The 1951 Invention Secrecy Act- Project Safe would over ride this


#1

According the the Wiki entry there may be 5-10k patents covered by this law. Its assumed a lot of that is related to nuclear proliferation. But it notes the need to suppress patents that could threaten the economic stability of the US. Maybe there are patents that would free us from the oil industry and possibly a lot of US power? Maybe there are patents that would free us from the telecom industry or simply break a bunch of other unnecessary enclosures. I presume that Safe and wide spread true anonymous forums will mean the end of trade secrets and their enforcement.

This could be a new golden age for technology and progress. It probably also means all the secrets on weapons tech spread. But its tech suppressed around the globe that will be most important. If there is anything to this, that Project SAFE could threaten economic stability and liberate all trade secrets we can imagine how some money driven players would act to derail it or subvert its working out. Is project SAFE ready for the demand: we demand you take that off your network? It will have an urgency much greater than with Wikileaks as it opens the way for millions of Wikileaks. and no way to track back the results. Is it true?


#2

Are you sure this would be a good thing?
What if the secret inventions are WMD type weapons?

A lot of inventions should have never been invented and others are so evil that it’s better for the world if it’s not copied/proliferated.


#3

I am not sure we can work with that approach. We can’t rely on secrets they are inherently unreliable as minds are connected. I think this is something we have huge denial about but that technology will increasingly reveal. We are going to find are working with something like one mind, if numbers even make sense in this context. We’d also have to trust corrupt bought and paid for government to decide which technologies were secreted away. The people involved in such situations know they become a liability as soon as they become aware, they seek insurance which leaks. They have to live with mind rotting paranoia. Sometimes they they actually spread stuff at great cost as they don’t want monopolies on such power. That’s another issue. Governments don’t keep weapons secrets and not use them. They build weapons from them. Their point of secrecy is just keeping a monopoly on the tech. Eventually that government may become the problem and its more the world and it population will have to face.


#4

Without secrets then everyone would have to have access to every kind of weapon. It does not scale because it only takes one person to destroy everyone else.

So in order to limit existential risk it is necessary to keep some information a secret or destroy it. Keeping certain information safe is a method of containment necessary to prevent proliferation.

Do you have a better idea?

From my perspective the world is a lot safer if all the top secret United States weapons don’t spread.


#5

If you look at the top demographic in the states scholastically and in upward mobility that does the best its the Asian demographic right now. And the top of the Asian is Iranian or Persian. They tend to consider themselves Asian vice Mid Eastern. It laughable to think for instance that people in present day Iran with access to orders of magnitude more info could not make a bomb when it done in the US 70 years prior. They’ve long had access to people and the info needed. The bomb tech, neutron/fission/hydrogen/anti matter/micro singularity- isn’t that interesting and it would only be details and practicalities that would be missing for the early stuff- the stuff is known.

The stuff that is interesting would be stuff like anti gravity which by the way is getting out of the lab and would outright kill a bunch of industries the most important of which would possibly be the oil industry. Can you imagine the absolute joy of being able to hit the kill switch on oil! We are tired of this industry and the imbecility that surrounds it, including it being an engine of war. Another one is the telecom industry. With all this technology we shouldn’t have to pay to communicate. The toll road industries need to go the way of the buggy, yesterday. Want a welfare case in the pejorative sense these are it. You take something that should be infrastructure and make some useless royalty with it. Dukes and Barrons of energy and telecom. That has to end!


#6

Can you explain the link please, I’m not getting it. Thanks
I understand anti-matter may have anti-gravitational effects, but no idea how this harnessing of anti-matter would be in any way feasible in the near future; it would instantly annihilate once in contact with any normal matter in a flash of pure energy…don’t fancy jumping on that particular anti-matter bus…being made of matter…lol.
The rest of your post appears to be advocating re-nationalising resources, which I can agree with .


#7

There are at least a trio of effects that are surprising. Meissner effect (known for a while) or “quantum levitation,” quantum locking, quantum trapping, another is the diamagnetism effect and most interestingly ‘Hutchison’ effect. I remember reading there was a patent issued to Lockheed Martin for the Hutchison effect and some lore about the experiment- maybe a patent fight. Researcher took two expensive high powered (easily crush a finger) neodymium magnets and forced them together in a vice and and them bolted them together and enclosed them in a shell of a hollowed out rock. Took another rock and had some one go to the top of a tower and drop both. The magnets fell slower.

