SAFE TV to expedite mass adoption

And the standard of acceptable for hopeless fools should be set by no one other than you. Of course. Only the decider shall have the right to free will!

I have similar concerns about your character. I would suggest the main difference is mine is draining on myself, while yours is draining on the world.

Sadly while you pretend to understand the significance of free speech, your comments reveal complete lack of understanding of the right to private property (of which free speech is one kind).
And not entirely unexpectedly, that poor (mis)understanding of rights is enhanced by selective application of misunderstood principles.

Let me know where I can download your medical history. Information wants to be free!

I agree it is subjective. My position is that of the rationality of taking advantage of those in a position of weakness. You are free to punch an infant in the face severely for grabbing something you clearly told it not to but you personally know the reaction is extreme, unnecessary, and only possible because of it’s overall physical and mental status. You are free to extinguish the human race with a genocidal virus that does it’s job in mere hours. How does one maintain or even perpetuate the human race under such conditions. It’s true that such issues can and have been used to strip personal freedoms by those who seek power, but it doesn’t mean that these things should be overlooked. How do you propose unlimited freedom while at the same time keeping shit like that at bay. Carelessness and nihilism are IMO not the answer. There needs to be a balanced approach with little to no expliotability.

I’m not superimposing my standards on to anyone. I merely speak of my own beliefs. What you read here is my own internal psychological construct versus that of those who participate in this thread. Do with it what you will.

You admit yours drains you. I suggest that you eliminate the belief that your character is the epitome of personalogical growth incapable of outward disruption.

What I argue is that sharing with little to no cost is conducive to intellectual growth for those who would otherwise lack exposure to potentially inspirational information. Your conclusion seems far reaching.

Theoretically all information is retrievable under the right circumstances. Develop the necessary techniques and undermine my desire for privacy. Until then I prefer to fetter the release of my records.

How does nature do it? If there is an overabundance of prey then that is checked by the introduction of a predator. If there is an overabundance of predators that is checked by starvation and competition because of the lack of prey. Nature abhors monocultures which lack genetic diversity and result in the pepetuation of disease. Meaning if there is too many of a single organism and that organism rises to too great a dominance over it’s neighbouring species if nothing else it will be checked by rampant disease. Case in point: humans and all our artificially created agricultural monocultures.

Now while I could wax on all day about the environment the point here is how does all this apply to what you’re saying about society. Just as nature is filled with natural checks and balances so too can society be. If someone is being obnoxious and antisocial people will not want to be around them. If they have the tools to filter out the content according to their own personal tolerance levels that at some point one can determine there will be a social mean and median of what is tolerable and what is not without having anyone impose any given rules. In fact we are biologically driven to seek out the approval of others for this very reason: because we fear being ostrocized from the tribe and know that such ostrocization is a threat to our survival. To what degree we allow this fear control us varies but that’s where it comes from. Do you have a person who likes exploiting and threatening others? Well you also have people in your society that are protectors as well. Please note I did not say “police” I said protector. Protecting someone does not imply law or a legal code. Morality != law. How would you stop someone from developing a genocidal virus? Well a good start would be to weed out psychopaths in the first place. Another would be setting up inferstructure to support people so there wouldn’t be any excuse to use one. And finally another check would to make such a thing anticulture so that no one would help create the virus. Also as you point out to do such a thing would be suicidal. A psychopath might lack empathy but is not stupid. I think to address your “rationality of not taking advantage of those in a position of weakness” something I don’t completely agree with because “taking advantage” and “a position of weakness” can be extremely subjective and vary according to interpretation not to mention you aren’t taking consent into it at all as the world is filled with weak people who crave stronger people to take responsibility and control of their lives. So I think the whole thing comes down to empathy, foresight and a bit of intelligence. How does and will this action by person A affect person B and why are A and B reacting in this manner? Questions like that. Is consent being given or respected? Is there empathy between the two parties? Is there sufficient communication? Flip it around. Would it be wrong for a weaker party to take advantage of a stronger one? So why do people get so worked up about a stronger party “taking advantage” of a weaker one? That’s not the issue. The issue is empathy, consent and understanding of one another. How do you stop abusive parenting? You make sure to support parents. You make sure they aren’t overly frustrated, that they have the right resources available, that their base needs are getting met and so on. A parent that’s frightened of not being able to pay the bills, is getting only 2 hours sleep a night, is having severe relationship issues, and has some kind of phsyical issue causing chronic pain is more likely to go off the rails and punch their kid than a happy parent with a stable income, a loving supportive spouse, a full night’s rest and full belly, and who has all their medical needs dealt with. You know what I’m saying here? How do you love and take care of child? You love and take care of their Mom/Dad. It’s that simple.

