 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
JAY: So what exactly--what can--what privacy can they break down, or what do they have access to?
Much is contained in that Real News report worthy of comment, in my opinion.
On the subject called privacy there is an angle of view worth mentioning.
Living organisms survive because living organisms adapt.
Adaptation is necessary for life.
Failure to adapt to inevitable changes in the physical world is failure to survive as a species, the result of failure to adapt is extinction.
If each individual example of a species suffers from a power by which the individual must think and must act according to a very narrow prescribed set of thoughts and actions the species will die off, for failing to access the power required to adapt to the inevitable physical changes that will occur in actual reality.
This can be seen by way of illustration or actual physical measurements.
Some early species of humanoid failed to adapt, other species of humanoid adapted, the result is the human species, and that is a measurable fact.
An illustration can be provided by imagination, and this is itself a form of adaptation, rocks have no imagination, ants may be capable of a simple form of imagination, I, being human, can imagine the following situation:
Each person is exposed to a power by which each person knows what they must do or failure to do what they must do results in severe punishment, punishment that is so severe that the person will be weaker following the punishment, and the person will then be even less able to survive as an individual, as a result of the punishment, the punishment that will occur if the person does not do exactly what he must do to avoid being punished.
The imaginary illustration continues:
Each person is exposed to a power by which each person knows what they must not do or failure to not do what they must not do results in severe punishment, punishment that is so severe that the person will be weaker following the punishment, and the person will then be even less able to survive as an individual, as a result of the punishment, the punishment that will occur if the person does that which the person is forbidden to do.
The above is my imagination applied toward the medium called written language, those are words above, I invented those words, but those words describe historical reality, read for example the book titled The Gulag Archipelago
Actual physical reality, in human history, illustrates the problem that is the base problem underlying the so called "privacy" issue.
When the list of things that must be done narrow down in scope from a very large number of optional choices of many, many, many, things that must be done, the list can, conceivably, and actually, become a very short list of only a few things that must be done.
1. You must work, failure to work is death by gun shot, or beating, or freezing to death, death by thirst, or death by starvation.
In the cases reported by Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn the list had two things that must be done.
1. You must work
2. You must starve to death
The empire employees in those cases were ordered to dish out less food than the food they knew was the minimum amount of food required to survive, even without forcing the workers to work.
So, the reader may wonder, how does this relate to privacy, you are all over the map.
I'm not guilty. I am not all over the map.
Along with the vary narrow list of things that must be done is the list of things that cannot be done and the point here is to point out that the power to enforce these lists works against the power to adapt as each individual is forced to narrow their own creativity, their own power to invent new ways, new methods, new ways to adapt to changes in the physical world, because each individual is exposed to a power that works directly against that inventive power.
The power of peer pressure, for example, works on an individual in such a way as to force the individual to follow a specific set of actions and to force the individual to avoid a specific set of actions and if those sets of actions are followed then the individual spends his or her life following a specific set of actions. Fear, as a negative, and conformity, as a positive ("belonging" to the group), are specific measurements of the force that keeps individuals doing only specific things, and forces individuals to consume life following a specific method, absent the force of adaptation.
As soon as one person steps out of line, is the very moment one individual employs the force of adaptation, an adaptive experiment is performed by that one individual, the one individual who steps out of line.
If all the other members of the species are poised, ready, willing, and able to immediately destroy the one individual who steps out of line, or so much as contemplates stepping out of line, then the power to adapt is completely destroyed in each case that it could occur if it was powerful enough to occur.
If each person contemplating some act must first pass the gauntlet of known prohibitions and expectations the power to imagine will be inversely proportional to the power exerted against it.
Think, if you can, if you still have a brain that can think. What allows you to imagine new things, and what power destroys that capacity to imagine?
If every second of every day an individual is fearful of what other people may do and what other people may think, then when will that person ever have time to imagine something else?
