He's called a "traitor"

[Metsfanmax]

Letters to your representative are likely to be read.

When the law is ignored, what power does a lawmaker have?

When the law is ignored, what power does a citizen have?

Ultimately, even the Czars had to yield when enough people took a shit on their front lawn. They shot a few hundred, then they shot a few thousand, then they sent a few million to die on the German front, but in the end they had to hand over the keys to the Winter Palace. (And yes, I know that things went from bad to worse after that, but that's another issue entirely.)

Governments need the consent of the governed. If one or two of us withholds our consent, it's true that nothing whatsoever will result. Even a few hundred or a few thousand. But when millions start to withhold their consent, the government falls.

Can any of us predict whether our personal rebellions will lead to mass movements or simply be another silly episode of a stubborn old man being carted off to the asylum? No, we can't. All we can do is try.

The point I was making is that unless we actually go and rebel against the government, then our speculation and argumentation on an internet forum doesn't do much to change the government's stance. So unless you're suggesting that I take up arms against the government, I don't really see what else to do.

[saxitoxin]

unless you're suggesting that I take up arms against the government,

There's no critical mass to support a direct action for reestablishment of Reason and Rule of Law.

I don't really see what else to do.

Apathy and apology ("But what do I do if I agree with a candidate on a number of issues, but disagree with them on the NSA's abilities? Where do I rank that in my priority list?") prevents the threat of critical mass from developing and reinforces the status quo.

You don't have to express support for Reason and Rule of Law, you just need to stop giving intellectual comfort to the supporters of Instinct and Rule of Strength like you're doing.

[Metsfanmax]

unless you're suggesting that I take up arms against the government,

There's no critical mass to support a direct action for reestablishment of Reason and Rule of Law.

I don't really see what else to do.

Apathy and apology ("But what do I do if I agree with a candidate on a number of issues, but disagree with them on the NSA's abilities? Where do I rank that in my priority list?") prevents the threat of critical mass from developing and reinforces the status quo.

You don't have to express support for Reason and Rule of Law, you just need to stop giving intellectual comfort to the supporters of Instinct and Rule of Strength like you're doing.

It is not obvious to me that reason and rule of law precludes what the NSA is doing, at least in principle.

[saxitoxin]

unless you're suggesting that I take up arms against the government,

There's no critical mass to support a direct action for reestablishment of Reason and Rule of Law.

I don't really see what else to do.

Apathy and apology ("But what do I do if I agree with a candidate on a number of issues, but disagree with them on the NSA's abilities? Where do I rank that in my priority list?") prevents the threat of critical mass from developing and reinforces the status quo.

You don't have to express support for Reason and Rule of Law, you just need to stop giving intellectual comfort to the supporters of Instinct and Rule of Strength like you're doing.

It is not obvious to me that reason and rule of law precludes what the NSA is doing, at least in principle.

I know, my comments are more intended for any lurkers who remain to be convinced, not Obama-McCain supporters

[Metsfanmax]

unless you're suggesting that I take up arms against the government,

There's no critical mass to support a direct action for reestablishment of Reason and Rule of Law.

I don't really see what else to do.

Apathy and apology ("But what do I do if I agree with a candidate on a number of issues, but disagree with them on the NSA's abilities? Where do I rank that in my priority list?") prevents the threat of critical mass from developing and reinforces the status quo.

You don't have to express support for Reason and Rule of Law, you just need to stop giving intellectual comfort to the supporters of Instinct and Rule of Strength like you're doing.

It is not obvious to me that reason and rule of law precludes what the NSA is doing, at least in principle.

I know, my comments are more intended for any lurkers who remain to be convinced, not Obama-McCain supporters

It does not follow that because I am not a priori opposed to the NSA's actions, that I therefore support the US policy regarding Israel.

[saxitoxin]

unless you're suggesting that I take up arms against the government,

There's no critical mass to support a direct action for reestablishment of Reason and Rule of Law.

I don't really see what else to do.