Instead of thinking “What rules do we need to put in to make people conform to the behaviors we want,” think “What checks and balances can we provide to either support for the behaviors we want or support those that act as counters to those we don’t.” If you want less deer you introduce wolves. If you have thieves, rapists and muggers you introduce a locksmith, set up a self defense course and maybe a private security force. If people are spending too much on security then they’ll just be wasting money. Too little and they’ll end up getting attacked and/or robbed. Another avanue would be to simply to make sure you eliminated poverty as much as possible and made things like drugs and prostitution legal. Eliminate the market. A theif won’t steal if there’s no where to sell the goods and if one’s base needs are met in the first place there’s less reason to. Many crimes are committed as a means to survive. So provide the means and eliminate the behavior. Stop thinking in terms of target behavior, conform, comply or be punished but rather everyone has needs so what can you do to provide for those needs while eliciting the behaviors you desire?

Back to the free speech thing. If you have a person spouting off about some topic you don’t like how would you provide for their needs and the needs of others without violating their rights to express? You could provide them their own radio/TV/internet stream (which others could opt in or out of watching/listening to), the advantage to the speaker would be the potential to reach a much greater audence while the advange to everyone else would be that they aren’t yammering on a street corner and all up in their face. Or you could arrange for them to have a time at a public speaking hall to express their views. There’s no guarentee anyone would show up but they get their floor time. In short you don’t “keep shit at bay” you just move it or defuse it before it blows up in your face.

1 Like

@Tonda & @Janitor please keep to objective issues and avoid judgements about each others character on the forum. You are free have those discussions by PM of course.


Sorry for the lengthy wait, I have a weird schedule with varying windows of time. Now for my response.

Depends on the circumstances. Some protection requires policing.

Psychopaths can be subtle and cunning. The only perfect way is invading ones thought, processes it through a synthetic intelligence, and being able to fully understand neural maps.

These take time to build. What is done in the mean time?

Requires a deep psychosocial metamorphoses. Ideal but statistically improbable. Billions are hard to predict much less control.

Yes your right it is subjective. My aim to understand how gaining pleasure from someone else experiencing physical and or mental anguish is conducive to societal stability (please, no edge cases). The crave for dominance is debatable, using the strong can sometimes be advantageous and thus more a matter of adaptation/pacifism. Though as history has shown us, these poor choices have only led to destruction and death of many innocents.

Depends. In most cases it strengthens the two as a whole. The decentralization model speaks to this. Symbisis is also a clear example of the potential benefits.

Who supports these parents. Is this done haphazardly with the intent of remediating these issues worldwide?

Not everyone has access to these resources. Well I guess they can go **** themselves. Who needs poor people. They haven’t in any way contributed to the advancement of society nor will they ever. Feel me?

I agree with this wholeheartedly!!! I’ve been holding on to this solution for a while. Spreading it where I can. It is also relatively easy to implement.

There are two types of need, existential and relative. Food water and oxygen are existential needs. Shelter, wood, and utensils are relative needs based on personal conditions. Existential needs can easily be met under the right circumstances. Unfortunately existential needs are often drowned out by relative needs. Prioritizing existential needs over relative needs would ease the request traffic. No need to violate rights just prioritization.

Shifting paradigms is easier said then done. Even then it only takes one to release that genocidal virus. It’s a tough problem my friend. Oversimplifying it helps no one.

Will try. I assume you’re done laying your floor. Hope all went well. Happy to see the voice of reason has returned to full capacity. :smile:

1 Like

I’m inclined to disagree but I’m curious as to why you think so.

True psychopaths can be cunning and subtle however the key to countering them is found in understanding them and knowing the signs of spotting them. You don’t need an A.I. to do that. There are some pretty tell tale behavioral signs to spot a psychopath and if nothing else you can remember they do not feel or have a capacity for empathy. Therefore you require that in order to gain power one must display and maintain empathetic ties. Even if a psychopath manages to get into power he must still behave in an empathetic and ethical manner or risk losing power, which is something a psychopath dreads.