If every second of every day an individual is totally committed to the work of gaining positive feedback from other people, absolutely consumed with making sure that everyone is pleased with everything done by this imaginary person, when will this person ever have time to imagine anything?
Privacy is the stuff that exists between a person's ears when they are able to set aside the force of peer pressure and are then able to imagine, and are then able to adapt, and are then able to invent, and are then able to know new things.
To turn that understanding, about privacy, into an imaginary person who is hiding something, some bogey man, an imaginary child porn cannibal terrorist torturing serial killer, hidden behind every unopened e-mail, is to suffer greatly from the force of peer pressure - it seems to me.
Privacy can be a simple issue.
What business is it of yours? Don't you have more important things to do, than to be going through everyone else's business?
Privacy can be, as I have illustrated, a much more important thing, a power worthy of securing, a power that empowers adaptation, and allows individuals the required means by which the species can adapt to the physical world.
Too much peer pressure will kill off the human species, and there are plenty of examples in human history that prove this fact out, not just the example reported by Solzhenitsyn.
If every person copied the example of The Gulag, if that became the short list of things allowed, and the short list of things that must be done, or else, then our species wouldn't have lasted to today.
Some people, like Solzhenitsyn, managed to adapt - despite all the forces forcing him to conform.
The privacy issue is a power struggle between that which the group exerts upon the individual, the collective power of all the individuals combined, as that collective power is seen in the mind of each individual, and on the other side opposing the collective power is the individual power to adapt. How can this be seen more accurately, more competitively?
If each individual were nothing but willing and able to conform exactly as each other individual expected, demanded, and exerted force so as to make each other individual conform, there would be no question as to privacy. Each person did, and does, exactly as each other person did, and does, and no one, ever, stepped out of line.
That set of things that is within the set of things that are acceptable, to all, can be a very large set of things, or a very small set of things, but the point is, here, for you to consider, is that the set of things is set at that set, and as soon as one person steps out of line, at that moment, there is a new thing done, an adaptation experiment.
One person might say: The world is round, not flat.
One person might say: The Emperor isn't wearing any clothes, really, what are you people doing to each other that leads to this kind of shared false perception?
If the reader is inclined to think, even for a second, that the privacy issue is about people siding with the terrorists, protecting the terrorists, being terrorists, then the reader may want to question that thought and reevaluate it, despite any pressure from any quarter suggesting otherwise. The Emperor isn't wearing any cloths - figuratively. The President of the U.S.A corporation is literally a torturing mass murderer as guilty as sin, by his own confessions, as twisted as those words may be, the facts are measurable as the victims scream, the blood runs, and the bodies decompose and stink to high heaven.
Who decides what the collective opinion will be on any issue whatsoever?
1. You
2. Not 1
Will you take a poll?
The power of everyone else bears down on each of us, and that power can reach a destructive level; yes or no?
How about this poll:
Torture is:
A. Not so good for the one being tortured
B. Torture is great, it keeps us safe from terrorists
C. A form of entertainment
D. Understood to be immoral, not morally justifiable, and ineffective as a means of gaining accurate information.
There are people who are demanding access to things that were once considered to be private things, things that are none of anyone's business, for good reason, or for no reason whatsoever, once these things were considered none of anyone's business, and now some people are demanding access to these private things.
Who are those people?
Who is demanding access to everyone's private things, including demands to inspect all your cavities?
New poll:
Who wants this power, this exclusive power, to do whatever they want whenever they want, without limit, to anyone they choose?
A.
I want that power
B.
I want that power and I want everyone to have that power too.
C.
I want the republicans to have that power, not the democrats
D.
I want the democrats to have that power, not the republicans
E.
That is what criminals do, in fact, in actual reality, but don't ask them to confess that that is what they want, and don't ask them to confess that that is what they do, their confessions occur when they act, when they volunteer to do whatever they want to whomever they want, despite the tortured screams, of protest, produced by their victims during those crimes.
Life is current.
