Edward Snowden Says Assange 'Could Be Next' After John McAfee Suicide

[Karl]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 7:20 PM David Barrett <dbarrett at expensify.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 4:00 PM Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 6:40 PM David Barrett <dbarrett at expensify.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe just skipping ahead a few steps before getting pulled into a
>>> debate about the US government, do you agree with the concept of
>>> representative democracy involving different branches with checks and
>>> balances being a philosophically strong foundation for governance?  Is your
>>> complaint that the US government is an imperfect execution of a
>>> fundamentally sound concept, or that the entire idea underpinning our
>>> government is irredeemably flawed?
>>>
>>> I'm not eager to get into a conversation where you end up saying "But
>>> democracy sucks, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength."
>>>
>>> -david
>>>
>>
>> I might be a little too cognitively weak to have a single opinion that
>> works in all scenarios,
>>
>> But I believe that everything can be made to work in a variety of ways,
>> and we're clearly not there yet, but nor have we turned all of our
>> countries into a giant homogenous hell yet.
>>
>> Cut to the chase, here's where I am this week, it'll change:
>> - For a democracy with schooling to work, people need to be educated or
>> incentivised to effectively participate in it.  It should be the popular
>> video game, rather than kill-zombies, and its weaknesses and properties
>> need to be well-known and accessible so it can be used to resolve them.
>> - For representation to work, representatives need to fully represent
>> their people.  This means more of them, and it means regular accessible
>> meetings that get real results, and it means rotating them as soon as
>> people aren't satisfied.  This is called spokescouncil in the left.
>> - For a democracy to work at all, people need to have uncensored
>> productive communication.  If instead you have everybody staring at
>> advertisements and voting, it's not the communities doing the voting, it's
>> the advertisements.  Good choices are made with dialog, not repetition.
>>
>> This democracy can work.  It relies on powerful unsung endangered heros
>> who can influence it when something is wrong.  I suspect many people here
>> have tried to be such heros and discovered the dangers.
>>
>> Something everybody should know about is Citizen's Referendum.  In many
>> areas any citizen or group of citizens can pass a new law.  It takes
>> footwork, but you can be a huge hero.
>>
>
> Ok that's encouraging, I agree we shouldn't give up on what we've got!
>
> What I'm not quite following, however, is that you seem to be agreeing
> that the court system is *so broken* that the rest of the world should stop
> extraditions to us -- even though the courts are apparently interpreting a
> complex law that has significant (and slightly majority) support amongst the
>

The problem is that people are spending often their lives in prison
associated with politics rather than crime, and many of these people are
killing themselves in prison; it's not exactly a therapeutic environment.

population:
> https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/poll-most-want-edward-snowden-charged-092930
>

Eventually the advertisements win.  They have more air time.  I'm noting
this is a minority of poll results: the article states it is one single
poll.

It's still our duty to defend whistleblowing and fight surveillance, or we
will trend to becoming a legalised empire where the same dictator is always
voted in.  Computers can already predict individual people's votes with
strong confidence.  We aren't in a democracy until protecting voters in
such an environment is resolved.

I totally understand disagreeing with that law, or disagreeing with the
> majority -- and our government is built to manage that difficult push and
> pull between varied interests.  But it feels premature to throw out our
> entire justice system over something that most people agree with.
>

I'm of the camp that punishment-oriented justice increases crime until you
have a possibly-violent rebellion to change whatever is stuck with the
enforcement of the laws.  In a community with honest dialogue crime reduces
due to people learning and addressing its relevant reasons.

Extradition is the *start* of the justice process -- a process currently
> being denied its opportunity.  But you seem to be saying it is such a
> foregone conclusion that our courts are unjust that it is *more* just to
> just bypass it entirely.  I'm trying to figure out if you feel it's
> foregone because:
>

An international whistleblower has more to fear than just courts.

1) The law itself is unjust (despite having majority support of the
> population)
> 2) The law is just but the courts are not
> 3) The whole system is unjust because the population is advocating for
> something unjust
>

In this community, the people have a more heightened awareness of how
political targets are targeted, manipulated, tortured, and destroyed by the
powers they threaten.  We need the information Snowden leaked to protect
ourselves from real violent criminals.  It's that the system is corrupt
more than that it is inherently unjust.

This is why I asked if you agreed with the entire concept of democratic
> rule, as if the majority agrees with something, write a law for that thing,
> and has an executive branch and court system that enforces that law -- on
> what basis can you claim justice isn't being served?
>

I'm personally for consensus rather than majority, far safer, notably in
situations like this.

I'll pick the courts here for what's unjust.  Cases like this usually use
secret evidence, which is not democratic.

>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 8940 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20210625/4cac6f0a/attachment.txt>