Build them and reinforce steps towards their creation. If you want to develop a garden first you must cultivate the soil before you even plant your first seed. To do that you must invest time in composting and/or vermaculture (worms) and perhaps build raised beds or a greenhouse. In short build the inferstructure. We’re already doing some of that with the creation of SAFE and the subsequent apps that will be built there upon. The introduction of safecoin will provide a means of self sufficiency to the masses which in turn will provide people with the means to form greater self sufficiency. The apps will increase this as will the privacy and freedom of the network. Just as promoting and developing things like urban agriculture and spreading knowledge about naturopathy promote such freedom, security and independence. That’s the kind of thing you do in the meantime. If you can’t imediately plant your garden you cultivate soil and build the greenhouse.

Okay when did we start talking about sadism here? I thought you were talking about the strong taking advantage of the weak just as the weak take advantage of the strong. That does NOT imply sadism or masochism. Really I want to know what you’re referring to here before I try answering your question because I’m not sure where you’re getting at sadism on a societal level. As for the craving for dominance well you might want to watch these talks.

(Yes they’re long.) I think the second one will apply more to your querry.

You also might find this video to be of interest, especially in regard to parents.

Okay let’s start with the intention and premise that parents and families should be supported. How would we do that? Well how about engineering homes that were self reliant. Designing efficient plans for gardens, composters, and all that that were cheap and easy to build so that food could be grown. Designing and writing up lessons other materials to educate children and adults that could be downloaded and distributed. A decentralized open source crowdfunded social safety net that could support those in need, particularly parents and families, world wide. Ideas like that. Start with the intention and then think of it like an engineering problem. You’re asking the wrong questions dude. Supporting children and families isn’t the responsibility of just one group of people because everyone has the issue and everyone can contribute in some way. It’s a world wide issue. Everyone has children, or parents, or siblings, or someone they want to support. And if you don’t have money then obviously you’re among the poor and therefore developing a system to support the poor is a good thing for you to contribute to. Money is not the only way to contribute. There’s time, there’s skills, there’s simple emotional and intellectual support. If we supported parents with the same energy we spend on following fashion, buying a new car or screaming nonsense over the superbowl or hockey we’d be fine.

So? Use different resources and figure out how to give them access to those resources. Work the problem. Go low tech. What was that I was telling you about developing the soil before planting seeds. There is so much work to do. If they don’t have access to a locksmith then perhaps the more fundamental issue is could perhaps they be trained to become one? Or perhaps could a community forge and metal working shop be set up. If someone can’t afford private security and can’t afford to get combat training of any kind then it becomes an educational question. Do you support free education? If yes then perhaps you should look into crowdfunding a self defense and/or combat training course for those who can’t afford it otherwise. Or one could also look into building secure housing for those in need. Think dude! Think of it like a design and engineering problem.

I’ll remember that when you have your food and water but are eating it out in the snow. You’ll cry “Let me in! It’s cold out here!” And I’ll say back to you “You have your existiental needs and what’s important to you.” Shelter is just as important as food and water because freezing your ass off is just as deadly as starving or dying of dehydration. You need all your base needs met: Food, water, shelter, oxygen too but we aren’t living in space quite yet.

Water eroding rock is simple and can reshape landscapes given time. Doesn’t mean it happens overnight or is easy. Much of what needs to be done is simple. It’s the combination of all those simple things that make it complex. Ants are simple but as we all know an ant hill is not.

I would respond in great detail to each point but I feel it would be a waste of time. Most but not all of what you said is idealistic. While not improbable it does not immediately solve most of the stated issues. Time remains the unsolvable vector of potential destruction. Securing humanity until the reset button is hit/takes effect is not without need for great effort.

Some brief reposes to your post:

Some don’t have the capacity to learn to be a locksmith among other reasons why learning would be unfeasible. Worldwide sadistic extraction of pleasure is also subtle and therefore easy to overlook. Craving dominance is the belief resultant of personal bias not objectivity/fact. Spotting psychopathy is not a perfect science therefore a naive assumption of it’s complete future elimination from positions of power. Not everyone lives in places with extreme temperatures thus their desire for shelter is still secondary to food. Worldwide commitment to taking care of people might not be sufficient as those who voluntarily share their time/resources might not have enough to fulfill demands. I being poor as shit, know/use low tech but have over time realized it’s limitations as a result of our societal infrastructure. Not all parents care for others intruding into their lives which leaves those unassisted by their own choice with the door open to the chaos and face punching stated previously. In your model the genocidal asshole still remains. Again, it’s a tough problem yet to be solved. Naive is the belief that your proposed solution would eliminate the possibility. If you knew me well, you’d know that social engineering takes the greater part of my focus in life. Spearheading or finding some people to solve these problems is my life’s goal.

