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