Some of this stuff sounds more like it has exotic anti gravity type effects. One researcher in England was saying they’ve bent light with diamagnetism in a way that provides a cloak, could provide a shield of sorts. Not lens or black hole was required to bend the light. In the Science Friday below clip the diamagnetism effect seems to require a lot of amps but not many volts and has been used to levitate living things- walnuts, peaches, beer. They want to help astronauts with with the ravages of 0 Gs. Researcher said it could levitate a human but has a different index for bones so it might be like being picked up by the flesh.

The Misner effect stuff looks like it could be used for transport- maybe its part of what is already used in mag lev but in the demonstration clips below is not at all like the superconducting levitation the public is used to seeing. Its as if space has a memory. Stuff levitates at much greater distances and rotate around a canted access or retains an orientation in space as it moves through contortions that it shouldn’t there are some Israeli university demonstrations.



Apparently Japan took an interest in this guy:

Last approach on this video is curious:

Daniel Suarez who has a background as a software engineer and government consultant did his most recent fiction book “Influx” on tech suppression and what kicks everything off is someone developing not true anti gravity but rather a gravity mirror. The inventer has to be shut down because that would be enough to for instance harness gravity on Earth for power etc. He is then told that he has to work for the “Bureau of Technology Control” on their goals with access to all the suppressed tech or go to a special prison. At the prison they ironically turn him into an experiment to help them with their ultimate goal of a strong AI that will calculate without free will- they have Strong AI but it talks back.

Patent issued for anti-gravity device
Science Daily.com ^ | November 9, 2005 | UPI

Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:57:31 AM by aculeus

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 (UPI) – The U.S. patent office has reportedly granted a patent for an anti-gravity device – breaking its rule to reject inventions that defy the laws of physics.

The journal Nature said patent 6,960,975 was granted Nov. 1 to Boris Volfson of Huntington, Ind., for a space vehicle propelled by a superconducting shield that alters the curvature of space-time outside the craft in a way that counteracts gravity.

One of the main theoretical arguments against anti-gravity is that it implies the availability of unlimited energy.

“If you design an anti-gravity machine, you’ve got a perpetual-motion machine,” Robert Park of the American Physical Society told Nature."

Park said the action shows patent examiners are being duped by false science.

Copyright 2005 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.


#8

Lol…lots to read there. I have played around a lot with neodymium magnets and done similar things to stuff on the videos at first glance. Its interesting the effects you can produce, such as the appearance of anti-gravity (electro-magnetism in fact) or even perpetual motion machines etc. Once you deconstruct the physics you can see what’s fundamentally happening though - it also helps to know that the first law of thermo-dynamics makes perpetual motion an impossibility.


#9

The Art of War is deception. Therefore keeping secrets only leads to more conflict. If everyone is equally educated, information given to all, power is equally distributed, and trust given to all parties. Remember there is an emotional and spiritual aspect to this as well as tactical. Also you cannot destroy knowledge because if you do it will simply be discovered again and the cycle will begin yet again. Also different applications can be applied to the same breakthroughs. A rock can be a tool or a weapon, same for a knife, gun powder, nuclear fusion, electricity, chemestry, and all manner of knowledge. Even a weapon of any size or shape in and of itself isn’t evil in and of itself. A nuclear bomb could be very constructive blowing astreroids apart. It’s the INTENT of the user. It’s what they’re using it for and WHY they’re using it that matters. It’s not the knowledge or the tool but the person wielding it. And that’s the real issue, It’s so easy to blame the knowledge or the tool instead of take responsibility for the actions ourselves. To realize someone CHOSE to kill another human life or to commit genocide. No it’s the bomb’s fault or the gun’s fault. NO! It’s our fault as a race and individually as we make such choices. You want to stop people killing one another? Don’t deny them knowledge but rather take away their reason for taking up a weapon in the first place. People do not naturally want to kill one another. Censorship is not the answer. Secrets are not the answer. Getting people to a place where they simply refuse to go to war is and refuse to give up their power to someone who would fire off a WMD is. The Art of war is deception and therefore the Art of Peace is honesty.


#10

That’s apt for sure at this point. Still, quantum levitation is a jaw dropper. Stuff locking and holding its position in space as it moves… You look at that and wonder if its possible to simply bury some of that track in the ground and be done with roads and tires and motors. Grass might grow over the roads.

