I have played many times on the Johnny Carson Show and several other TV shows. I performed several times at Carnegie Hall. I’ve played jazz festivals. I have worked with genuine jazz stars. My groups usually received standing ovations. But Saturday night in Glen Echo was one of only two occasions where I experienced that surge of electricity you feel when you know your music has impacted an entire venue. It will stand out in my memory as a unique example of the immense power jazz possesses to bring anyone to a level of profound joy.

Jerry Almonte is putting together a longer post where he talks with several people about the battle including Russ and other musicians, and when he gets that up, I'll definitely update this post with a link to it.

That all seems pretty standard and would work well if someone wanted to make it into a movie, but it's the societal background which Spinrad has created that puts the story into an odd world for the modern reader. The highly racially divided, socially liberalized society is a direct reflection of and a potential future from the late 1960s when the book was written. Barron was the founder of a civil rights-focused political party, the Social Justice Coalition, which is almost completely supported by southern blacks. (Republicans are a second class party, almost entirely beholden to big business, and the Democrats aren't much better, and are tightly tied to Howards' influence.) Marijuana use is legalized and sexual relationships are very reflective of the lifestyle of the summer of love. However, the way Spinrad depicts the women makes them all very subservient — both professionally and sexually.

Race is the key mover behind the story though, playing a large part in the conflict between Howards and Barron, and driving associated story arcs which tie in to the primary drama. The associated class differences and social limitations on blacks (unashamedly referred to as niggers, while whites are frequently called 'shades') are best shown though Lukas Greene, Barron's good friend and Governor of Mississippi, a state which is depicted as being almost entirely populated by blacks living in abject poverty, despite the efforts of the SJC to revitalize the economy and population.

The story itself is quite interesting though, despite the moments of realization that this is an alternate future which never came to be and which probably can't happen in our future which occasionally draw you out of the story (for instance Lukas Greene's internal monologue in which he says that he knows a black man can't be president). Stylistically, Spinrad is clearly influenced by the free association and lyrical prose of the beat generation. But that style is also cross-pollinated by the rise of commercialism and television advertising.

In all, it's definitely an book worthy of reading to see the diversity of New Wave science fiction. I could definitely imagine the story being adapted to the modern era, or an updated future one, and turned into a movie. The conflict between the common man and big money/big business set against a backdrop of social and class divisions is one that is going to have a long life in literature and film.

For the average person, this phenomenon is best seen in the Harry Potter series. For the folks who are more invested in the fantasy literature genre, over the last 10-15 years two names have been synonymous with big books and long waits between them: Robert Jordan and George RR Martin. Four years ago, Patrick Rothfuss quietly introduced himself to the fantasy genre with his novel Name of the Wind, and it definitely fulfilled the second of the two characteristics of fantasy lit. And the name of that book was passed through the fan community almost as quickly as the wind itself, propelling it onto the NYT bestseller list. And fans of the book quickly learned (told by the main character of the novel, no less) that it was the first book in a trilogy. And Rothfuss told the world that the rest of the story was already written. More or less.

That's where rule number one comes into play. Fans were hopeful that book two would be out within a year or two, because it was "already written". But two years turned into three. And three years turned into four. And a wind rose in the backwoods of Wisconsin, and the wind was a beginning, but it was not the beginning. Er, sorry there, started channeling my inner-Jordan. The name of that wind was the anticipation that mounted and mounted over the publication of Wise Man's Fear. It is safe to say that the only more anticipated fantasy novel is George RR Martin's A Dance With Dragons (recently announced to have a July 11, 2011 publication date, 6 years after the previous book in the series), and depending on who you ask, they may argue the point.

Well, let me tell you something folks, Rothfuss delivers. In spades. In buckets and buckets of stew. Released on March 1, I swung by one of the two Barnes & Nobles in DC. I knew that the book was going to be popular, so I skipped trying a local store, because I figured that B&N would have copies in stock. No dice. Sold out in two hours according to the employee I talked to, who called the other store which was also sold out. So I tried one of the local stores. Also sold out. So on the third I called up B&N to reserve a copy and picked it up on my way home.

