I didn’t watch that video - I hope it wasn’t execution footage
Some stats: Homicides - Our World in Data
The Chief Statistician in Australia did a end of century report and in it he said that Australia ended the century a much less violent (crime) place that it started the century with.
In it he said all forms of violence has dropped, except homicides which remain fairly consistent, not including periods of war. All forms of assault (incl sexual) have been declining significantly since about 1990, and no suggestion of a reason was offered from what I remember.
I noticed that the stats from Homicides - Our World in Data also showed fairly constant rate of homicides in the 20th century.
Yet we have law enforcement after even more powers to stop the “explosion in crime”.
1 Like
‘The News’ - Behind the scenes.
No-one was harmed in the making of this production,…I’m sure the image is etched in your brain somewhere
1 Like
Moxie Marlinspike: The Coder Who Encrypted Your Texts
Mr. Marlinspike created an encryption program that scrambles messages until they reach the intended reader. It’s so simple that Facebook Inc.’s WhatsApp made it a standard feature for many of the app’s 800 million users.
The software is effective enough to alarm governments. Earlier this year, shortly after WhatsApp adopted it, British Prime Minister David Cameron called protected-messaging apps a “safe space” for terrorists. The following week, President Barack Obama called them “a problem.”
That makes the lanky, dreadlocked and intensely private coder a central figure in an escalating debate about government and commercial surveillance. In a research paper released Tuesday, 15 prominent technologists cited three programs relying on Mr. Marlinspike’s code as options for shielding communications.
His encrypted texting and calling app, Signal, has come up in White House meetings, says an attendee. Speaking via video link last year as part of a panel on surveillance, former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, who leaked troves of U.S. spying secrets, urged listeners to use “anything” that Mr. Marlinspike releases.
Unfortunately the A word would seem be beyond redemption as a movement that would be adopted wholesale by citizens…it’s that cognitive dissonance thing again.
A middle ground between A and the State would seem to have more chance of mass approval.
I like this guys take:
So this is the first concept I offer: Government (for lack of a better word) must be called into existence only as needed, then allowed to dissipate when the specific task at hand is completed. Later on, we’ll explore the best way to provide services that are needed on a continuous basis (and are typically performed by governments under the current system), We’ll also explore the simple mechanisms that will allow a coalescent system to work (and to displace the current system).
On a related note, many programmed minds have difficulty embracing simple solutions to problems, but simple solutions are the only ones that reliably work in the real world. The more complex any system becomes, the more potential points of failure it develops (in other words, the more parts an engine has, the more parts there are to break down). For a government of the people, by the people, and for the people to actually work, it must be simple enough for the average person to understand. It must also be based on the natural ways people interact with each other. When you try to apply complex, abstract systems to government, you are setting yourself up for endless dysfunction, as you can observe all around you.
1 Like
We cannot have any words that go against the elite owned/funded/controlled media - they will Orwellify any word that doesn’t fit into their vision. If we create new words, firstly we alienate those who preferred the old word, secondly we must market the new word, and then thirdly we face having the new word being given a black-eye and having to start all over again. Hence we can’t turn our backs on the words that define our vision - we must fight for them, or their just no hope.
It is ultimately a moral argument and as such there is no middle ground. Either we support the idea of the non-aggression principle, or we don’t - it really is black and white. If you don’t support it (and favor a small State), it will not matter how limited a State you begin with, if the society under it becomes wealthy, the the State will grow as a plague.
I do not worry about convincing others anymore (although I do stick to my guns with regard to my verbage). I believe that by gaining strong anonymity and having the full ability to prevent theft of one’s earnings, then State’s will fade into history.
I am fine with little ‘g’ government so long as it’s 100% consensus. All organizations have a little ‘g’ government to manage their shared resources, and you may choose or not to participate in them. When participation is coerced, either through the vote or through taxation (theft), then this is a State (big ‘G’ government, by my thinking). It is immoral to me and unacceptable. I will fight it to the end.
2 Likes
FYI, last time I looked Whatsapp encryption isn’t available on all platforms, so encryption is enabled/disabled by a message which devices receive from a Whatsapp server. So Whatsapp the company can simply decide to disable your encryption by sending your device this message, even if both end devices actually do run an encryption supported Whatsapp.
1 Like
Iirc, road deaths have fallen year after year too, but we still get high impact, graphic, adverts on telly about speeding/drink driving. These are the sort of adverts that the private sector would not be allowed to show and would scare my child… Even more than the nightmare they portray on the daily news.
I just switch the thing off or watch on demand now. The world is actually a pretty decent and peaceful place for most people. The scaremongering seems to be to keep people suffering from a sort of Stockholm syndrome.
1 Like
Interesting link. I think people are overly sceptical of individuals self organising though. Building roads, laying pipes, etc is not rocket science.
For example, laying pipes across the U.S. has been done without state involvement in the past. They just planned several routes and negotiated with the land owners for permission. As they had several alternatives, they could get a reasonable price and pipes laid peacefully.
Ultimately the state is just a cooperative that uses violence to get what it wants periodically. Removing the violence, but keeping the democratic core of a cooperative shouldn’t be beyond the realms of achievable… As long as there is a will to stop using aggression over peaceful negotiation.
4 Likes
This is actually a good thing in the big picture. The more your government has to come out of the shadows and deal with you directly, the better. The end result of a knock on your door may be the same, but now you have been shaken from a state of blissful ignorance to being acutely aware of what they stole from you. Then you tell two friends, and they tell two friends…
1 Like
Very well stated. You sound like a fan of Larken Rose.
2 Likes
Ha-ha! Yes, Larken is one of the people I admire quite a lot. And I must admit to riffing on an analogy with he uses from time to time, thought I hope I put my own salt in the stew. 