True antigravity would make the world unrecognizable. IT would be like the discovery of electricity. Access to space, how hospitable space was, surgery, security, energy (not perpetual motion necessarily but just a way to recycle liquid in a gravity well using gravity almost the way some hydro systems are proposed to use thermoclines,) manufacturing, transport… on and on and on. Talk about economic disruption- but that could be managed if it were planned for.

And we have to keep in mind that big leaps in physics are always possible. Relativity brought us nuke and that was disruptive. Governments have to plan for the possibility that tech gets out of control. So beyond suppression they have to have active response plans.

Maybe its up to the engineer. Someone builds something they know is disruptive but they down play it and they only rely on trade secrets (meaning they may face a patent to have their stuff yanked) and they introduce a product with conventional theories on how it works and they actually get it through underwriting. then its well known. Maybe it gets yanked as unsafe.

The gentlemen in the talk below is much reviled, but I’ve always liked him for pointing out the anomalies and for not backing down even at great cost. He came from a relatively high place in the science establishment.


#11

You know it occurs to me with maidsafe war really would be impossible. You can’t really carry on a war if the civilian populace is reporting the positions of every military unit they see TO THE ENTIRE WORLD anonymously and freely. Even just in the context of police raids and what not. You see a cop abusing someone, you take a picture and post it on maidsafe and it spreads like crazy and they can’t censor that. If you see a bunch of police headed to town a, well you know they’re headed AWAY from town b which means that’s an oppurtune time to do demonstrations at town B. You can’t send troops to quash a rebellion in location a from location b without leaving location b vunerable to rise up in a rebellion of it’s own and vice versa. And if you know troops are on the way you hightail it out of there. War is simply impossible. As I said secrets and deception, censorship, is the stuff of war. Without it there is no war. Give the people personal freedom and anonymity and the secrets come out and war ends.


#12

Maybe someday but not anytime soon. We first need a global government. Then we have to replace all the humans in government with a super computer.

Once we do that then all weapons can be systematically destroyed, all information about how to build WMDs destroyed, and over time maybe humanity will forget how to make these weapons.

Otherwise secrets will have to be kept. It’s if a few human lives are sacrificed than to have billions suffer and be sacrificed. The equations we are dealing with in terms of secrecy is a matter of life and death in some instances and then you have to choose how many human beings you’d rather put at risk.

If it’s a top secret weapon which could result in all human lives on earth being extinguished at the push of a button then it is critical to keep that secret even lethal force may be necessary. It’s certainly better for the world if those weapons were never invented but they happen to exist and the only way we can keep ourselves safe from them is to limit the amount of people who have them.

So no, I don’t think we should give every nation in the world all the worst most destructive weapons in the US arsenal. Who knows what the US has developed since the nuclear bomb and honestly it might be better if we never find out.

Also you argued a strawman. I never said every weapon. I’m talking about weapons which can destroy billions of people in a flash. Weapons which can destroy the whole planet in a flash. Weapons which can make billions of people sick.

Out of the stuff we know about it would be include biological, chemical, nuclear, kinetic, energy beam type weapons which can literally kill us all off.

I am of the opinion that these weapons are better off being erased from history entirely than to share knowledge on how to make them more lethal. Since it’s not so easy to erase these sorts of weapons because other governments want them so bad, we are stuck in a world where the best thing we can do is try to limit the spread. We should think of information about how to make these sorts of weapons as contagious viruses which threaten our species with extinction and our goal should be to prevent the transmission.

None of us win in a world where 3d printers can print designer viruses that attack specific people or races of people. Governments probably will have that stuff but do you think the world will be better off if everyone had it?


#13

Here you seem to be arguing that we should get rid of governments. As long as separate governments exist there will be propaganda to make people hate each other.

Neo Nazi’s get exploited by governments just as Al Qaeda or ISIS. The reason it’s not a good idea to give them better weapons is because people like ourselves will be caught in the middle of it when they use it.

Before you can share all the knowledge of the world you have to in my opinion have an autonomous global government or a resource based economy where it’s all run from a super computer. It’s not going to be possible to end war as long as there are governments operated by humans in a competition for resources.

So the moment one government gets an unstoppable weapon they are going to use it against the world. I don’t want that to happen and I don’t know why you can’t see what would happen if a government gets information which can destroy billions of lives.

