History has clearly demonstrated that no organized government military force has been successful in defeating well armed and determined indigenous guerrilla forces. One does not need what appears to be overwhelming force, technology, material, etc to win. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan (who also defeated the Russians, and please don't use the excuse they had U.S. assistance because it was determination on the part of the indigenous people that ultimately defeated them) all demonstrate the power of an armed citizenry to defeat either invading or domestic oppressive forces. The only surefire way to preserve liberty for all (even if it mean sacrifice for some) is for a citizenry has the determination and ability to repel or overthrow apparent overwhelming forces. And the only way to ensure that is for the citizens have access to weapons and education on how to use said weapons. Look at Syria, their revolution began with throwing stones. Not very effective by the way. Then they started to receive assistance from outside. Which is not consistent or reliable. What have they accomplished? Little. Because they didn't have the right or ability to overthrow a dictator from the getgo. Ergo, citizens should always have the right and ability to overthrow oppression even if it requires firearms.
It's not only distasteful but outright fascist that filming for one side (indiscriminately), namely the police surveillance on public walkways and highways in many cities without any individual "due process" and without your permission or probable cause when it's NOT OK for civilians to indiscriminately surveil law enforcement while they are performing their duties supposedly for the public's safety. Clearly a double standard is being applied in no one's interest other than the police or other law enforcement agencies. I'd even question the validity of referring to law enforcement as "law enforcement" per se when clearly many of the laws as applied by such agencies as part of their duties obviously are bending or breaking the original intent of specific laws. In such a case as recording the actions of law enforcement as referenced in this case, it is even inconceivable that a bystander (someone not a direct part of the police action) could be guilty of anything for tapping the incident in a so-called "free society". It seems clear that restricting the recording of such situations in a "public" place, which by the way government claims everyday that the moment you step out of your home onto public thoroughfares such as a sidewalk or street, that your actions are no longer "private" thus they are free to record anyone they want, that they could claim it unlawful for citizens to do the same to law enforcement. Maybe we should begin to address reality as it is in the world and accept the fact that no one is "free" and that freedom is a mere myth?
I think you stated it correctly... you ARE a "crackpot". You allude to extreme self-interest and libertarianism in you political and economic leanings which in large part contributes to a dysfunctional society and government.
http://www.zompist.com/liberto...http://www.hughlafollette.com/...
I'm as free to use meaningless ad hominen attacks as any "crackpot".
Based upon your example(s) you have an extremely limited view of incompetence and you appear to be using a only the legal definition. In fact there are a number of varieties or levels of incompetence. People can be incompetent from an employment viewpoint and that variety of incompetence can be used by a local sheriff to deny a person a concealed carry permit but has nothing to do with the "legal" definition where someone is considered mentally unable to make sound financial and medical decisions. If you had ever been degreed in medicine or psychiatry or even social work you'd understand there are varying degrees of mental infirmity including but not limited to your legal use of the word. Also, considering your example of people's "stupidity" depending upon the (again) degree of stupidity doctors, judges, law enforcement, etc. would or could consider a person as incompetent. Stupidity is merely a more common phrase people use to describe varying degrees of incompetence. There is no one degree of stupidity.
Actually, the roads are more likely in disrepair for a combination of reasons, lack of public funds (tax revenues), corporate welfare (witness the state of PA refusing to tax drilling revenues and the State of New York trying to draw businesses to their state by granting 10 year tax free exemptions which means more profit not necessarily a net surplus of actual jobs), government's (and therefore the public in general) failure to actually fund their share of pension obligations for a number of years (such as the PA has done even though employees have paid their shares) so as no the state's obligations are coming due. Here's a question, if you take a job (government or private) and part of the agreement to perform your duties the employer agrees to partially fund a pension then fails to do so. Is that a breach of contract? Does it make a difference if the job is private or public? An agreement is an agreement under the law. Streets also don't get paved because the highway infrastructure is constantly growing and the average taxpayer (perhaps such as you) only cares about the roads they use. To hell with everyone else. Well, the fact is it takes loads of money to take care of EVERYONE'S roads. But no one wants to pay unless it directly benefits them. It's a symptom of American narcissism. I've known a number of people who complain about their taxes (because they dont see any direct benefit) and then met the same people walking out of Wallymart with a $1000 TV. In other words, they don't really care about their streets, schools etc. if it means having to by a smaller TV or their street or school age child is directly effected. Everyone wants "their" share of tax benefits , plowing, garbage disposal, streets, clean water, etc. etc. but not if it means someone else might benefit from time to time. Sad mindset really.
