The argument that conspiracies do not, cannot, exist is
foolish; worse than foolish: insane and foolish. Conspiracies exist everywhere. The best ones are made up of two people, they easily keep
each other in check, often with strong mutual interests and very little
persuasion needed. But, as the
numbers involved increase, the requirement for incentives to maintain the
silence of conspiracy also increases.
And there is a limit for how many people can be involved without the
certainty of exposure. Most
conspiracies collapse because the incentives don’t keep up with the numbers of
people who have relevant knowledge, but many conspiracies do pay attention to
the needed incentives.
Clearly this a math problem: how many people; how much
incentive; what defines the limits?
Here is my simple minded offering for this under-explored field of
inquiry.
‘F’ (amount of fear) plus ‘C’ (compensation) divided by ‘n’ (number of people needed for an
action) = ‘M’ (a constant, the total motivation required to remain
silent). This number might
marginally increase if people are added who have moral principles.
(F+C)/n = M
What this means is that if you need 20 people to run a
conspiratorial operation, then the level of fear and compensation must be
increased over a conspiracy that requires 5 people:
(5 + 10)/5 = 3 ;
(25 + 35)/20
= 3
Another feature demonstrated by the formula is the
interchangeability of fear and money: “I will fire you if you tell, and I will
also give you a thousand bucks for not telling.” Then, there is “I’ll fire you and deny you future employment
if you tell.” vs. “I’ll give you $20,000 if you don’t tell.” Displayed in
formulaic form as example:
(17 + 13)/10 = 3 for the
first situation, (27 + 3)/10 = 3
for the second (there is almost always a salary base) and (5 + 25)/10 =3 for the third (there is always an implied threat).
Clearly, there is an upper limit for how many people can be
involved before either the amount of fear or the amount of compensation will
produce a value that falls below the constant, M, and the conspiracy is
exposed.
For the sake of the argument let’s say that the threat of
death (it has to be real) is 90 and the threat of death, torture and the death
of one’s family is 120. Monetary
compensation becomes progressively less effective as the numbers go up – that
is the amounts have to increase exponentially as the measured effect goes up
arithmetically – such that the power of $5 million (score of 150) is only
marginally more than $4 million (score of 144). So, in our model, with a constant, M = 3, a conspiracy could
contain with efficiency: (120 + 150)/n = 3, gives n=90 as the largest number of
people that could contain the conspiracy.
But there is more.
The cost would be $450 million on top of the cost of making the threat
of death and dismemberment of hundreds of people a reality. If the monetary side is removed the
conspiracy could include, (120 + 6)/n = 3, n=42, (the 6 represents base
salary). If the threat side were
removed, (12 + 150)/n = 3, n=54, (again, always an implied threat) hardly
changing the situation for maintaining the conspiracy, but changing greatly the
dynamics of the situation.
Leaving the detail, but retaining the concept, of this
model; what are the arrangements of threat vs. compensation powers in the real
world. There are 3 major seats of
power: commercial/corporate, governmental and criminal. If we define them conceptually by the
ways that they might attempt to hide a conspiracy, we get: (small value F +
large value C)/n = M, for commercial; (large value F + small value C)/n = M,
for government; and (large potential value F + large potential value C)/n = M,
for criminal. Therefore, if we
identify a conspiracy as, (9 + 60)/n =3, n=23, then we would suspect that it
was formed out of the commercial sector of power. If the incentives were
reversed, we would suspect the government; and if they were more equal, we
would suspect criminal origins, especially if the fear and compensation components
were large.
But what would we think or say about a discovered conspiracy
that clearly originated in governmental offices with the form, (100 + 140)/n =
3, n=80, and another originating in corporate suites, (120 + 90)/n = 3, n=70? If we followed the conceptual
definitions, then they both would be criminally based rather than defined by
the room from which they were directed. (A note here: the n value is the
maximum number that could contain a conspiracy under the defined circumstances,
it is not required for the model that that number are always involved. Especially grievous actions might want
to be protected by over-funding both the threat and the compensation.)
Some real-life examples: Julian Assange, Edward Snowden,
Bradley – AKA Chelsea – Manning and several others, not so regularly reported
on, have exposed conspiracies that originated in government/military
offices. Manning has been tortured
(by Geneva standards, if not by the reader's) and his freedom taken from him;
this would get a very high F score.
Assange and Snowden, both, have their lives threatened and freedom
limited. Snowden has lost
considerable income and Assange has been attacked economically. In their cases they would get high F
and high C scores. The display of
the consequences for breaching the conspiracy curtain is clearly intended to
fix very high F scores in the minds of the other members of the conspiracies
and it can be assumed that compensations are being quietly discussed by those
remaining with damaging knowledge.
The military, surveillance and “diplomatic” conspiracies
exposed clearly increased their n value over what the F and C values could
contain to match or be more than M.
It would be expected by the model that the n value would be lowered and
that perceived F and C values reconsidered. Another way of saying this is that the attempts to control
and contain information would take on more and more of the criminal model, out
of what would appear to conspirators to be necessity – the thought of doing
away with the secrecy of conspiracy would not occur as an option (see Gen.
Keith Alexander’s responses).
And finally, the model tells us that all conspiracies would
tend to move toward the criminal form over time and the inevitable dribble of
exposures. F scores would increase
as would C scores and n values decreased as much as possible – fitting the
criminal model exactly. The conclusion has to be that, in terms of this model
if nothing else (and I think there is plenty else), commercial/corporate,
government and criminal enterprises are melting together into a toxic stew that
cannot be un-stewed by any presently legal or societally sanctioned actions.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with trying, nothing wrong
with probing the legal system for its possibilities, nothing wrong with
whistle-blowers falling below the value of the conspiracy constant M and
blowing the whistle – accept that the F scores are increased along with the C
scores and the criminality goes up.
It is even possible that a synergy of action could reinvigorate the
government sector of power with the will of the people; again, worth a huge
try. But, at the same time I’d be
looking at plans for that ark.