And no I do not think civilians need to know how to destroy billions of lives. That should be left up to the military unless you’re saying every civilian must be in a continuous state of war.


#14

Well yuo just there said “all weapons.” The Chinese tried that once and we ended up with a few new forms of martial arts. Where do you think those tonfa sticks originated eh? Incidently atomic fission is being used as interstellar propellant. You really need to do some reading man. Atomic bombs have more than one application. Seriously think about what you’re saying. Get rid of the technology behind nuclear weapons so that people forget how to make them. Do you realize how many scientific advances there have been since Einstein figured all this stuff out? Have you considered the implications of your statement? Have you also considered that you don’t need a nuclear bomb to create a WMD. Try biological weapons, chemical weapons, or any other way to cause destruction on a grand scale. Try bioengineering for christ sake. IT DOESN’T END! If you got rid of one WMD they’d make another one. It’s better that we know about it than not.

Ok then you not only want government, and global government at that, but you want to bend knee to a computer. Ok then you do that but leave me the hell out of it. God save me from statists!

Found a flaw in your plan. Secrets require censorship which requires surveylance which undermines privacy and freedom. State secrets are not compatable with freedom. In short friend freedom, privacy and anonimity mean the abolition of the state as you know it. No more state secrets.

This implies some authority has been given that power to push that button. But if we don’t give them that power and authority in the first place then this scenario is kind of moot.

Oh how very arrogant of you. So you’re discounting other countries, that have their own WMDs, like say Russia or China and any number of other countries around the globe? Ok so we won’t get our knowledge from the U.S. big deal. The U.S. contrary to popular belief is not the center of the universe.

Let me spell this out for you. I DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT ONE LITTLE TINY BIT! if the government has access to a weapon i want access to that weapon as a matter of course whether I want to use it or not. I want a balance of power. I do not want to government to have ANY POWER THAT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN DOES NOT HAVE PERIOD! I believe governments should be abolished completely. I am an anarchist not a statist like yourself. I believe in freedom.


#15

Let me clarify for you. Yes I am in favor of getting rid of all governments, not unifying them into one global government but totally getting rid of them completely. Gone. No government at all, period. Poof. No seperate nation governments. No global government. No government period. Am i making myself clear?

See here I disagree. Sharing all knowlege would in effect end all war. You can’t effectively wage war when all knowledge is above board as I pointed out in another post. If civilians are constantly posting about military/police positions that ruins your tactical advantage because your enemy knows your position. War is based on deception and you can’t maintain a deception if your enemy constantly knows what you are doing! Therefore publishing all knowledge is basically the end to all war. Furthermore it promotes connection between people and degrades propaganda which in turn keeps people from wanting to go to war in the first place. If people really know what’s going on and can connect with their “enemy” and empathize with them then they don’t want to kill them, and get rather pissed with the political types that try to do it anyway.

Dude there have been gov’ts with nukes for quite some time now. Why have they not been chucking them left and right? Because there are other governments with nukes that would throw them back. And throwing nukes around is rather unpopular and gets the huddled masses rather cranky with the lords of the manor, the peasants tend to come out with their pitch forks and burn you at the stake if you don’t do it exactly right. Also there’s this nasty thing called radiation and nuclear fallout to worry about, environmental damage is a bitch. So governments keep their big toys in their display case and simply flash them once in awhile as a form of ritualized combat. It’s a political version of a pissing contest.

Well actually I think what you’re saying is it SHOULDN’T be left up to the military since you seem so adamant these weapons shouldn’t exist. In fact you seem to feel afraid and betrayed by the goverment but blame the tool rather than the government. Instead of saying “we should not have government.” You say “we should not have weapons.” But if the government acts like this doesn’t that proove we shouldn’t have government?


#16

This isn’t realistic. Governments naturally emerge no matter what. Bitcoin itself is a government in the form of mining pools, miners, etc.

You could get rid of democratic government but then you’d still have families. Guess what? Families are governments too and the strongest family will rule over all the others. There will always be some kind of order in society and we can only choose the form of it.

[quote]

See here I disagree. Sharing all knowlege would in effect end all war. [/quote]
How? How would it end all war? You share all knowledge so now everyone knows how much better your life is than theirs and they are envious. Now you have to guard your property and the costs to protect it will rise. Unless there is communism then how will you have equal sharing of information without creating more conflict? If it is communism then you need some government to determine how much of everything each person should get, otherwise some people are going to want it all and will do anything to get it all.