Apathy and apology ("But what do I do if I agree with a candidate on a number of issues, but disagree with them on the NSA's abilities? Where do I rank that in my priority list?") prevents the threat of critical mass from developing and reinforces the status quo.

You don't have to express support for Reason and Rule of Law, you just need to stop giving intellectual comfort to the supporters of Instinct and Rule of Strength like you're doing.

It is not obvious to me that reason and rule of law precludes what the NSA is doing, at least in principle.

I know, my comments are more intended for any lurkers who remain to be convinced, not Obama-McCain supporters

It does not follow that because I am not a priori opposed to the NSA's actions, that I therefore support the US policy regarding Israel.

what does Israel have to do with anything

[Dukasaur]

Not sure how much of the preceding to quote, so rather than make a mess, I just won't quote anything.

If I'm not mistaken, I think his use of a Jewish example is largely just coincidental/uncontrollable reflex. Examples abound of conquered populations who co-operate with their conquerors. The hoodlums in the White House are not that different from the hoodlums formerly in the Wolfsschanze. They command the military and the apparatus of the state, they know that most people will reflexively obey authority without questioning, and they know that by slandering some subset of society they can persuade some other subset of society to go beat up their neighbours. You and I may not be able to stop them, but we can at least avoid becoming pawns in their game by making excuses for them.

How many times have you seen one of your neighbours dragged away by the cops and said to yourself, "I wonder what juicy crimes he committed!" That is the first step in complicity. Retrain your mind, when you see that spectacle, to think to yourself, "I wonder what crimes that poor bastard is falsely accused of!"

[saxitoxin]

Not sure how much of the preceding to quote, so rather than make a mess, I just won't quote anything.

If I'm not mistaken, I think his use of a Jewish example is largely just coincidental/uncontrollable reflex. Examples abound of conquered populations who co-operate with their conquerors. The hoodlums in the White House are not that different from the hoodlums formerly in the Wolfsschanze. They command the military and the apparatus of the state, they know that most people will reflexively obey authority without questioning, and they know that by slandering some subset of society they can persuade some other subset of society to go beat up their neighbours. You and I may not be able to stop them, but we can at least avoid becoming pawns in their game by making excuses for them.

How many times have you seen one of your neighbours dragged away by the cops and said to yourself, "I wonder what juicy crimes he committed!" That is the first step in complicity. Retrain your mind, when you see that spectacle, to think to yourself, "I wonder what crimes that poor bastard is falsely accused of!"

correct

I apologize if Mets thought I was calling him a supporter of Israel. I was just calling him a loyal snitch.

[Metsfanmax]

unless you're suggesting that I take up arms against the government,

There's no critical mass to support a direct action for reestablishment of Reason and Rule of Law.

I don't really see what else to do.

Apathy and apology ("But what do I do if I agree with a candidate on a number of issues, but disagree with them on the NSA's abilities? Where do I rank that in my priority list?") prevents the threat of critical mass from developing and reinforces the status quo.

You don't have to express support for Reason and Rule of Law, you just need to stop giving intellectual comfort to the supporters of Instinct and Rule of Strength like you're doing.

It is not obvious to me that reason and rule of law precludes what the NSA is doing, at least in principle.

I know, my comments are more intended for any lurkers who remain to be convinced, not Obama-McCain supporters

It does not follow that because I am not a priori opposed to the NSA's actions, that I therefore support the US policy regarding Israel.

what does Israel have to do with anything

I do like how the regime has presented this as a 2-option choice: security or liberty. Of course the regime is not permitted by its Master in Tel Aviv to mention that Americans could also choose both security and liberty simply by terminating support for the Israeli mafia.

I do think that we should force Israel to compromise on its foreign policy, upon threat of severe reduction or termination of support, because I agree that at least a very significant majority of our terrorism issues are the result of our foreign policy in this regard. However, until that does happen, it is not necessarily mutually exclusive to also believe in increased powers of government surveillance to protect against the threat, until the threat is neutralized by a change in our foreign policy.

I would reconsider if it could be shown that the police state powers were directly or indirectly contributing to the continued existence of our support of Israel.