That's a pretty skewed view of political history. Back in the post civil war period the largest corporations, i.e. the railroads and oil companies exercised excessive influence for the very reason - they could. And they could because government was very small, ineffectual and there were few protective regulations. Try reading the histories of Standard Oil and Southern Pacific Railroad et. al. The rise in corporate power started back in the mid- nineteenth century when the largest corporations bought the Supreme Court and SCOTUS initially ruled corporations are considered "people" under the Constitution. Back then there was little government regulation or oversight and corporations took full advantage. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/sa... OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
A majority part of government "regulation" is a direct result of industrial, business and service industry malfeasance, profit over safety (witness recent General Motors revelations), outright theft (witness Wall Street, Burney Madoff, etc.). Those who perpetuate the myth of government oppression are either ignorant of corporate history, are willfully recalcitrant about corporate malfeasance, are merely regurgitating corporate propaganda or are themselves blind to the foundation of western capitalism- personal self-interest and greed.
Government (and labor law to some extent) is the ONLY disinterested regulatory mechanism that attempts to balance profit with public safety, which for the past thirty years has been considerably undermined by the business philosophy that government serves only to hinder free-market entrepreneurship. When in fact government usually enacts limiting regulations when the corporate world has already demonstrated they cannot police themselves and act responsibly. If... corporations want the privileges that living human beings have, they need to demonstrate they can act in a civilized manner. You need to get out of your corporate religion and realize government regulation happens mostly out of necessity.
It is universally accepted that "children" are too mentally and physically immature to assume responsibility for handling anything "dangerous" which includes certain "toys", utensils, etc. That is not in anyway comparable to an "adult" or more mature "child" in learning to safely use such things. Even adults who some people might consider "incompetent" might not be considered incompetent by other adults. So the child/incompetence analogy doesn't really work.
How does one determine "incompetence"? Is a depressed person incompetent even though they are still able to function in society? Is someone with a character disorder or even split personality, or Aspergers, "loners", the physically handicapped, etc. be considered incompetent? There is a vast spectrum of human conditions, maladies, and "deviant" behavior that people can debate whether or not they would consider someone "incompetent". Either way, it's a pretty arbitrary line to draw.
First of all, known psychotic, violent and anti-social people are prohibited from owning firearms. Even people discharged from the military under "less than honorable" conditions are forbidden to own firearms in most states. Whether they're psychotic or not makes no difference. Secondly, psychosis is a difficult thing to diagnose. Even psychiatrists treating patients don't know oftentimes if a patient is depressed, has a personality disorder, merely anti-social, psychotic, etc. There are NO clear demarcation lines with various mental issues, most of the time those disorders do not result in violent behavior. Prediction is spurious at best. The only definitive indication of severe mental disturbance is actual behavior. Yet behavior is unpredictable, and once violent behavior begins it's too late to completely prevent. So the idea of keeping firearms out of the people's hands as a blanket policy is without legal (Constitutional) precedence because it would deny ownership to a vast majority of people who are not disturbed, who are responsible and are not common threats to society especially in light of the fact violent behavior is often unpredictable. One would be denied a "freedom" without due process and a compelling state interest.
I dare say they do. But only to the extent you're around long enough to lay down your life to protect them. That's what they mean by the phrase "national security".
Except when it comes to national health care and now the bringing home of some dumbass army ranger in exchange for some Taliban for which the republicans want to impeach him now.