Of course all this will take time to impliment. Nothing happens overnight. SAFE by itself is taking a couple years to code and will take a couple more years if not a decade or so for people to adopt. Ideas and inffrestructure take time to develop and impliment. Be reasonable. One can’t simply snap their fingers and magic problems away.

I think you’re missing the point here. I didn’t say EVERYONE should learn to be a locksmith. I said that training should be made available so that SOME could gain the skill and then help or barter that skill for services from others. Use some lateral thinking dude. Honestly. Some might not have the capacity to learn. But most have the capacity to learn and/or do SOMETHING. Even if you’re an autistic kid who can only obsessively (and professionally) polish shoes all day or assemble ikea tables or something it doesn’t matter. If you’re an old lady who couldn’t swat a fly but has lots of stories and wisdom that’s something. Stop thinking inside boxes. There is no spoon.

Seriously I do not know what you are on about here. And speaking as one who is a sadist among many of my other kinks you come off as a bit offensive as you seem to be generalizing hostility towards all sadists (and by implication masochists as well whom I’ve known quite a few of and whom several of my subs have been. And can’t help but speak in their defense as well.) You say nothing of consent. You say nothing of circumstance. You’re just throwing terms around randomly. You keep talking about some vaugue world wide sadism but are not clarifying to what you are referring.

Um no. Did you not watch the videos on attachment I left for you? Dominance is part of the human attatchment and bonding process and is hardwired into our system. One person takes on the “Alpha”, Dominant, leader role whatever you want to call it and the other takes the “Beta”, submissive, follower role, again whatever you wish to call it. This hiarchical dynamic is hardwired into human psychology and always develops in every relationship. Seriously when I leave you links I don’t do it randomly. And YES even if it’s an hour long video I still expect you to watch it. It’s a lecture. Press play and go mop the floor or whatever.

Moreover even if it was based on believe and not objectivity/fact what’s your point? You’re talking to someone who believes in subjective not absolute truth here. So seriously who cares if someone is speaking their truth and you can’t objectively prove it, especially when it comes to something like their perspective on other human beings or on their relationships. Can you objectively prove that you even exist? No. Because all the data about your existence is fed to you from your senses into your brain. For all you know you could be a brain in a jar somewhere with sensory feeds plugged into you or you could be strapped onto a bed in a mental ward hullucinating everything. Reality IS subjective. Your statement there can not only be proven to be wrong but also irrelivant because objective truth does not trump subjective truth.

No it’s not perfect. That’s why you combine it with decentralization and get rid of as many positions of power in the first place. Also did I not mention the fact that you counter psychopathy with empathy. No it’s not perfect, nothing is perfect, having a bloody A.I. isn’t perfect, nothing and none of this is meant to work in isolation. It’s all meant to work together.

True. However if you’re living in such a climate I’d wonder why you aren’t growing your own food.

Unlikely as there’s plenty of raw materials laying around. You’d be amazed at what people throw out. Between salvaging trash, organic waste, properly composting humanure and other biowastes into fertilizer, saving organic seeds, collecting and saving rainwater, learning how to purify regular water, and bartering skills are you honestly telling me we couldn’t make a dent? Then there’s safecoin on top of all that. Then there’s wildcrafting and actually building things to breakdown resources further. I mean seriously. We waste like 40% of our food, we throw out tons of stuff, we have whole houses abandoned and empty and you’re telling me with a straight face that if we put our minds to it that we couldn’t coordinate and support one another and make it all work without the need for theft? Seriously? Nevermind the fact that if we switched to cryptocurrency that those millions of dollars that the corporations use wouldn’t be worth much anyway.

Yep there are some parents that would choose not to have others involved. Honestly in an ideal world I’d probably be one of them given I could amass enough self sufficiency. Of course that does leave the face punching idiot but then again those idiots are weeded out because they end up killing their kids and driving away their spouses and not reproducing.

It doesn’t and isn’t intended to. It merely counters it and BALANCES things out. The goal isn’t to ELIMINATE such antisocial individuals but merely reduce their numbers and make life more difficult for them while at the same time promoting conditions for parents and families.

I can tell we’re going to have some very interesting conversations. :smile:

Of course we disagree. I do not want to be protected, thank you very much.