JAY: So what exactly--what can--what privacy can they break down, or what do they have access to?
Another comment I have concerns the reference to The Founding Fathers.
Paul, is that it basically is a landmark between two ideas of a republic and an empire. I think we're an empire at present. In a republic, the ordinary rule of life is freedom for the individual. That's what the Declaration of Independence says, that the sole purpose of government [is] to secure rights to unalienable life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the government must establish a very, very strong case to justify invading liberty before that can--the right to be left alone can be invaded. The empire is different. The empire assumes the government can go in and invade and surveil you and make you transparent to the government, unless you can show tyranny is the next step. That's the opposite of what the founding fathers said. They said, no, in a republic, the preference, the goal of the government is freedom first. The government has to satisfy that high threshold of danger in order to encroach.
I have a few problems with that report by that authority on the subject. I may be overly presumptuous to be saying that that person is an authority on the subject, he appears to me as being an authority on the subject, so I'm going with that presumption.
1. The U.S.A., by way of The Constitution, is a Nation State, and it is so by design, and it is not a republic, it is not a republic by design.
2. Actual people think things and do things, governments can't think, and governments can't act.
On the later problem I have I can say that it is a matter of convenience to say that "The government did this" or "The government did that" instead of making a list of the actual people who did this or the actual list of people who did that, such as:
Alexander Hamilton, and a list of other people conspiring with Alexander Hamilton, perpetrated a fraud upon the rest of the population, the victims that has since become known as The U.S.A., and Alexander Hamilton, and his cabal, hid behind a false front of Federalism, and that list of people created a Nation State disguised as a Federal Government, on purpose, for profit.
The differences between a republic and a nation state can be illustrated in two examples.
Example 1 has 2 parts, and example 1a illustrates a before nation state example and example 1b illustrated an after republic scenario.
Before America turned from an experimental republic and turned into a nation state there was a historical power struggle known now as Shays's Rebellion.
Example 1a (before nation state):
1a. Shays's Rebellion
After America turned from an experimental republic into a nation state there was a historical power struggle now known as The Whiskey Rebellion
Example 1b (after the republic experiment was criminally usurped - regime change - coup de grace):
1b. The Whiskey Rebellion
During the experimental republic the law of the land allowed for, or didn't out-law, rebellion in cases of excessive oppression by a separate and sovereign state government. How could the experimental republic make such a thing against the law when the experimental republic was created as a result of rebellion against excessive oppression by the people running the government?
The rebels of Shays's rebellion were claiming that the criminals running the Massachusetts State government took over the money supply, debased it, drove all the gold out of the state, forced the people to use whiskey as a competitive money, and then these legal criminals had the audacity to tax whiskey and order, get this please, order that those taxes must be paid in gold. Talk about oppression!
Well, the experimental republic worked exactly as it was meant to work, since the surviving rebels, including Daniel Shays, fled to Vermont, after losing their fight to restore moral law in the separate and sovereign state of Massachusetts.
The criminals running the Massachusetts government sent an order to the people running the Vermont government to hand over the rebels, to be punished, for the crime of rebelling against an oppressive government, and the people running the Vermont government, another separate and sovereign state within the republic experimental government, basically told the criminals running the Massachusetts government to pound sand.
Daniel Shays's, and the rebels, didn't commit any crime, they rebelled against a criminal oppressive government where the people running the criminal oppressive government were running a currency debasement fraud, and using that power to purchase, incidentally, to invade Canada, wars of aggression for profit, and failing to gain the booty, and going broke in the process. Who in their right mind would stand for that nonsense, let alone pay for it?
Danial Shays's, and other rebels, were celebrated war heroes, who had rebelled against the British Government, drove them out, and were then made criminals for doing the same thing in the rebellion against the tax on whiskey in Massachusetts.