Quite right. In some respects Obama is even worse. His draconian immigration practices are worse. His prosecutions in the 2007-2008 financial collapse has been non-existent. He's continued Bush's surveillance policies, even expanded them. His administration has continued and encouraged practices that promote mixing religion and government. His use of drones has more than doubled while the FCC has pushed for legislation to limit civilian use of drones. He's failed in his efforts to close Gitmo (as he promised). His DOJ has allowed increasing number of monopolies in various industries. He's failed to pursue and get any job protections for Americans (as he promised). He's promoted policies to further restrict self defense rights. He's talked the talk but hasn't walked the walk. Sorely disappointed in the first black president. He's turned his back on American freedoms.
I'd have to agree in large part. Which comes first though, morals or a form of government? Is government premised upon morals or visa versa? That's the problem in America. I think the operation of government is premised upon cultural norms and morals. And in America today there is a crisis of morals. It's become a truly dog eat dog arena. People even pride themselves on how many and in what way they have (fucked) gotten over one someone else. The macho-macho man attitude dominates everything Americans do and they relish the praise and attention. From our financial markets to our sporting events bravado reins. There was a time that Americans weren't such attention seekers and braggarts. We even stayed out of the war until we were forced into it. But when we did do something we did it together and with humility. Humility in modern America is an extinct animal. We've become so proud of ourselves, so into ourselves that we're incapable of recognizing our own hubris. Pride goeth before the fall???
Gambling is how the "markets" began in the first place. Even just 50 years ago a majority of investors (in stocks for example) were the wealthy, those who had the extra cash laying around and were willing to risk some of it for (even) a quick return (whatever a specific situation was defined as a quick return). It wasn't until the 1980s that the markets saw the potential for huge profits (for themselves) in transaction and administrative costs that they sold the idea of "retirement investments" to the average person and smaller companies. Then everyone jumped on the bandwagon in hopes of decent returns, even potentially millions in retirement accounts (no promises of course), driving up everyone's expectations. Thus the modern markets were created. But just like smoking, it's hard to quit being a profit junkie. Everyone jumps aboard in hopes of making a killing; being a "millionaire" come retirement. Very few have even come close to that goal but in the meantime money managers have got filthy rich. It's really a kind of scheme. They knew from the getgo that the wealthy were going to be the biggest beneficiaries.
Not very likely at all. In addition to the challenge of a more equitable system of production and distribution there are almost insurmountable social constraints. The is the problem of educating/training the world's population. Don't see that happening given the culture of greed running rampant because the nature of such investments almost certainly require a more egalitarian world willing to make sacrifices for others. Secondly, many social and cultural ideologies will not give up their authoritarian powers to enable women (for example) access to education, elevated social standing, freedom to pursue careers, etc. Third, (and this is probably the worst problem of all) the various paternalistic world religions which through their teachings limit pregnancy prevention programs and methods. The leaders and adherents of all the various Abrahamic religions (in particular) are very misogynistic, anti-freedom of choice and fear mongering (with excommunication, physical punishments, etc.) that prevent rational population control programs. Those religions promote pro-life moral worldviews for no other purpose other than to purposely GROW the world population. For what purpose? Perpetuation of their beliefs, myths and power. The more people there are the more potential converts. That's it in a nutshell. The grand perpetuation scheme done at almost any cost. So long as the population is growing they're content. Until such time as most of the world becomes atheist and rational thinkers that's simply never going to change.
Technology MAY delay the inevitable but it can't prevent it. It is a fact that natural resources are limited if for no other reason other than the size of the Earth is limited. Also, it is debatable whether or not "productivity/efficiency", all things considered including "externalities" such as water, air pollution and other natural resource loss such as oxygen producing plant life, actually continues to grow with the broad economy. There is a well known law of "diminishing returns" in both economics and physics. Each time you "reuse" a resource you loose some of its original advantage. At some point your processes begin to become less and less efficient to the point they are no longer sensible to use at all. At least without the influx of "new" resources. And since various nations gave up on manned exploration of the solar system thirty years ago thanks to Reaganomics and his "war machine" plot, there are no new resources to develop off planet. China and Russia may allude to the idea of national efforts to explore off-world, the fact of the matter is no one country has all the resources necessary to actually develop such programs independently. And it's not very realistic to expect continued international cooperation given the antagonistic state of world relations. Thus, diminishing returns are inevitable, even considering technology. As they say in the capital markets, "past performance does not reflect future returns."