I think it was clear we’re dealing with sadism from 10 or so comments ago!

The whole policing bit:

Sorry I didn’t get to it before. Now if someone were after an individual with murderous intent and proven capability, it would be impractical to stay indoors awaiting their arrival to thwart their action. Critical thinking, problem solving, and group coordination techniques all of which define policing would have to be utilized to safe guard the individuals life. Isolating people in this regard simply to eliminate the need for policing is not lateral thinking but instead regressive. Effectively jailing someone for an undetermined time is in its self a form of torture for most.
I have a slew of responses but realize the currently reality is the best and mutually observable example of nuanced social dynamics that will with deep internalization do the answering for me.

Not…Likely…A fallacy in the greatest sense. If you had written “I blurt out unproductive dribble in an attempt to include myself in meaningful discussions” then that would already be confirmed accurate. Unfortunately you’re resistant to all known pesticides. Reluctantly I must continue to wade through your droppings for yet another unknown period of time. Awaiting your tantrum. :sleepy:

I’ve mentally played out many scenarios in great detail. None of them hook without first working through our current issues. What I’m basically saying is that the transitional period will yield a great deal of blood unless done very slowly. It ******** sucks. Being derisive and sardonic reverses nothing but I too can play. My observations continue. :no_mouth:

Wouldn’t you be meaning agree as I was addressing Tonda there and am taking the individualist and anarchistic position here, that is yours? Or are you referring to something else?

Really? How so? If I found it obvious I wouldn’t have asked. Still since you find it so obvious do you mind clarifying the issue then.

At what point was this ever suggested?

No they don’t nessesarily define just policing. They are used by anyone trying to ensure the security and safety of another (as evidenced in this very forum and the development of Maidsafe). They are also used by anyone trying to solve a complex social problem of any kind.

Again when was isolating people ever suggested? This is what I mean you go off the rails like this and then create these scenarios where they need not exist in the first place.

This will be my final reply in this thread as not only has it gone off topic, but this discussion has temporarily lost my interest. Here goes:

It is an example…

Of course they don’t… :weary: Like many things, policing bares similarities to other concepts and practices. When you walk around scouting for a potential killer, questioning the locals in the hopes of gaining some intel, and deploying other strategies used by countless police you risk the possibility being thought of as police in the same way wearing a fireman uniform and going around fighting fires could have you regarded as a fireman even without organized agency or official sanctioning. There is little difference between the two as the latter could easily grow into something much larger. But honestly who gives a shit what it’s called. Words are just expressions of abstraction. The techniques used in my scenario are all qualitatively that of policing. Yes, almost anything can be warped to suit your argument, using small technicalities stifles our communicative verbal platform as applying self conceived formal language to natural language guarantees a near endless stream of iterative rebuttals. A formal language to which we have both agreed on is absent. The term logic is also limited by the abstraction of the language from which it came. Using it conceptually for your response implies a lack of forethought and consideration. A good read for a prospective programmer would in my opinion be a free ebook called “Think Java” it help me solidify both my understanding of the concept of formal versus natural language and it’s importance in a logic based system like programming. Yes, I used the word logic but in the formal sense that you will no doubt interpreted naturally. I know chicken and egg. :wink:

Isolation in the broadest sense (think bigger, it means more than just separating one person) is the only way to avoid policing in the given example without destroying civil liberties. These “unneeded scenarios”, help to illustrate my thoughts to you. They’re not invalid. You asked why I thought so and I gave you a hypothetical scenario that could help convey the reasoning behind my thoughts. It was you that went off the rails. :sleepy:

Please, no more, I’m bored… After I’m done reading a publication about mycelial growth, I’m gonna take a toke and play some mass effect. :expressionless:

Thanx for your participation in this thread. :smile:


Protection: yes, I confirmed I agree with your argument - I’d rather pass Tojo’s offer.

Sadism: I was referring to Tojo’s clear admission that sadistic statist measures that impose autocrats’ will on the inferior population (that must not be left to freely decide on its own) give him satisfaction and a feeling of moral superiority.

It doesn’t need to (or shouldn’t) be hardware dependent; I should think a browser add-on or plug-in would suffice. the REAL issue will be speed - streaming vs DL.