[quote]
You can’t effectively wage war when all knowledge is above board as I pointed out in another post. If civilians are constantly posting about military/police positions that ruins your tactical advantage because your enemy knows your position. [/quote]
Just because you know an army of 100,000 people are on the way to kill you it doesn’t mean you have 100,000 people protecting you. Also it’s not even physically possible to have the information reach everyone at the same time so the people who are more connected will learn things first and will rule the world just by knowing stuff first.

If you have an enemy and you can’t win by deception then how do you stop that enemy?

You act like conflicts will end just becase people spy on each other better? Governments already know what each government is doing and there is still war. It’s true that if you have more effective spying you can make the war a lot less conventional but the war still happens, people still get hurt. You have not proved how you’d end all war and bring about world peace just by sharing information, I actually think that is impossible and SAFE Network does not facilitate that. SAFE Network actually keeps secrets safe which is the exact opposite effect.

[quote]
Therefore publishing all knowledge is basically the end to all war. Furthermore it promotes connection between people and degrades propaganda which in turn keeps people from wanting to go to war in the first place. [/quote]
It depends on the nature of the secret. I don’t think all information is equally damaging. Some information is more damaging if it’s kept secret and some is more damaging if it’s shared. Information on how to kill billions of people being shared increases the risk of someone using it.

1% of people might be willing to use the weapon but it only takes that 1% accessing it to kill off billions. You could say with radical transparency we could stop all plots but at the same time SAFE Network could facilitate plots. So once again how do you figure war can be ended just by releasing all information about everything? It’s an extreme position and you haven’t shown any facts or statistics to convince anyone.

[quote]
If people really know what’s going on and can connect with their “enemy” and empathize with them then they don’t want to kill them, and get rather pissed with the political types that try to do it anyway.[/quote]
Empathizing with an enemy who is trying to kill you is not going to stop them from trying to kill you. If they don’t feel any empathy then you’re connecting only with your own illusionary thoughts rather than with anything real. Not everyone has empathy and making a security argument based on the assumption that everyone does is in my opinion credulous.

[quote]
Dude there have been gov’ts with nukes for quite some time now. Why have they not been chucking them left and right? [/quote]
The United States used nukes before. In fact there are rumors that depleted uranium was used in the Iraq war. The only reason nukes weren’t used more in the past is because it wasn’t a very effective or specific weapon to use. It destroyed infrastructure and was indiscriminate. It just wasn’t a very effective weapon for military purposes and was only good for intimidation or mutual assured destruction.

[quote]
Because there are other governments with nukes that would throw them back. And throwing nukes around is rather unpopular and gets the huddled masses rather cranky with the lords of the manor, the peasants tend to come out with their pitch forks and burn you at the stake if you don’t do it exactly right. [/quote]
This is a strawman. I never argued that nukes would be used. Whatever top secret weapons they have now are probably so effective that they could kill specific people or families. Designer viruses are a far bigger threat than nukes and there are plenty of people in the world who would use them. A designer virus would be as lethal as a nuke but would spare infrastructure and only target specific individuals.

It’s quite obvious that left unchecked this technology could fall into the wrong hands, and situations could spiral out of control. You may be of the opinion that terrorists don’t exist, or that there aren’t cults or groups who would do something like that but I’m not of the same opinion. I think there are enough sick minded human beings willing to do it that it’s an existential risk.

Blaming the government isn’t going to make either of us any safer because government always exists in one form or another. The reason I don’t blame constitutional government is because it’s better than the alternatives. Perhaps we could make the constitution digital, run it on a supercomputer, and maybe that would be superior.

But I don’t think you’ll be able to have a world without governments in some form as long as you have families which could take on the function of government in the moment where constitutional government shuts down. When there is no constitution or laws to follow then families, gangs and tribe become the government.


#17

This is a strawman. You’re repeating the same argument I said. I’m making the argument that we don’t know the level of effectiveness or lethality of current or future top secret weapons. There might be weapons which are cheap, which could kill all life on earth, and which anyone could make if they just had an instruction manual. I don’t want that instruction manual to be shared because the existential risk would increase with every person who accesses it.

From a risk management perspective we really don’t want that particular kind of knowledge to be spread. You haven’t made a good case for why we should spread knowledge on how to create designer viruses which could kill off entire races of humans.