Some problems with that assertion is; the military and law enforcement get paid to restrict liberties, are ordered as a cohesive group to overwhelm, don't have to give up their jobs/sources if income to conduct oppressive acts and can be punished for not following orders have access to overwhelming technology and arms, etc. Participants in civil disobedience usually have to sacrifice far more than the law enforcement and military agents (who are being rewarded for their acts regardless of who is harmed). Most people can't or won't make equal sacrifices to rebel against government.
So true. People in law enforcement are predisposed to be authoritarian and so militaristically idealistic they are incapable to appreciating the rights their departments were created to protect. There are departmental incentives to be anti-human rights. Advancements depend upon successful prosecutions, etc. Which by the way are very often achieved via pleas, and prosecutorial misconduct.
Wozniak said that?
Just because he may know computers doesn't mean he is a wise man. Especially the bit about someone bringing a gun to a fistfight. I know plenty of 65 year olds who can no longer "fight" as they could 30 years ago. If given no option, I'd certainly take a gun to a fight if it was with some punk 25 year old. There are a lot of punks walking the streets in America that have no or little respect for their elders. So if carrying a gun evens the odds, well hooray for them.
In general, I'd agree, at least loosely. I'd qualify your assertion that it doesn't really require (mass) violence. There have been countless mass protests that achieved their goal (even if just in part) by virtue of their shear size, public appeal, etc. The problem in modern America is that the generation most capable of organizing mass protests, ideological movements, etc. are to preoccupied with their personal social lives, techno-mania, competing in a shrinking job market, chronic ambivalence, fear, and just plain laziness of intellect to mount sufficient motivation to address many of the evils present today. Nearly every 18 - 35 year old I've met, when asked about "doing something about this fucked up country, righting some of the wrongs" have responded "what for? It's an impossible task." So no one even tries. That's one reason voter turn-out is so low. Who gives a shit anymore? Every man for himself. And one other thing, America has become so culturally diverse and ethnocentric, common interests and values no longer apply. Look at the fact that there are modern states (mostly southern) who have suggested secession from the union. America is a divided country. So who's going to expend much effort to fix it? Not many. Ergo, nothing changes.
Hearsay. I've not seen or read one instance in which Snowden is claimed to have revealed covert operatives names, etc. Other than what government sycophants have alluded to. No legitimate news agency has made such specific assertions.
Slashdot Mirror
History has clearly demonstrated that no organized government military force has been successful in defeating well armed and determined indigenous guerrilla forces. One does not need what appears to be overwhelming force, technology, material, etc to win. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan (who also defeated the Russians, and please don't use the excuse they had U.S. assistance because it was determination on the part of the indigenous people that ultimately defeated them) all demonstrate the power of an armed citizenry to defeat either invading or domestic oppressive forces. The only surefire way to preserve liberty for all (even if it mean sacrifice for some) is for a citizenry has the determination and ability to repel or overthrow apparent overwhelming forces. And the only way to ensure that is for the citizens have access to weapons and education on how to use said weapons. Look at Syria, their revolution began with throwing stones. Not very effective by the way. Then they started to receive assistance from outside. Which is not consistent or reliable. What have they accomplished? Little. Because they didn't have the right or ability to overthrow a dictator from the getgo. Ergo, citizens should always have the right and ability to overthrow oppression even if it requires firearms.
