US 'justice' system - paging karl.
gmkarl at gmail.com
Mon Jul 5 16:44:03 PDT 2021
> > True enough, different people have different opinions; some define crime
> > terms of the state.
> yeah well. That's what the position of barrett and any other
> government agent amounts to. According to them "a crime is whatever we say
> it is", and if you don't agree, they will murder you.
I'm actually used to some anarchists using it that way, maybe my memories
So their position is based on circular 'logic' (i.e. it's null and
> void) and if you don't agree with them, they'll violate all your personal
> rights, up to violating your right to life.
> > 3) People who support the US 'legal system' support crime and are
> > > morally responsible for US crimes.
> > Doesn't quite follow. They can support the legal system without
> > the violation of personal rights,
> No they can't, because the US legal system is explicitly designed
> to violate rights.
I'd say it's explicitly designed in a way that violates rights.
> > like a conceptual filter where they only support the times they think
> it isn't doing that.
> That 'conceptual filter' doesn't exist in reality. What you're
> calling 'conceptual filter' is actually called intelectual dishonesty.
> "Doublethink" in 1984.
Sounds similar to using the arpanet while deriding it. Not everything is
cut and dry.
> So it doesn't matter if people who support a criminal system lie
> about what they do, even to themselves. Lies do not change reality.
In a normal situation, it gives an avenue for all different sorts of
> Other govts might also demonstrate organised crime?
> yes all governments are organized crime, by definition. Their most
> basic nature is being organized crime. But, again, we'are talking about
> the US govt, biggest criminal on the planet and the one persecuting assange
> along with the english and swedish governments.
> And just for fun : there was only one government that defended
> assange. Ecuador's government, a 'third world' 'shithole'.
> > I agree with you for this reason: our democracy clearly not functioning,
> > and it is pretty hard to assert direction of an entire democracy.
> That's a
> > lot of people to influence. Way easier in a dictatorship.
Not sure why you're laughing but it's pleasant =)
> > I'm using the US propaganda machine against the US, as best as I
> > > can.
> > >
> > > Just like I would use a 'US gun' to blow up the head of a US
> > > soldier.
> > Both of these behaviors may be teaching your enemy how to defeat you,
> > than defeating your enemy ... people do need to live sometimes.
> Most of the time, yes. And some people do need to die, especially
> the ones responsible for serial murder.
I meant that some people live by expressing themselves or acting
passionately when it's not to their benefit to do so. Then I reread it
after sending and realised it didn't sound that way.
> > From punk to david:
> > > > The legal system is not functioning how you claim it is. It is
> > > not
> > > > producing justice, and we have a _lot_ of clear evidence of this.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks, that sums it up. I'll stop beating this poor dead horse
> > > for a couple of days at least.
> > I still have to figure out how to say it to him.
> > I said it recently and he erased it and replied without responding to it.
> Well, I guess you're using the technique you described earlier. I
> doubt it will work in this case, but you're free to keep trying...
I seem to be still replying. I don't recall the technique.
The legal system is not functioning how David says it is. We have
extensive clear evidence that usually produces injustice.
It's hard to remember when replying. Everything david says assumes the
legal system is right, and then he accuses me using that as one of his
assumptions, I get defensive ... hrm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 6478 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the cypherpunks