DOUBLE PLUS GOOD DOUBLETHINK

                          12 June 2013 v8
                  Copyright (C) Homer W. Smith 2013
 
      Redistribution rights granted for any purpose.  Please repost.

     "We are the freest country in the world, and Americans have a RIGHT
to those freedoms, and the greatest right of all is the freedom from
TERRORISM." Anonymous Senator, quote not exact.

     But at what cost?

     Which of the articles of the constitution and bill of rights shall
we sacrifice in order to keep the others in place?  Do we sacrifice
freedom of speech, press, congregation, and arms to the 'God given right
to be safe from terrorists and pay taxes to assure it?'

     The greatest freedom from terrorism is living in a protected jail
cell at the point of gun, lest you go outside and get hurt by some
terrorist who thinks their jail cell is better than yours.  Don't
forget to pay your gun tax to pay for the guns and mother's offspring
that protects you and keeps you in yours.

     So let's correct this nonsense.

     "The greatest right of all is freedom from terrorism FROM OUR OWN
GOVERNMENT." - Homer Wilson Smith ("Primer for a Free Society")

     That REQUIRES freedom of speech, press, congregation, arms and
whistle blowing, which are protected by strong encryption and anonymity.

     Encryption and anonymity are ARMS along with guns, and are treated
as such by the Federal Government.

     Freedom of speech includes both privacy of speech, and safety to
speak or else why bother?

     Privacy of speech is provided by strong encryption.
 
     Encryption gives anyone the ability to speak ONLY to those they
wish or to no one at all.

     Strangely encryption also gives assuredness of speech so those who
receive your communication can be sure it came from you.

     Safety of speech is provided by strong and untrackable anonymity.

     Anonymity gives anyone the ability to speak to ANYONE AND EVERYONE
with total safety.  

     There is no compromise with the above, you can't give freedom of
speech only to the good guys and not also to the bad guys as both use
the same tools of freedom and the same lanes of communication.

     And yes the RIAA and the mp3 markets will throw a fit, but they
AREN'T IMPORTANT COMPARED TO THE POLICE STATE THAT GROWS LIKE A VIRAL
PLAGUE UPON A SOCIETY WHERE THE ABOVE FREEDOMS, TOOLS AND LANES TO
EXECUTE THOSE FREEDOMS DO NOT EXIST.

     Politics is the process of DESIGNING the society, its government
and its markets, and voting that design into operation.

     Markets are the OPERATION of the society so designed, using sow and
reap cycles, consumption and production, towards the ends of survival
and affluence of the members of that society.

     Politics are the AGREEMENT TO SURVIVE TOGETHER AND IN CO OPERATION.

     Markets are the agreed upon MEANS OF THAT SURVIVAL.

     Most domestic and foreign terrorism are statements and attacks
against MARKETS not politics per se, it might be a statement about
politics, but the attack is against markets and it is markets they
destroy, not politics.

     In the effort to protect markets by limiting freedoms of speech,
congregation, press and arms, politics is destroyed.  The ability of the
BODY POLITIC is rendered null and void to correct or replace the
government or the market society it governs.
 
     If it becomes too dangerous to swap an mp3, it becomes too
dangerous to express your views about how society should be built.

     Never let demands for market protection endanger the freedom and
safety of engaging in the politics of social design that puts the
government and markets there in the first place.

     For example, NEVER let the selfish efforts to protect a copyright
AT ALL COSTS to destroy your ability to use strong encryption and
anonymity to criticize the government freely and safely to the whole
world.

     A police state is DEFINED when market protections are allowed to
override political protections.

     We do not want people swapping mp3's freely so we ban encryption
and anonymity, but now no one can swap political ideas or criticisms
freely or safely either.  If the government were benign that would be
ok, but the government is made of people, and people are as insane as
over toasted hotcakes, especially when given the power to act out freely
without consequence.  YOU become a cow on THEIR cow farm.

     The government is created by the body politic to protect you as a
market participant against foreign or domestic terrorism, but without
absolute transparent oversight from the people who created it, the
government comes to BE the enslaver or terrorist of first choice against
the people who created it.

     The government was created to protect the survival of the people,
but with too much power given to the government to protect its citizens
from others, the government turns to protecting the survival of ITSELF
at the expense of the people.

     The government then becomes the grandest serial killer of all.  The
government is supposed to be 'in loco parentis' to the people, can you
imagine having quiet, unknown, covert serial killers for parents who can
see everything you do but you can't see anything they do?

     So which is is going to be, absolute freedom from foreign and
domestic terrorism, or absolute freedom from terrorism from our own
government?

     YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH because encryption and anonymity, (freedom to
speak and privacy which are the only real weapons in this war) can't be
given to the good with out also giving them to the bad.
 
     IT CAN'T BE DONE, GIVE IT UP.

     This is not an opinion, this is pure mathematical logic.

     If no one has these freedoms, the government takes over and becomes
a monster.  If everyone has them, then the people can keep their
government under control with oversight, and safe whistle blowing,
public discussion and education, and let the bad guys have at it, if
they still dare.

     You are going to have to choose who your terrorist of choice is
going to be, and suck up the consequences.

     If you trust your government with absolute power to protect you
from everyone else, then so be it.

     But who will oversee the overseers you have elected to make you
safe?

     Will your mothers give their sons to the state to help point the
guns of safety AT YOU?

     Without transparent oversight and criticism, absolute power
corrupts absolutely.

     But with transparent oversight and criticism, the bad guys also can
see what we think of our own government and conspire with them to
destroy YOU.

     So its a hard choice.

     Does your government really need to be ultimately opaque to protect
you from the bad guys?  And what will keep the bad guys from joining the
government?

     "When lawmakers outlaw criminals, criminal become lawmakers."

     SECRECY IS NOT ONLY A NATURAL ADJUNCT TO A NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEM
BUT ALSO TO THE CRIMINALITY THAT THEY FIGHT.  WHEN THE SECRECY OF THE
NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEM IS ALLOYED BY THE SECRECY OF CRIMINALITY WITHIN
THE NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEM ITSELF, THEN A PROBLEM ARISES, FOR RATHER
THAN PROTECTING US FROM CRIMINALS, THE NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEM BEGINS
TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM US WITH GUNS PAID FOR BY OUR OWN TAXES.

      I believe that is called 'digging your own grave'.

      Homer Wilson Smith
      CEO Art Matrix - Lightlink Internet
      Cornell EE '73

Wed Jun 12 13:03:19 EDT 2013