It's not only distasteful but outright fascist that filming for one side (indiscriminately), namely the police surveillance on public walkways and highways in many cities without any individual "due process" and without your permission or probable cause when it's NOT OK for civilians to indiscriminately surveil law enforcement while they are performing their duties supposedly for the public's safety. Clearly a double standard is being applied in no one's interest other than the police or other law enforcement agencies. I'd even question the validity of referring to law enforcement as "law enforcement" per se when clearly many of the laws as applied by such agencies as part of their duties obviously are bending or breaking the original intent of specific laws. In such a case as recording the actions of law enforcement as referenced in this case, it is even inconceivable that a bystander (someone not a direct part of the police action) could be guilty of anything for tapping the incident in a so-called "free society". It seems clear that restricting the recording of such situations in a "public" place, which by the way government claims everyday that the moment you step out of your home onto public thoroughfares such as a sidewalk or street, that your actions are no longer "private" thus they are free to record anyone they want, that they could claim it unlawful for citizens to do the same to law enforcement. Maybe we should begin to address reality as it is in the world and accept the fact that no one is "free" and that freedom is a mere myth?
I think you stated it correctly... you ARE a "crackpot". You allude to extreme self-interest and libertarianism in you political and economic leanings which in large part contributes to a dysfunctional society and government. http://www.zompist.com/liberto... http://www.hughlafollette.com/... I'm as free to use meaningless ad hominen attacks as any "crackpot".
Based upon your example(s) you have an extremely limited view of incompetence and you appear to be using a only the legal definition. In fact there are a number of varieties or levels of incompetence. People can be incompetent from an employment viewpoint and that variety of incompetence can be used by a local sheriff to deny a person a concealed carry permit but has nothing to do with the "legal" definition where someone is considered mentally unable to make sound financial and medical decisions. If you had ever been degreed in medicine or psychiatry or even social work you'd understand there are varying degrees of mental infirmity including but not limited to your legal use of the word. Also, considering your example of people's "stupidity" depending upon the (again) degree of stupidity doctors, judges, law enforcement, etc. would or could consider a person as incompetent. Stupidity is merely a more common phrase people use to describe varying degrees of incompetence. There is no one degree of stupidity.
Actually, the roads are more likely in disrepair for a combination of reasons, lack of public funds (tax revenues), corporate welfare (witness the state of PA refusing to tax drilling revenues and the State of New York trying to draw businesses to their state by granting 10 year tax free exemptions which means more profit not necessarily a net surplus of actual jobs), government's (and therefore the public in general) failure to actually fund their share of pension obligations for a number of years (such as the PA has done even though employees have paid their shares) so as no the state's obligations are coming due. Here's a question, if you take a job (government or private) and part of the agreement to perform your duties the employer agrees to partially fund a pension then fails to do so. Is that a breach of contract? Does it make a difference if the job is private or public? An agreement is an agreement under the law. Streets also don't get paved because the highway infrastructure is constantly growing and the average taxpayer (perhaps such as you) only cares about the roads they use. To hell with everyone else. Well, the fact is it takes loads of money to take care of EVERYONE'S roads. But no one wants to pay unless it directly benefits them. It's a symptom of American narcissism. I've known a number of people who complain about their taxes (because they dont see any direct benefit) and then met the same people walking out of Wallymart with a $1000 TV. In other words, they don't really care about their streets, schools etc. if it means having to by a smaller TV or their street or school age child is directly effected. Everyone wants "their" share of tax benefits , plowing, garbage disposal, streets, clean water, etc. etc. but not if it means someone else might benefit from time to time. Sad mindset really.
That's a pretty skewed view of political history. Back in the post civil war period the largest corporations, i.e. the railroads and oil companies exercised excessive influence for the very reason - they could. And they could because government was very small, ineffectual and there were few protective regulations. Try reading the histories of Standard Oil and Southern Pacific Railroad et. al. The rise in corporate power started back in the mid- nineteenth century when the largest corporations bought the Supreme Court and SCOTUS initially ruled corporations are considered "people" under the Constitution. Back then there was little government regulation or oversight and corporations took full advantage. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/sa... OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... A majority part of government "regulation" is a direct result of industrial, business and service industry malfeasance, profit over safety (witness recent General Motors revelations), outright theft (witness Wall Street, Burney Madoff, etc.). Those who perpetuate the myth of government oppression are either ignorant of corporate history, are willfully recalcitrant about corporate malfeasance, are merely regurgitating corporate propaganda or are themselves blind to the foundation of western capitalism- personal self-interest and greed. Government (and labor law to some extent) is the ONLY disinterested regulatory mechanism that attempts to balance profit with public safety, which for the past thirty years has been considerably undermined by the business philosophy that government serves only to hinder free-market entrepreneurship. When in fact government usually enacts limiting regulations when the corporate world has already demonstrated they cannot police themselves and act responsibly. If ... corporations want the privileges that living human beings have, they need to demonstrate they can act in a civilized manner. You need to get out of your corporate religion and realize government regulation happens mostly out of necessity.