[saxitoxin]

I didn't write that in this thread. That's in a different thread and is not really related to the topic of this thread: loyal snitching on your neighbors to the ruling party in exchange for the promises of goodie bags.

[Metsfanmax]

I didn't write that in this thread. That's in a different thread and is not really related to the topic of this thread: loyal snitching on your neighbors to the ruling party in exchange for the promises of goodie bags.

What information did I give to the government on my neighbors? And where are these goodie bags anyway?

[saxitoxin]

I didn't write that in this thread. That's in a different thread and is not really related to the topic of this thread: loyal snitching on your neighbors to the ruling party in exchange for the promises of goodie bags.

What information did I give to the government on my neighbors? And where are these goodie bags anyway?

You can't honestly tell us that if you saw Drake or Snowden or another dissident trying to flee the U.S. to one of the camps for American refugees in Ecuador or Iceland, you wouldn't be on the phone to the FBI Secret Police to give-up their location so that they could be handed off for a summary execution by the regime's terminator drones.

you tell me ---

But what do I do if I agree with a candidate on a number of issues, but disagree with them on the NSA's abilities? Where do I rank that in my priority list?

[Metsfanmax]

I didn't write that in this thread. That's in a different thread and is not really related to the topic of this thread: loyal snitching on your neighbors to the ruling party in exchange for the promises of goodie bags.

What information did I give to the government on my neighbors? And where are these goodie bags anyway?

You can't honestly tell us that if you saw Drake or Snowden or another dissident trying to flee the U.S. to a camp for American refugees in Ecuador or Iceland, you wouldn't be on the phone to the Secret Police to give-up their location.

you tell me ---

But what do I do if I agree with a candidate on a number of issues, but disagree with them on the NSA's abilities? Where do I rank that in my priority list?

I believe in the rule of law. Current law dictates that what Snowden did is a crime, so yes, I would call the police to notify them of the whereabouts of a suspected criminal. Only in societies run by instinct and rule of strength do we decide when the law is suitable for us to obey, and ignore it when it is inconvenient to our beliefs.

I daresay I believe in the rule of law more than most people. I'm that guy driving precisely at the speed limit on a road marked 30 miles per hour. If you really believe in the rule of law, you have to walk the walk as well. If we as citizens refuse to obey the law, what legitimacy do we have in asking the government to do the same?

The world is not one-dimensional, and political candidates are a package deal. For example, I think that global warming is a serious issue right now that affects the whole planet, and will have serious ramifications if we continue to do nothing to slow greenhouse gas emissions. I am asking a serious question: how seriously should I care about the alleged Nazi state that may be coming our way if we continue down this path? Should I care about it enough to vote for a candidate who doesn't believe in the existence of global warming, should it come to that?

[saxitoxin]

Current law dictates that what Snowden did is a crime, so yes, I would call the police to notify them of the whereabouts of a suspected criminal.

Like I said, a position with a long and proud history.

[Dukasaur]

Read Franz Oppenheimer, The State.

"The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors."

"No primitive state known to history originated in any other manner. [1] Wherever a reliable tradition reports otherwise, either it concerns the amalgamation of two fully developed primitive states into one body of more complete organisation, or else it is an adaptation to men of the fable of the sheep which made a bear their king in order to be protected against the wolf. But even in this latter case, the form and content of the State became precisely the same as in those states where nothing intervened, and which became immediately 'wolf states'." (p. 15)

If you never understand anything else about politics, understand this. Every government on earth, without exception, traces its origins back to some bandit who one day rode into a peace-loving village and said, "now you are working for me!"

Government exists for the sole purpose of subjugating and exploiting a supine populace. Those primitive bandits have gone to finishing school since then. They no longer ride about with unkempt hair and leggings covered in the blood of their victims. Nowadays they have nice manicures and three-piece suits and smile for the cameras, but their heart and soul hasn't changed. They build new hospitals and open art galleries and expect us to be grateful, but their evil is no less. If I give you a nice shot of morphine to keep you quiet while I anally rape you, you might have a pleasant time, but it doesn't make me a good person. That's the advance of modern times over neolithic barbarianism -- now the swine in power give us lovely little morphine injections before slamming it into us.