It would be one thing if we had a way to stop some of these weapons but perhaps there isn’t a way to stop some of them. In those cases it would be risking genocide to spread that information. My opinion might not be popular but I don’t think every piece of information is equal. I also don’t think everyone has a right to everything because if it can increase the risk of genocide, start a world war, or cause billions of deaths, I think that has to be weighed in.

You mean minarchists. Minarchists are not the same as statists. Total anarchists such as yourself believe that government shouldn’t exist at all in any form. I believe it’s not practical or even possible to have no form of government at all. Every species has some sort of social order which ultimately constitutes a sort of government. Global government is one way to end all war because then every citizen of the earth would be a citizen of the global government. Decentralized government would be a way to solve a lot of the issues, and autonomous government would be able to manage resources, the ecosystem, the habitat (because humans can’t seem to do it without having wars). Of course this possible future terrifies people and gives them Skynet nightmares but it is more practical than what you’re presenting.

We agree that the current social order isn’t working for most people but where we differ is you believe it is possible to have a society with no social order. Social order emerges on it’s own. In a nuclear family there is a social order and it really doesn’t have anything to do with the state. If you can show me any instance of pure anarchism where there isn’t any social order at all then show me because I have never seen it. It seems we can only choose the least harmful most free kind of order.

What we can do is we can decentralize the functions of the state so that we can have a much more anti-authoritarian liberated life. I don’t think we can abolish the security functions of the state and have no laws, no courts, no militaries, and so on. It’s not because that world could never exist but it’s more because our species isn’t evolved enough to have that yet. If you consider yourself an anarchist then you’re on the far extreme, but I don’t believe your views are practical.

[quote]
Found a flaw in your plan. Secrets require censorship which requires surveylance which undermines privacy and freedom. State secrets are not compatable with freedom. In short friend freedom, privacy and anonimity mean the abolition of the state as you know it. No more state secrets. [/quote]

Security requires access control. Your private key is a secret. Like it or not some secrets already exist and to share them could get millions or billions of people killed. I would say it’s better to let these people live than to give the world access to that particular secret.

Do you not even consider the damages that could incur when you share certain knowledge? If you want to talk about martial arts and China then you would know there is a danger in revealing martial arts techniques to the wrong sort of people. This doesn’t mean it has to be kept a secret but it does mean you need access control. Not everyone can know certain things because if certain information gets shared it can start a civil war, a global world war, etc. It doesn’t mean I like the situation but it’s just where the world is.

[quote]
This implies some authority has been given that power to push that button. But if we don’t give them that power and authority in the first place then this scenario is kind of moot. [/quote]
I don’t know what you mean by give them that power. They already have the power to kill all of us. You want to give even more people that kind of power? I certainly don’t.

[quote]
Oh how very arrogant of you. So you’re discounting other countries, that have their own WMDs, like say Russia or China and any number of other countries around the globe? Ok so we won’t get our knowledge from the U.S. big deal. The U.S. contrary to popular belief is not the center of the universe. [/quote]
I’m actually not discounting other countries. I don’t like their WMDs either. Sharing WMDs doesn’t make us safer from WMDs.

The Art of War is deception. Therefore keeping secrets only leads to more conflict. If everyone is equally educated, information given to all, power is equally distributed, and trust given to all parties. Remember there is an emotional and spiritual aspect to this as well as tactical. Also you cannot destroy knowledge because if you do it will simply be discovered again and the cycle will begin yet again.

I agree with you there. You can’t destroy knowledge but you can delay releasing it until a time where humans have evolved beyond the need to have wars. That time isn’t right now. Since wars are ongoing it doesn’t make sense to release more weapons and expect a good outcome.

Maybe someday this will be possible but not anytime soon. We first need a global government. Then we have to replace all the humans in government with a super computer. Once war and terrorism are impossible then release everything.

Once we do that then all weapons can be systematically destroyed, all information about how to build WMDs destroyed or released (it wont make a difference if there are no wars anymore), and over time maybe humanity will forget how to make these weapons or they just will not have a need.

Existential risk is why secrets must be kept

http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html

Ask yourself if a certain action or sharing certain knowledge will increase existential risk or not?

You argued a strawman. I never said every weapon. I’m talking about weapons which can destroy billions of people in a flash. Weapons which can destroy the whole planet in a flash. Weapons which can make billions of people sick.

