On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 00:37:42 -0800, grarpamp wrote:

Accepting playment of this dodging game seems largely irrelavent (and harmful) to the real issue at hand... your right to speak. At least in the US...

Agreed, but who wants to gamble with the next 20-35 years of their life being thrown away in some hellish sensory deprivation solitary confinement torture chamber to prove the point? Let the gubmint further undermine whatever legitimacy they have left by inventing tortured legal arguments as to why people must be compelled under threat of violence to speak lies (ironically by not speaking)

Some would say that any interpretation (fiat) of the original Charters text created subsequent to, and without sole dedication to exclusive analysis of, the thoughts of those who wrote them... is bogus, unless so amended. Lots of bogus laws based on flawed interpretation (or on flawed interpretation of good interpretation) out there... and no one testing them. Slowly stacking up, harder to revert with each additional one layered on and woven in tight. A fine day to be a lawyer and a citizen perhaps. Or perhaps there are none that good...

If we go by the Tacitus metric of “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”, then the United States is well and goodly f*ck'd. http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2011/11/tacitus-syllogism/ I like Richard J. Maybury's 'The Two Laws' concept; Two laws are necessary for civilizations to develop and advance: 1) Do all you have agreed to do. 2) Do not encroach on other persons or their property It's dead simple and all we really need IMHO.

On 2/6/15, grarpamp wrote:

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Seth wrote:

...

Agreed, but who wants to gamble with the next 20-35 years of their life being thrown away in some hellish sensory deprivation solitary confinement torture chamber to prove the point?

Ignoring reasonably good possiblity of constitutionality appeal vacating it, that's not the penalty for publishing a NSL/warrant received.

...

Let the gubmint further undermine whatever legitimacy they have left by inventing tortured legal arguments as to why people must be compelled under threat of violence to speak lies

While exposing their hand, ultimately this doesn't excercise your rights,

Double ACK. It's a funny thing about rights - the government, police, courts, schools etc, can not *exercise* my rights for me. It is only I who can exercise -my- rights. That's the very nature of exercising one's rights.

or get them back. At least not until revolution (which is something to be avoided).

Ie. the point where so many rights 'proclaimers' yet 'fail-to-exercise-ers' have resulted in such fear, oppression and finally tyranny, that it is too late to rescue the 'reasonable system' from the bad people who co-opted it, without said revolution.

...

speak ... (ironically by not speaking)

Well the mind is the great trickster so am certain that lying 'for the courts' will be somehow twisted by someone into 'lying for God' is a good thing. Humans will in general continue to do nothing rather than live a right with any risk to even a little bit of personal liberty, and it looks like we shall soon see whether humans will in general lie for the government, in denial of self and fellow human's' rights, but wait there's more of course, with Neighbourhood Watch, Crime Watch and now "dob in a neighbour (sorry, 'suspicious activity')" programs, we are but a small step away from "if you fail to dob in your neighbour, -you- will be punished'. And the decent of human shall be complete. Not only the police and military up-holding the tyranny of my state (government), but every fucking so-called 'human' out there (or most of them anyway). But anyway who wants to have freedom for all those evil plant cultivators, evil self medicator mind journey trippers, evil gun users, evil home building experimenters, evil home educators, evil reiligious believers and evil thought thinkers? Seth you are right, very few will ever lift a finger for their own human rights, let alone for the rights of others, since they -do- see it as a gamble of personal liberty. So I say that those: - who fail to remain silent when 'ordered' to tell a lie, - who fail to speak when 'ordered' to hide the truth, - who fail to take action and live a right when human freedom is challenged, - who fail to take ANY gamble FOR our human rights and dignity by LIVING our human rights, - and finally complain about "things getting worse" and, oh heaven forbid we might get a revolution, May they be micro-chipped into pervasive monitoring and compliance, taxed of all their wealth and further indebted into total slavery!!! For those of us who prize freedom so greatly, death is a better option. Yet for such slaves as described above, they would cling to their "right to be in slavery". I can hear it now "Stop Right There - I get TWO meals of rice and sugar a day, but all my friends only get one, that's why I'm the slave manager and with shoes instead of bare feet - I like my golden bird cage so don't you dare suggest I rock the boat! I'm raising my child to be a manager too, so we've got a FUTURE to look forward to! Now fuck off with all your freedom lies you filthy commie gun-totin plant-growin devil-worshipn fag! You aint even got a mico chip!!!" <the small crowd gasps in shock> "But Jim, I was doin this for you my son - I promised your ma when she died!" <the small crowd gasps in total shock>

Nor should you have to develop an entire matrix of canaries such that if even one goes silent you know the full text of what occured.