When you make excuses for some gangster, saying "sure he sent my neighbour's kid to die in some third world country, but I'll vote for him anyways because he's increasing funding for local hospitals" you are basically saying, "I forgive him for raping us because he gave us this really cool morphine!"

[Metsfanmax]

Current law dictates that what Snowden did is a crime, so yes, I would call the police to notify them of the whereabouts of a suspected criminal.

Like I said, a position with a long and proud history.

So if you had seen Osama bin Laden walking around the streets of Santa Barbara, you wouldn't have called the police?

[Metsfanmax]

Read Franz Oppenheimer, The State.

"The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors."

"No primitive state known to history originated in any other manner. [1] Wherever a reliable tradition reports otherwise, either it concerns the amalgamation of two fully developed primitive states into one body of more complete organisation, or else it is an adaptation to men of the fable of the sheep which made a bear their king in order to be protected against the wolf. But even in this latter case, the form and content of the State became precisely the same as in those states where nothing intervened, and which became immediately 'wolf states'." (p. 15)

If you never understand anything else about politics, understand this. Every government on earth, without exception, traces its origins back to some bandit who one day rode into a peace-loving village and said, "now you are working for me!"

Government exists for the sole purpose of subjugating and exploiting a supine populace. Those primitive bandits have gone to finishing school since then. They no longer ride about with unkempt hair and leggings covered in the blood of their victims. Nowadays they have nice manicures and three-piece suits and smile for the cameras, but their heart and soul hasn't changed. They build new hospitals and open art galleries and expect us to be grateful, but their evil is no less. If I give you a nice shot of morphine to keep you quiet while I anally rape you, you might have a pleasant time, but it doesn't make me a good person. That's the advance of modern times over neolithic barbarianism -- now the swine in power give us lovely little morphine injections before slamming it into us.

When you make excuses for some gangster, saying "sure he sent my neighbour's kid to die in some third world country, but I'll vote for him anyways because he's increasing funding for local hospitals" you are basically saying, "I forgive him for raping us because he gave us this really cool morphine!"

Do you think that your local town supervisor is evil? What about the county clerk? Perhaps the guy at the DMV who takes your picture when you get your driver's license?

Those are some nasty fucking dudes.

[saxitoxin]

Current law dictates that what Snowden did is a crime, so yes, I would call the police to notify them of the whereabouts of a suspected criminal.

Like I said, a position with a long and proud history.

So if you saw Osama bin Laden walking around the streets of Santa Barbara, you wouldn't call the police?

now Edward Snowden is Osama bin Laden

an evil tumor, growing in our midst - SHOUT! Mets, SHOUT OUT HIS NAME!

[Metsfanmax]

Current law dictates that what Snowden did is a crime, so yes, I would call the police to notify them of the whereabouts of a suspected criminal.

Like I said, a position with a long and proud history.

So if you saw Osama bin Laden walking around the streets of Santa Barbara, you wouldn't call the police?

now Edward Snowden is Osama bin Laden

an evil tumor, growing in our midst - SHOUT! Mets, SHOUT OUT HIS NAME!

You know perfectly well what my point is. We all agree with the rule of law when it comes to things like murderers -- you just think that you can ignore it when it comes to white collar criminals who do things that you agree with. The force of rule by instinct is strong in you.

[saxitoxin]

Current law dictates that what Snowden did is a crime, so yes, I would call the police to notify them of the whereabouts of a suspected criminal.

Like I said, a position with a long and proud history.

So if you saw Osama bin Laden walking around the streets of Santa Barbara, you wouldn't call the police?

now Edward Snowden is Osama bin Laden

an evil tumor, growing in our midst - SHOUT! Mets, SHOUT OUT HIS NAME!

You know perfectly well what my point is. We all agree with the rule of law when it comes to things like murderers -- you just think that you can ignore it when it comes to white collar criminals who do things that you agree with. The force of rule by instinct is strong in you.