But I like the way the OP is thinking…it would work for digital distribution of all media - films, books, music…

From what I know of statists they tend not to want to impliment their policies out of a desire to inflict pain for enjoyment but rather out of a sense of insecurity mixed with a will to dominate. In short statists believe that those that don’t “help” others willingly should be forced to do so. Their arguments often run along the lines of “If we let people donate willingly there won’t be enough money. But if we compel them we can get all the cash we need.” Isn’t that like someone saying if you create a business or charity you might not get as much money as if you start robbing people’s homes or knock over a bank? But the key emotion behind this isn’t the enjoyment of anothers pain but rather simply insecurity and the will to dominate another to fullfilll that need.

Well if the real issue is speed then again that’s an internet backbone issue.


its your own insecurities that have resulted in these accusatory responses. This is far more more evident in janitor’s behavior. He pops up in other threads making derisive comments without provocation. Yesterday his knees buckled under his burgeoning sense of inferiority as he in mole like fashion popped with an empty and unproductive comment whose sole purpose was to a host an attack on my ingenuity. Detecting the pest, I and another took out our paddles and whacked him down like the scoundrel he is. Lol! Not doubt it hurt his feelings, which is why moments later he tunneled his way back over to this thread to leave further droppings. Going as far as to write his response in such a dry suggestive manner. Even taking care to obfuscate the name of the subject?! :smile: It must upset him that he has been qualified as a corn-ball by me and at least one other :joy: In a forum he has worked so hard to desensitize people of his presence. :sob:

Indirectly labeling me a statist shows just how narrow the thinking of the vast majority of people is on this planet. I don’t find it surprising though, few have the capability to see the gray. What I seek is a balanced approach. One that I have yet to find. Your proposal bares many similarities to anarchism but for all I know, there are many unspoken intricacies that make it dramatically different… If I were in a position of power I’d involve many if not all people to work on these problems until shifting our current system to something more efficient could be made possible. Saying bullshit like “just change it/stop it” or “it’s that simple” is soooo…nevermind. Yes, just changing it would solve the problem but I’m not so naive as to think it that simple.

Problems like this descending argument exist because people like you hate to lose and thus need to paint others into corners to feel superior by illiciting responses of frustration which make the target seem defensive. **** it, do what you will. You speak as though ( based on my exposure to your presence on this forum) as if you have all the answers. So put your math where your mouth is. You’ll surely point to crude examples of societal development without clear math indicating it’s chances of success just to down play its necessity, but it’ll magnify your insufficiency. Something I believe you…nevermind.

It saddens me that I don’t have all the answers but I’m more than happy to admit it. You can be sure that when I do, there will be an irrefutable mathematical component guaranteeing it will transcend all language barriers as all formal languages do. Don’t hold your breath though, of all available information I know less than 1%. :wink:

Sadists derive pleasure from cruelty and state is the only organization that can deliver it legally and on a continuous basis.
If they don’t enjoy it, why are they organizing and participating in organized violence?
Either they like it, or they feel it is their duty to throw people in jail, prevent the poor from getting a job, wage wars and engage in other acts of systemic violence. If it’s the latter, then it’s another form of mental disorder (see video below).

The need is to be able to command lives of others (and not with the idea to better them).
Some are definitively sadistic and most are psychopaths.

Starting at 3m20s:

They all have one thing in common, and that is, they want to tell you how to live your life.
But psychopaths seem to have this innate desire to always manipulate you…

1 Like

Often it’s the poor themselves who are statists because they are dependent on the state for subsistence. Take B.C. for example: the majority of people in B.C. are NDP (New Democratic Party) and most people believe in things like welfare, socialized health care, government run programs, have no problem with higher taxes, and generally if there’s a problem the first thing heard is “let’s get the gov’t to fix it.” Now while I can believe a few psychopaths infiltrated into the top rungs of political power I have a hard time believing that the majority of people in an entire province is a psychopath or a sadist. The need itself to be able to command lives would fall under that of dominance not sadism since it’s an exertion of power and control not nessesarily the giving of pain for one’s enjoyment.

Yes, everyone who gets enough handouts to sell their vote, makes a deal. The “poor” are many, so they a small bribe (multiplied by a large number of recipients) while the oligarchs get handsome payouts.

But related to the topic, there are Authoritarian Followers (distinct from Authoritarian Leaders, who are in charge of the whole circus). The former follow and execute (figuratively and literally). Earlier I wrote about the leaders.

In any case, the bottom line is I don’t want to be protected by the government, I don’t want to follow some self-proclaimed leader. Screw them both.