Nick (nburkacki@nospamyahoo.com) wrote:
>Second: You are 100% on the money here, the question is, is it inevitable or
>will people wake up and begin to understand the situation we have here?

      Dunno.  The deeper question relates to the propensity to hand force
over to others so that they can protect one from bad guys.

      You have the basic triangle of Victim, Villain and Hero.

      The Victims who are scared of the Villain try to create a police
force to be the Hero.  Now this is reasonable because mob rule is
terrible, so we agree to consolidate force in a trusted group ruled by
law.  The primary *purpose* of law is to restrain the trusted group, the
government/police, by the way, not the sovereign citizen.

      Law is the fabric that holds together *GOVERNMENT*, not the society
that elected it to govern.  The sovereign citizen is not morally
beholden to uphold any law, even ones he voted for, but the duly sworn
government officials are, for they swore to uphold it.

      So a police force is a good thing, but being a concentration of
power, criminals (morally bankrupt people) try to gain positions in it.
There is a direct relation between the power of the police force and the
number of criminals in it.  Criminals ain't stupid.

      The problem is with 'trusted groups' that have power.  How do you
make sure that all the people in the trusted group are ethical people?
The ideal scene is a divine oligarchy.

      But the world is full of criminals, who is so bright to not let one
through the personnel process?  So one criminal sneaks through and gets
a job in the police force and the corruption is done, there is a crack
in the integrity of the group.  That one lets in more, and pretty soon
the whole place is full of criminals.

      There is no group or police force in the world that criminals can't
infiltrate.  The ONLY thing in the way is whether the criminals WANT TO
or not.  Why be a police man if the pay is poor?  If the pay is great,
kick backs, foreiture, free drugs, control the law making process etc,
then it becomes very desirable.  If the police force has monitoring
ability over the entire populace, then the criminals know who is doing
what, where the money is, and can command the sudden death or demise of
anyone that is a danger to them.

      The more powerful the police force, the more desirable it is for
criminals to live there.  That is the ONLY determining factor in whether
criminals live there!

      So there is this balance point where handing over more and more
force to the 'Heros' suddenly has diminishing and even negative returns.
That is the balance point which our constitution was designed to keep in

      People think they can push that balance point safely, they still
think the people in government and the police and their parents etc are
a divine oligarchy or close enough for all practical purposes.


      Giving the police force too much power is like putting out
cockroach food in your house and expecting all the cockroaches to

      The basic war of course is between freedom to communicate and no
freedom to communicate.  One is not suggesting that total freedom to
communicate is a good thing, people have a desire for their secrets etc
for trade purposes, anything really.

      So they negotiate for the 'rights' to have secrets with other
people by negotiating duties in those others to keep their noses out of
those secrets.  A's right to a secret is B's duty to not trespass that
right.  B then negotiates for something in return because every duty is
balanced by a right of its own, and A conceeds and everyone is happy.

      One of the things that A and B negotiate is the creation of C which
is the government/police force.  Rather than use force themselves to
defend their duties and rights, they hand that job over to C as a
'professional' in the matter of justice, because justice can be a tricky
matter and needs a professional touch.

      Justice is a fair chosen operating balance of duties and rights,
and frankly it takes professionals to maintain that balance amongst a
society of 100 million people.  So C has a job for life so to speak.

      But because it is a job of force and control over others, it has
special allures of corruption, temptation and seduction that are very
attractive to bad guys who use force deceit as their basic modus

      A criminal is basically one who wishes to use force to force others
into unfair trades that are not fair chosen.  They do this either
through direct force like at the point of a gun, or though treasonous
negotiations, making agreements they know they will never keep etc.
They violate the free society prime directive of knowing willing free

      For example someone who buys a CDROM under the explicit promise to
not copy it and hand it out has acted in treason when he does.  It is
quite in line for the artist to demand 'you don't copy this!' before he
sells his product to a consumer.  Anyone can sell whatever they want
with whatever conditions or restraints on it they want.  If the consumer
knows what he is buying and agrees to it, and then breaks it knowingly,
he is in treason, a form of criminality.

      This may look like force was not used to make the transaction, but
the buyer is depending on being protected from his chicanery by
distance, space, time etc, to not be caught, which are all parts of
Matter, Energy, Space and Time, which are the component parts of force.

      The other bad guys are the ones that simply stick a gun in your
face and say hand it over!  Their basic intent is to overwhelm your
desire for a fair chosen trade with raw force.