Out of the stuff we know about it would be include biological, chemical, nuclear, kinetic, energy beam type weapons which can literally kill us all off.

None of us win in a world where 3d printers can print designer viruses that attack specific people or races of people. Governments probably will have that stuff but do you think the world will be better off if everyone had it?

[quote]
Let me spell this out for you. I DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT ONE LITTLE TINY BIT! if the government has access to a weapon i want access to that weapon as a matter of course whether I want to use it or not. I want a balance of power. I do not want to government to have ANY POWER THAT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN DOES NOT HAVE PERIOD! I believe governments should be abolished completely. I am an anarchist not a statist like yourself. I believe in freedom. [/quote]

I’ll take it further. I don’t trust authority. I’m actually not a statist or a pure anarchist. I’m a realist who knows that pure anarchism is extreme yet not practical and statism is the other extreme but isn’t working due to human corruption.

I’m not naive about this philosophically. There will be authority whether you have constitutional governments or not and these weapons are what give people that authority. It’s not the constitution, it’s not the law, it’s the weapons.

So if you’re not someone who wants a more authoritarian society then why would you want authoritarian people to get ahold of the worst weapon designs that human beings have ever created? Those torture devices which were created in the past along with the techniques have spread. The torture will continuously become more sophisticated, more people will be subject to it, because new techniques and weapons are always being created.

No I do not want the latest techniques and weapons to be shared among governments. No I don’t think that it somehow is good for the world to know technical details about it unless it’s for sake of history. The problem is we are still in a world of war, where people still get tortured, so considering where we are at I do not think we have the sort of people in the world who would be responsible with knowledge of all the worst weapons.

And I don’t think you’re going to get total transparency. People are going to keep trying to keep secrets and governments will remain the best at it because they still have the most resources. My disagreement with you is that I don’t find your political viewpoints to be very practical. I could say you’re a pure anarchist but it’s not practical.


#18

Sorry I haven’t had a chance to go through all the postings above yet just wanted to comment about it ending war. I think it could be a very solid step. Once on alternative radio I heard an ER seen where a mother and her son just learned their son/brother didn’t make it and had been murdered in Behghasi and these blood stopping screaming that ensued. This is where these paid thugs were showing up shooting people in ER rooms and shooting Drs. to keep oppressive royalty in place - its sound that does it. Think of Rodney King. Federal buildings burned during that riot. Back to the sound it would turn people I am sure it caused accidents. If It had been played during prime time during the Iraq War it could have ended that nonsense. People don’t get used to it.

So we are either moving toward, openess and open systems with transparency including privacy and anonymity and lots of of horizontal communication or moving toward a closed top down paranoid power concentrated vertical speech system with sponsorship,secrecy, spying, propaganda and loss of habeus corpus, torture, disappearing etc. Wide spread anonymity and horizontal speech make vertical corporate and state systems transparent. Excuses like the national security are seen for the license to abuse that they are.


#19

@Warren

How do you have privacy without secrecy?

If you say national security is excuse couldn’t the same be said about your own “excuses” for privacy? Privacy can be abused because it requires as least a temporary kind of secrecy. Your privacy is protected by your ability to keep your private key a secret. I do think you can set it up so that your private key is managed by a group pool (and I advocated that), because it would decentralize things.

The implications of what some here have said expresses the view that national security doesn’t matter. Is that the main view being expressed here? If national security doesn’t matter then what about global security?

If national security and or global security matter then are you factoring that into your decision making or are you following ideology exclusively? How do you guarantee personal security as an individual if there is no national or global security?

I don’t see it as either or. I think we can factor in national security, global security, and attempt to improve both while also increasing openness, transparency, decentralization, etc. I do not think we have to choose between either open everything all at once, or lock everything down into state controlled centralized hierarchy.

The reason I take this stance is I don’t think we can trust by default. That includes trusting ideology. It includes the state. The only thing we have that we seem to be able to have as truth is math and risk management is how you have security.

Also I guess I don’t believe most of the top secret inventions are the good kind of inventions. I hear “conspiracy theories” in the alternative media about anti-gravity, free energy, and all of the men in black type stuff but I do not personally believe it. I don’t take it seriously when doing my risk assessments.

It’s okay if you and Blindsite2k have a difference of opinion. I respect both of your opinions and just disagree with it.


#20

.Gov in a box…nice, maybe a super black cube with a tree of life interface, run by Blackrock inc