Just speak already, it's not hard.

Pick a path responses: a) <chuckles very sadly>Oh grarpamp, our sweetly naive grarpamp. If only it were so. You must remember this *is* -humans- we are talking about. b) I agree that to speak is not hard, yet to face one's fear of deprivation of a little personal liberty, even for a night or two in the clink, is far more than most so-called "humans" are capable of. History has born this out just occasionally I might add... c) grarpamp, I agree, just speak the truth judiciously, stand for your rights, and face your fear. There's no more to it than that, yet in the fullness of the experience of the living of ones rights and freedoms, there can arise within oneself a little confront - which is quite the personal growth experience for those who are into that sort of thing. And those who are not, you mofos fail to be worthy of the name "human"! Bottoms up!

Unlike the odds with that, if you don't, your next 20-35 years will definitely be nothing but an ever growing set of... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

I do hope that enough humans speak freely, travel freely, grow some of those plants "man" has dominion over (to use a phrase at the foundation of some of our legal systems). It would be nice. Zenaan

On 2/7/15, Georgi Guninski wrote:

On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 07:35:35AM -0800, Seth wrote:

...

On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 00:37:42 -0800, grarpamp wrote:

I like Richard J. Maybury's 'The Two Laws' concept; Two laws are necessary for civilizations to develop and advance:

1) Do all you have agreed to do.

2) Do not encroach on other persons or their property

It's dead simple and all we really need IMHO.

Your model is very good on paper.

I am _very sceptical_ about _good_ real world implementation of your model in the near future, even with the help of deities.

There may be problems with the USA foundation documents in terms of a "more ideal" structure for a democracy. Unfortunately it's the power-hungry and self interested actors who dominate the system (and I dare say any system) which is the problem, not so much the system. This occurs because most sheeple want to be shorn, as long as they have their golden cage (and their tummies full). As has been said round here before, we aint seen a system properly put into practice without bad actors. With enough bad actors, no system can protect against, since they just change the system to suit themselves. A robust system can only ever be as good as its people. Not its rulers/ government, but you and I, those who actually live their rights - speaking truth when it needs to be told, traveling the highways and byways and refusing to pay the corporation taxes (road tolls), keeping silent when ordered to tell a lie, and on it goes.

On paper the dear USA is good model, in practice it is a Ponzi scheme (check the debt).

You are mixing up things here. Putting the USA foundation documents into practice, does not result in a ponzi scheme. The bad actors who desired and achieved control of the money power (and lost it, and regained it - go read up on your history, it's all over the interwebs) now run a ponzi scheme where inflation is the exact measure of the (illegal) transfer of wealth from the people (via the people and its government debts) to the currently privately held banks. The money power is ultimately a power of the people, but two (or three? - I'm in Australia, I don't know your exact history) times, the money power was stolen by private hands, at the point of guns. The money power is unfortunately currently in private hands, and yes, is currently run as a ponzi scheme (rather than a credit based credit expansion system it's now a debt based credit expansion system, which is mathematically guaranteed to "reset" once in a while causing enormous transfers of wealth to the (private) bankers in a much shorter time period than normally occurs - a mathematical certainty in such a system, and the time of reset is also entirely controlled by the central bank).

If you implement your model now, here are some difficulties about implementation:

1. Software/hardware is full of batshit. This empowers "h4x0rs".

You mean bad hackers (crackers) or good hackers too?

2. Your humans will include current mafia/overlords (unless you manage to kill them all, which might be considered bad by sheeple).

It's more that there will always be those who desire wealth, prestige and power, and tomorrow it might be you or your children, and of course you or they would of course do the "right" thing with that money, prestige and power, unlike all the other wealthy, prestigious and powerful people. And so there's a kind of innate standoff. Those who have thoughts of how to achieve such things, are often the ones who imagine themselves in such positions (of wealth etc). The word mafia implies "bad" overlord. And overlord (wealthy prestigious powerful person) may use their position for the furtherance of the development of mind, creativity and spirituality. In which case they would be in the class "benevolent dictator" or at least "benevolent (over)lord". I believe (but can't back it up right now) that historically, the benevolent dictatorship is about as good as a system can get. The challenge is transitioning from one benevolent dictator, to the next (ie, finding/ training/ testing someone to actually be benevolent in their high position). Oligarchies go to war with each too often. But as I said before, I think any system can be successful, as long as there are enough humans worthy of the term.

3. Humans are relatively easy to exploit, search for `clinton blowjob scandal` (no quotes).

The impeachment because of his lie - not because of the blowjob. Yes it's depressing, even those who achieve high rank fail to tell the truth in dignity when it needs to be spoken. A system can be no better than its people. Zenaan