In some places, like Germany and Sweden, the prosecutor is required to bring charges whenever an offense is apparent.

Criminal law in the U.S. - like in Britain and Canada - is based on a system of discretionary prosecution, not mandatory prosecution.

When Obama-McCain set out to hunt Snowden like a dog and destroy his life they do it because they're allowed, not because they're required.

[Metsfanmax]

Current law dictates that what Snowden did is a crime, so yes, I would call the police to notify them of the whereabouts of a suspected criminal.

Like I said, a position with a long and proud history.

So if you saw Osama bin Laden walking around the streets of Santa Barbara, you wouldn't call the police?

now Edward Snowden is Osama bin Laden

an evil tumor, growing in our midst - SHOUT! Mets, SHOUT OUT HIS NAME!

You know perfectly well what my point is. We all agree with the rule of law when it comes to things like murderers -- you just think that you can ignore it when it comes to white collar criminals who do things that you agree with. The force of rule by instinct is strong in you.

In some places, like Germany and Sweden, the prosecutor is required to bring charges whenever an offense is apparent.

Criminal law in the U.S. - like in Britain and Canada - is based on a system of discretionary prosecution, not mandatory prosecution.

Since I am not the Attorney General of the US, I don't see it as within my purview to decide whether the US should prosecute Snowden.

[saxitoxin]

Since I am not the Attorney General of the US, I don't see it as within my purview to decide whether the US should prosecute Snowden.

It is, however, in your purview to withhold enthusiastic cheerleading from the sidelines as the dogs are being unleashed. In fact, to even express to the Attorney-General you wish he exercised his discretionary power not to hunt down Snowden.

But, since this thread is being matched to IP addresses and added to your Permanent Citizen File, it probably is safer just to scream at the screen when told to do so. You never know how your Permanent Citizen File will be used 20 years from now. Better safe than sorry. You're a survivor, Mets - you remind me of the Italian -

[Metsfanmax]

Since I am not the Attorney General of the US, I don't see it as within my purview to decide whether the US should prosecute Snowden.

It is, however, in your purview to withhold enthusiastic cheerleading from the sidelines as the dogs are being unleashed. In fact, to even express to the Attorney-General you wish he exercised his discretionary power not to hunt down Snowden.

There is a significant difference between my duties as a citizen to report the whereabouts of a suspected criminal (what we were originally discussing), and my personal beliefs on whether what the person did should be treated as a crime and prosecuted as such (what you are shifting the conversation to now). As I believe in the rule of law, I would fulfill my duties as a citizen. This would be independent of my beliefs of whether the AG should prosecute Snowden.

[BigBallinStalin]

Since I am not the Attorney General of the US, I don't see it as within my purview to decide whether the US should prosecute Snowden.

It is, however, in your purview to withhold enthusiastic cheerleading from the sidelines as the dogs are being unleashed. In fact, to even express to the Attorney-General you wish he exercised his discretionary power not to hunt down Snowden.

There is a significant difference between my duties as a citizen to report the whereabouts of a suspected criminal (what we were originally discussing), and my personal beliefs on whether what the person did should be treated as a crime and prosecuted as such (what you are shifting the conversation to now). As I believe in the rule of law, I would fulfill my duties as a citizen. This would be independent of my beliefs of whether the AG should prosecute Snowden.

The rule of law doesn't mean "follow all laws." If so, then there's nothing to stop you from obeying all the laws of some fascist state.

The rule of law is about equality before the law. All entities under the Law are to be ruled by the Law. The rule of law is not this one-way street where the citizens must obey, and the government officials sometimes obey.

When the state fails to hold its members accountable or to restrain itself by obeying the Constitution, then the laws of the state need not be obeyed. Why uphold "your duty as citizen" (read: subservience to the federal government), when the state fails in its duty to uphold the Constitution?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

The world is not one-dimensional...

That's an odd statement coming from somebody espousing complete loyalty to laws set up by authorities, or what you believe to be rule of law.

-TG