The reason why the republic worked is the reason why competition works to force higher quality and lower costs. Vermont offered a higher quality government at a lower cost, within the republic, and Daniel Shays's voted with his feet, when he knew, beyond a shadow of doubt, that he was no longer represented, in any way, within the Massachusetts state system of monetary fraud, as a means of financing, an perpetrating, criminals wars of aggression.
That is the before nation state illustration.
The after republic illustration concerns a repeat of the same currency fraud occurring in almost all of the states within the experimental republic as the currency manipulators drove out the gold and as the people invented new forms of currency such as whiskey to replace the gold they needed but didn't have as a result of the manipulations done by the currency frauds who were running various state governments within the experimental republic, and then a secret meeting was conducted behind closed doors, out of the public eye, to hatch a plan to nationalize the experimental republic, and create a law that can enforce a currency monopoly power nation wide, thus ending all competition, leaving no one able to vote with their feet from one oppressive state to one less oppressive state.
Once the national law was in place George Washington, the first national military leader dictator in chief, assembled an army as big as the one he had used to defeat the British, and he employed that power to crush the rebellion, for good, and that law remains the law of the land.
Here is the law:
Section. 8.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Here is the president:
Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation
Relevant quote:
And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;
Therefore, and in pursuance of the proviso above recited, I. George Washington, President of the United States, do hereby command all persons, being insurgents, as aforesaid, and all others whom it may concern, on or before the 1st day of September next to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes. And I do moreover warn all persons whomsoever against aiding, abetting, or comforting the perpetrators of the aforesaid treasonable acts; and do require all officers and other citizens, according to their respective duties and the laws of the land, to exert their utmost endeavors to prevent and suppress such dangerous proceedings.
What spirit was crushed - exactly? Ask: what was the spirit of 1776 all about?
Here is the stuff of republicanism:
The Declaration of non-victimhood
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Having the people of the government make laws that monopolize the currency, and therefore abolish the stuff people must have to prosper, makes people unhappy, and adding insult to injury the people running the government use the power they steal to enforce their power to steal, to torture, to mass murder, to conduct aggressive wars for profit, and lesser crimes, and this dynamic, ongoing fraud, causes the people running the government to be more powerful than the people they oppress, one unit of purchasing power at a time, ultimately arriving at a score board that looks as absurd as this:
Patent absurdity
Any thinking person, using their own brain, can see that the above is a patent absurdity, anyone "believing" in that score board is akin to someone "believing" that the naked Emperor is wearing the most fashionable and flattering attire.
Onward to example number 2.
I've shown the historical example by which the republic was a working experimental republic and then the experimental republic became a nation state and now I will show the most obvious second example by which the people running the nation state secure the nation state as one all encompassing nation state, and proves, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the nation state is a nation state, and the nation state is not a republic, by any measure whatsoever, hithertofore.
Example 2:
Not at all civil - false label covering up the legal crime of the century
The actual facts surrounding the controversial subject of slavery were confessed during the secret proceedings leading to The Constitution and those facts became known as The Dirty Compromise.
The Dirty Compromise was a legal crime perpetrated so as to cause The Constitution to be the enforced law of the land, enforcing, and perpetuating, slavery, and The Dirty Compromise was merely a stay of impending future conflict, the impending future conflict erupted in the legal crime that became known, by way of false advertisement, The Civil War.
Legal criminals wanting a nation state in place of an experimental republic in the North wanted more power over the nation state and legal criminals wanting a nation state to replace the experimental republic in the South made a deal, to divide the power, the power over their victims, and these criminals hatched their plan that became The Constitution.
Here is the law that divided up the power the legal criminals took over their victims, including all the slaves, everywhere in the Union (aka national government), and here is the law that made sure that no slave could vote with their feet, and leave one state in the experimental republic, if they could, and move to a less oppressive state in the experimental republic:
Legal crime 101: as good as any example in the sordid history of man-unkind
"to recover our slaves in whatever part of America they may take refuge."
Read it, and weep if you must, but know if you can, if you still have the power.