I got home around 6 and read until 2. I was only about halfway through the book. That tells you 1) the size of the book (there's that other pesky rule of thumb again), and 2) the density and quality of the writing. (In comparison, I knocked off the last book in the Harry Potter series in 6 hours.) Rothfuss' writing is complex, but clear; engaging and absorbing. I need to break out a thesaurus to be able to describe his ability to produce quality dialogue (clever and sparkling), descriptions of the world (elaborate and elegant), characters (multidimensional and necessary) and societal behaviors and political intrigues (inventive and detailed) without repeating myself.

And all of this is combined in a narrative that, despite the length of the novel, is so tightly wrapped and bound together that it doesn't seem that a single word is wasted. The interweaving of the external narrative of Kvothe and Bast and Chronicler and the story which Kvothe is telling are producing a world which, while we, as readers still lack the full story, is extremely well-developed and hints at the story which we don't yet know. In itself, the anticipation it creates for the resolution of both Kvothe's story and the larger narrative and how the two are connected is almost maddening.

What really amazes me is the way that Rothfuss is able to take various standard tropes of fantasy literature and adapt them and turn them on their head. Sure, we've got the "hyper-competent" boy hero, but we see his doubt, his failures, his innocence. And we see him learn to overcome them and begin to grow from boy to man; it is a true process, not just a sudden "thing" which is so common. And how many of these other things have you seen before? He goes to a school for magic. He searches through an excessively large library. He trains with a special warrior society. He dabbles in palace intrigues. Yet, all of these are turned on their heads. But I'm not telling you how because I don't want to ruin the story and the surprises.

What Rothfuss did in Name of the Wind was to introduce himself to the fantasy literature world by slapping it upside the head with a sea bass and saying, "I love this genre and a lot of the things about it, but dammit I'm doing it my way." And he has definitely continued in that vein. A week or two ago, there was a bit of a brouhaha over the state of fantasy literature and it's supposed degradation from the glorious high fantasy of Tolkien to the blackened, rotting husk of authors such as Joe Abercrombie*. No one can read Wise Man's Fear and accept that claim as true. As good at Name of the Wind was, Wise Man's Fear is even better. I don't like to rank "best" books, so I can't really tell you where it places, but Wise Man's Fear is easily one of the best fantasy novels of all time. And if The Doors of Stone (book three's working title) improves as much on Wise Man's Fear as Wise Man's Fear did on Name of the Wind, I will be hard pressed to find a better fantasy novel.

*I love Joe Abercrombie's work and am reading through his most recent novel now.

He then asked his readers to present their own estimate for the probability that inflation was true. And he added a few other major theoretical concepts in physics: supersymmetry, string theory, the Higgs boson, large extra dimensions, WIMP dark matter, and "any non-cosmological-constant explanation for cosmic acceleration." He left the categories quite vague (for example, does "large" mean, "micro/macroscopic" or just "larger than Planck length") because there are often multiple theories within each category, but for the most part there is a single unifying concept for each theory.

60+ people with a wide range of backgrounds have responded with their estimates now. And the results are interesting in a couple of ways. The two charts below show the how many people proposed specific percentages of the likelihood of each theoretical concept. The interactive versions are available on GoogleDocs.

Compiled likelihoods of several physics theories, based on predictions given by commenters at Cosmic Variance

Compiled likelihoods of several physics theories, based on predictions given by commenters who indicated an educational/professional background in physics at Cosmic Variance

The first things that jump out at me are that pretty much no one believes that large extra dimensions have any chance of existing (average likelihood being 9.08% with a standard deviation of 15.47), while the Higgs particle is considered quite likely to exist (average = 79.52%, std dev = 26.77), with inflation also having a better than 2/3 chance (average = 67.02%, std dev = 28.81). Amongst those who claimed an educational and/or professional background in physics (and astronomy), large extra dimensions are considered similarly unlikely, but the Higgs boson, inflation, and WIMPs are both considered ~10% more likely than by the commenters as a whole.

On the other hand, the chances given to supersymmetry, string theory, and non-cosmological-constant cosmic expansion are all stable in being considered relatively unlikely by both laymen and scientists alike.