      Since criminals use force to do their deeds, it takes force to stop
them.  Allowing the populace as a whole to use force to control or
punish criminality is problematic at best, so SOME of that force is
handed over to the government/police.  Citizens are still allowed to
carry arms and shoot in self defense, but they arn't allowed for example
to chase after the bad guy and say "Stop or I will shoot!", the way cops

      A vigilante is someone who has on his own determinism redistributed
the roles of force between populace and the government/police.

      Each society has its own concept of how much power is taken from
the populace and given to the police force.

      When too much force is handed over to the government/police and
taken away from the people, then the concentration of criminals bubbling
up into the government and police force, seeking sanctuary and affluence
in THEIR CRIMINAL FORCE, reaches a critical mass and suddenly the
populace *CAN'T* fight back, they got no guns or position in space to
fight from any more.  At that point the society can only be saved by
mass suicide/kamikaze, so the government or police force has no one to
rule any more and starves to death.

      The populace has a moral duty to always maintain enough force in
its own hands so that should a *MAJORITY* of the populace decide that
the government needs to go, it can do so forthwith.

      This tendency to create a police state is most embodied in those
trying to stiffle free communication in the name of protection.

      We call them Merchants of Fear.

      And boy do they have a bill of sale, sign here...

      What is special is the internet that has suddenly swung the
pendulum WAY over towards the area of total free speech with impunity.
People can still have their secrets, we aren't talking telepathy quite
yet, that will come, but they have lost the means of control over
distribution of information items.

      Presently they can keep their information items to themselves
forever, but once they give an information item to one, they have given
it to all.

      The reaction of course is to swing the pendulum way over to the
other side again of total no free speech, everyone moderated, trackable
or even better just plain silent, back to the one way pablum push of the
50's.  Big guys push the data they want to the little guys, little guys
can say nothing.

      When was the last time in history some little guy in America could
say something and have EVERYONE in Russia read it the next day in usenet
news?  Think about this until you get it.

      (And Cuomo wants to shut usenet down because of some kiddy porn.

      Protecting kids from pornographers at the expense of shutting down
the internet or freedom of communication with anonymity and encryption
is not worth it.

      The oversight put in place to make sure you don't trade an improper
picture, will also be used to make sure you don't trade an improper
(political) thought.  You see?

      The Merchants of Fear *INTENTIONALLY* CREATE the kiddy porn so you 
will agree to be trackable and moderateable so YOU can't talk safely about 
the stupid evil selfish criminal politicos and their schemes to defraud 
the people.)

      But you can't just give push control over to the artists so they
can distribute their works to end users, and not also give it to everyone,
for everyone is an artist and if everyone can push data (publish, write,
free speech) then we are back where we were, a free for all.

      To prevent this free for all, we are back to where NO ONE can push
data, not even the artists, except the agreed upon monolithic trusted
group that proxy pushes for everyone else, the publishers.

      Even the little artist that just WANTS to give it away can't,
because the trusted group is the only way communication CAN take place
now, and they gotta be paid no matter what.  And if they don't like your
content, well tough luck.

      Or if they consider it too expense to store and make your stuff
available because no one will buy it, more tough luck.  Once art is in
the hands of those that will only push it if it makes them money, then
art that doens't make money doesn't get pushed.


      Maybe for 10 cents a hit you can download a song and play it from
Microsoft, but e-mail doesn't work any more, usenet news doesn't work
any more, ftp doesn't work any more etc, so once you have that song you
can't do anything with it any more, even keep it and play it again.
They only licence the song to you for a one time play and it self
erases.  And they gotta have your credit card on record to charge it
automatically etc.

      And the black market soars through the roof for tape records, and
the police state grows a whole department just to confiscate tape
recorders so that they can have them themselves.  Police *HATE* being
poor.  It's hard remaining ethical in that atmosphere.

      Information owners want to *LICENSE* their songs to you, not SELL
them to you any more.  Software has been doing that for a long time, and
putting music in the hands of software moguls is reaching for a critical
mass of magnitude, the whole society will just simply move over the
balance point into a police state over night and no one will know until
it is *WAY* too late.

      It is one thing to make laws against copyright violations, it is
quite another to make the world such that copyright violations are

      Read that again, and dig it and don't leave it.

      It is fine to punish people for posting copyrights on the internet,
but it is not fine to make the internet such that copyrights can not be

      Do you see the difference.

      *POLITICAL FREEDOM* is more important than *MARKET FREEDOM*.

      For the price of a song, Bush jokes and laywer jokes and *ANY*
political commentary will become illegal.

      You want that?

      Just say NO to copyright holders.


================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Nov 10 03:06:01 EST 2014
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

Mon Nov 10 13:55:41 EST 2014