It is universally accepted that "children" are too mentally and physically immature to assume responsibility for handling anything "dangerous" which includes certain "toys", utensils, etc. That is not in anyway comparable to an "adult" or more mature "child" in learning to safely use such things. Even adults who some people might consider "incompetent" might not be considered incompetent by other adults. So the child/incompetence analogy doesn't really work.
How does one determine "incompetence"? Is a depressed person incompetent even though they are still able to function in society? Is someone with a character disorder or even split personality, or Aspergers, "loners", the physically handicapped, etc. be considered incompetent? There is a vast spectrum of human conditions, maladies, and "deviant" behavior that people can debate whether or not they would consider someone "incompetent". Either way, it's a pretty arbitrary line to draw.
First of all, known psychotic, violent and anti-social people are prohibited from owning firearms. Even people discharged from the military under "less than honorable" conditions are forbidden to own firearms in most states. Whether they're psychotic or not makes no difference. Secondly, psychosis is a difficult thing to diagnose. Even psychiatrists treating patients don't know oftentimes if a patient is depressed, has a personality disorder, merely anti-social, psychotic, etc. There are NO clear demarcation lines with various mental issues, most of the time those disorders do not result in violent behavior. Prediction is spurious at best. The only definitive indication of severe mental disturbance is actual behavior. Yet behavior is unpredictable, and once violent behavior begins it's too late to completely prevent. So the idea of keeping firearms out of the people's hands as a blanket policy is without legal (Constitutional) precedence because it would deny ownership to a vast majority of people who are not disturbed, who are responsible and are not common threats to society especially in light of the fact violent behavior is often unpredictable. One would be denied a "freedom" without due process and a compelling state interest.
I dare say they do. But only to the extent you're around long enough to lay down your life to protect them. That's what they mean by the phrase "national security".
Except when it comes to national health care and now the bringing home of some dumbass army ranger in exchange for some Taliban for which the republicans want to impeach him now.
Quite right. In some respects Obama is even worse. His draconian immigration practices are worse. His prosecutions in the 2007-2008 financial collapse has been non-existent. He's continued Bush's surveillance policies, even expanded them. His administration has continued and encouraged practices that promote mixing religion and government. His use of drones has more than doubled while the FCC has pushed for legislation to limit civilian use of drones. He's failed in his efforts to close Gitmo (as he promised). His DOJ has allowed increasing number of monopolies in various industries. He's failed to pursue and get any job protections for Americans (as he promised). He's promoted policies to further restrict self defense rights. He's talked the talk but hasn't walked the walk. Sorely disappointed in the first black president. He's turned his back on American freedoms.
I'd have to agree in large part. Which comes first though, morals or a form of government? Is government premised upon morals or visa versa? That's the problem in America. I think the operation of government is premised upon cultural norms and morals. And in America today there is a crisis of morals. It's become a truly dog eat dog arena. People even pride themselves on how many and in what way they have (fucked) gotten over one someone else. The macho-macho man attitude dominates everything Americans do and they relish the praise and attention. From our financial markets to our sporting events bravado reins. There was a time that Americans weren't such attention seekers and braggarts. We even stayed out of the war until we were forced into it. But when we did do something we did it together and with humility. Humility in modern America is an extinct animal. We've become so proud of ourselves, so into ourselves that we're incapable of recognizing our own hubris. Pride goeth before the fall???