It's an interesting little bit of meta-analysis, really, which raises some questions about why certain major theories are accepted both in and outside of those educated in physics, why some of those are more accepted within the subset, and why other theories are considered equally less likely, regardless of education. It is likely that "insiders", as it were, have a firmer basis in the fundamentals of physics and so they are better able to evaluate the theories themselves, which would explain the variation between the insiders and outsiders on certain topics. But I don't think there is anything about the Higgs boson, or inflation, or WIMPs which differentiates them from the other theories that makes them less comprehensible to those with a physics background.

And since this is a non-rigorous, loosely defined survey, I wouldn't really want to try to draw any significant conclusions from it. But it is interesting to get a general picture of how various theories are viewed and accepted within the physics community as a whole, and amongst the larger population of laypeople who are interested in modern advancements in the science.

Update 2/11/2011: Over 100 people have commented now.

Compiled likelihoods of several physics theories, based on predictions given by commenters at Cosmic Variance

Compiled likelihoods of several physics theories, based on predictions given by commenters who indicated an educational/professional background in physics at Cosmic Variance

Prior to the development of the modern firearm and the introduction of armored vehicles, a battle line was very much a line. A mass of men armed with melee weapons and short range projectiles, occasionally aided by archers and/or cavalry. The two sides faced up against each other and bashed each other in the face. Depending on the situation, it might have been tightly formed lines such as the Roman legions or Greek phalanx, where only the first few lines were actively fighting at any one moment, or it might have been more loosely formed, where the two masses became wholly interspersed amongst one another (as seen in Braveheart).

Early modern firearms still relied on massed lines of men, but that was because of the inaccuracy of the weapons and because battles usually still resorted to hand-to-hand combat.

Both of these periods saw tactics in which reserve units were sent to reinforce ones' own weak lines, or to overload weak spots in the opponents. The attacks and counters in this manner are what led to the forward and backwards movement of the fighting across unprepared (lacking significant constructed defenses) battlefields.

Even into the 1900s, hand-to-hand combat was quite common, despite the increase in accuracy of firearms. Bayonet charges were quite common in both WW1 and WW2. However, in WW1, battles were often dependent upon the ability of one side to gain control of prepared defensive positions, making it a much more static environment in terms of what could be gained and lost. Attacks were often made with multiple waves of infantry charges. If an attack failed, the defender had not lost any ground and the attacker had not gained any.

By WW2, the days of inaccurate, low rate of fire weapons were gone. And as a result, so too was the day in which two groups massed on a field and fought face to face (if they could help it). The nature of the war had one side utilizing infantry distributed amongst prepared, static, defensive positions and artillery with mechanized reinforcements, while the other used a combination smaller individual units of infantry supported by armored vehicles, aircraft, and much more accurate artillery and naval fire to help overcome heavily prepared defensive positions. Because of the less solid nature of the lines of combat, the ebb and flow of the battles were much less obvious (to anyone who wasn't actually in the middle of it all).

The modern development of video has given us the ability to record and see just how lines of combat ebb and flow. But because of the shift away from massed front lines, there isn't much chance for us to actually view the ebb and flow of a battle. And most cameras brought to the front lines of a combat zone are usually in the thick of things, not getting a bird's eye view of the larger situation. But the last few days have presented us with something we've never had before. A top-down look at fighting between two large crowds primarily armed with melee weapons and simple projectiles — rocks and molotov cocktails. The clashes between the anti-government protesters and what seem to be government controlled thugs have been recorded and broadcast by several news agencies who have set up their cameras on balconies, high up in nearby hotels.

In the clip below, the government thugs have maneuvered some trucks across the road to provide themselves with some cover, and to force the protesters back into Tahrir Square. However, the protesters attack and push the thugs back. There are numerous similar videos available if you can find them, where you can see first one crowd flowing forward and the other backward, and then the process reverses. At one point the group attacking the protesters sends people up into a nearby building to throw rocks and brickwork down on the protesters. At various points, the attackers pushed the protesters all the way back into the square, but by nightfall the protesters had pushed out to the end of the road and set up makeshift barricades (which I have been calling Mubarricades in my head), to defend themselves from the rocks and molotov cocktails which were being hurled at them. I asked a couple of folks on Twitter who are in the military and/or study military history and didn't get any affirmative responses that there is any video from earlier conflicts which show this back and forth. It's definitely something that might be of interest to the military, riot police and security forces. And anyone who might be contemplating any popular insurrections as well.

