James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote: In practice, it is pretty obvious that most practitioners of civil
disobedience believe they are above the law, that they usually *are* above the law, and that in particular Swartz believed he was above the law, and was shocked to find that he was not.
There might be some sincere practitioners of civil disobedience, but Swartz was not, and the big heroes of the civil disobedience brigade, Ghandi and Thoreau, were not.
It seems in practice that there is a relation issue involved in who judges and determines lawfulness in the shared situation. oftentimes, the person who judges is actually 'the criminal' and can "represent the state" and 'the people' though misleadingly, subverting this relation. such that, a person who exists within and operates in a criminal way, including relying upon lies as a day to day framework, then convicts those who may break one law or tell one lie in their lives or go beyond a boundary out of principle and larger ethics that question the ruleset and what happens or appears to is that all the power is with those who cheat, lie, and steal within the state along with their accomplices, and that these people 'are the state' that then judges and determines the fate of otherwise law-abiding citizens or those who seek to serve its best interests, not least by enforcing its framework or utilizing its freedoms, testing the parameters only to find they are not observed, are fiction only (else, perhaps other more active strategies exist though are correct in principle, in not adhering to laws that are inaccurate or overbearing and allow the corruption its continuing power) what this is to suggest is that the judge-convicted relation is: 99.99% falsity + 0.01% truth vs. 99.99% truth + error (in that the evaluation occurs in a warped framework where judgement is divorced from its own adherence to truth, via the same corrupted constitution that allows for this relation) 99% wrong ---> judgement ---> 0.01% wrong and yet this viewpoint (based on power) is itself based upon LIES and deception, unaccountable to the same rules and thus is beyond law. and thus it _must show falsity in another yet never allow this to be accounted for in its own viewpoint or actions-- which is how authoritarian, totalitarian, and the secret dictatorship triumph in these conditions, because it is beyond accountability, it is just about believing in higher power that is based on lies and opinions, as it filters down into culture via illiteracy, loss of education, social relations, normalization of vice, oppression, exploitation, criminality this is why the state must be abolished, because it has become thoroughly rotten from the inside out due to the outdated source code that provides loopholes to oppress citizens and humans and the planet and animals worldwide due to loss of truth, and making this lying 'legal' as a basis for 'shared power' by who shares and is in on the lie, as this then scales and becomes organization, authority, judgement fjisw sosip wsznx