What jumped out at me, more than the fact that it was made in the US, is that the canister expired 5 years ago. Just at the top of the shell, two lines of text are visible:

3. SHELF LIFE 5 YEARS AFTER DATE OF MANUFACTURE
4. DO NOT USE AFTER EXPIRATION DATE

And then of course, there is the big sticker which reads "MFG 2001". And since "MFG" is a fairly standard abbreviation for "manufacturing", it would seem as though the canister expired some time in 2006.

There is no doubt that social media has played a role in widespread protests in several nations. But in Tunisia, Facebook has taken it to a new level. Prior to, and during the widespread protests, the Tunisian government, which controlled internet access in Tunisia had instituted a script which was harvesting login information for the people who were accessing Facebook and using that information to delete the profiles of people who were posting anti-government and pro-protest statements and information. It does not appear that they took the next step and rounded up any of those people, but the story isn't completely clear.

What's interesting to me is that Facebook took it upon itself to counter the government's actions by adding some extra security to the login process for Tunisian IP addresses. I don't know Tunisian law or international law (or any law, for that matter), but I'm curious about the larger issue. If a government says that it has the legal right to access any information transmitted through the internet service which it provides, what legal right does a private entity, based outside of that government's nation, such as Facebook, have to circumvent the government's access to that information? Especially after the fact? Facebook was not using https to encrypt the login information preventing the keylogging style harvesting script the Tunisian government put into place until after they became aware of the keylogging.

Even in the US there is a disconnect between an individuals privacy regarding electronic information on stored on computers and networks and their privacy regarding physical information on paper and objects in their homes. And if the US government obtained a warrant to access a US citizen's Facebook account, I believe that Facebook would be obligated to give that information to the government. Maybe Tunisia doesn't require a warrant. So, again, would not Facebook be obligated to allow Tunisia's government to access that information?

On the whole, I'm rather happy that Facebook took the steps it did. (Amused also, considering how much Facebook tries to default to sharing an individual's personal information with other people and companies.) But with the global growth of the internet and entirely online entities such as Facebook and Twitter and Google and others, I'm curious about how they are able to interact with different nations and their informational policies. Last year we saw Google close up shop in China because of that government's informational practices which the company did not want to support. And it briefly (I think it's no longer functioning) provided full Google access to Chinese citizens by directing their access through a different domain.

Over the past 100 years we've seen massive growth of international businesses. Calling companies like Coca-Cola "American" simply because that is where their headquarters is located is almost farcical when they are publicly traded and have ownership distributed globally and do most of their business and base most of their employees outside of the US. And internet based ventures blur those lines even further. How are such companies to be governed and policed? While they are headquartered in a country like the US, they are nominally subject to certain laws and restrictions and obligations. But what if they don't want to be?

Perhaps I've read too much dystopian science fiction, but imagine a world in which various internet corporations have banded together to purchase a small area of land, say, an island in the Caribbean or South Pacific and declared that island's independence from it's prior government, or just buy off that government. They then draft up a constitution that is completely beneficial to their own needs and desires, completely freeing them from the obligations of the laws of their original host nations. How then would they be restricted, or held responsible? Some might say that the powers of the free market would compel them. But that isn't really likely when they already control so much of the activity within their business domains. And at that point, they'd essentially be a nation (or nations) themselves. Forget granting companies the rights of the individual which people got up in arms about after the Citizens United case a couple years ago. Now they'd have the ability to declare war. Imagine a group of the most significant international businesses and internet entities placing an embargo on a nation. They would possibly be able to almost completely isolate that nation electronically.

This idea is pretty far ranging from the original issue. Morally, Facebook very much had an obligation to protect the identities and privacy of its users from a hostile government. And it came through on that obligation. But considering the criticism Facebook has faced regarding its policy toward user privacy, it might be somewhat surprising. And at the same time (or possibly before) we concern ourselves with corporate nations, we need to concern ourselves with the ability of any government accessing our private information which we maintain online. In Tunisia it was just Facebook accounts getting shut down. But what if next time it is people getting arrested or killed? How do people protect themselves from that? What ability and legal right do companies have to take action to prevent that?