Ditto.
Gambling is how the "markets" began in the first place. Even just 50 years ago a majority of investors (in stocks for example) were the wealthy, those who had the extra cash laying around and were willing to risk some of it for (even) a quick return (whatever a specific situation was defined as a quick return). It wasn't until the 1980s that the markets saw the potential for huge profits (for themselves) in transaction and administrative costs that they sold the idea of "retirement investments" to the average person and smaller companies. Then everyone jumped on the bandwagon in hopes of decent returns, even potentially millions in retirement accounts (no promises of course), driving up everyone's expectations. Thus the modern markets were created. But just like smoking, it's hard to quit being a profit junkie. Everyone jumps aboard in hopes of making a killing; being a "millionaire" come retirement. Very few have even come close to that goal but in the meantime money managers have got filthy rich. It's really a kind of scheme. They knew from the getgo that the wealthy were going to be the biggest beneficiaries.
Not very likely at all. In addition to the challenge of a more equitable system of production and distribution there are almost insurmountable social constraints. The is the problem of educating/training the world's population. Don't see that happening given the culture of greed running rampant because the nature of such investments almost certainly require a more egalitarian world willing to make sacrifices for others. Secondly, many social and cultural ideologies will not give up their authoritarian powers to enable women (for example) access to education, elevated social standing, freedom to pursue careers, etc. Third, (and this is probably the worst problem of all) the various paternalistic world religions which through their teachings limit pregnancy prevention programs and methods. The leaders and adherents of all the various Abrahamic religions (in particular) are very misogynistic, anti-freedom of choice and fear mongering (with excommunication, physical punishments, etc.) that prevent rational population control programs. Those religions promote pro-life moral worldviews for no other purpose other than to purposely GROW the world population. For what purpose? Perpetuation of their beliefs, myths and power. The more people there are the more potential converts. That's it in a nutshell. The grand perpetuation scheme done at almost any cost. So long as the population is growing they're content. Until such time as most of the world becomes atheist and rational thinkers that's simply never going to change.
Technology MAY delay the inevitable but it can't prevent it. It is a fact that natural resources are limited if for no other reason other than the size of the Earth is limited. Also, it is debatable whether or not "productivity/efficiency", all things considered including "externalities" such as water, air pollution and other natural resource loss such as oxygen producing plant life, actually continues to grow with the broad economy. There is a well known law of "diminishing returns" in both economics and physics. Each time you "reuse" a resource you loose some of its original advantage. At some point your processes begin to become less and less efficient to the point they are no longer sensible to use at all. At least without the influx of "new" resources. And since various nations gave up on manned exploration of the solar system thirty years ago thanks to Reaganomics and his "war machine" plot, there are no new resources to develop off planet. China and Russia may allude to the idea of national efforts to explore off-world, the fact of the matter is no one country has all the resources necessary to actually develop such programs independently. And it's not very realistic to expect continued international cooperation given the antagonistic state of world relations. Thus, diminishing returns are inevitable, even considering technology. As they say in the capital markets, "past performance does not reflect future returns."
Some problems with that assertion is; the military and law enforcement get paid to restrict liberties, are ordered as a cohesive group to overwhelm, don't have to give up their jobs/sources if income to conduct oppressive acts and can be punished for not following orders have access to overwhelming technology and arms, etc. Participants in civil disobedience usually have to sacrifice far more than the law enforcement and military agents (who are being rewarded for their acts regardless of who is harmed). Most people can't or won't make equal sacrifices to rebel against government.
All the more reason to protect Second Amendment rights.
So true. People in law enforcement are predisposed to be authoritarian and so militaristically idealistic they are incapable to appreciating the rights their departments were created to protect. There are departmental incentives to be anti-human rights. Advancements depend upon successful prosecutions, etc. Which by the way are very often achieved via pleas, and prosecutorial misconduct.
Ever hear of secret courts?
That's OK. It's for national security purposes.
Wozniak said that? Just because he may know computers doesn't mean he is a wise man. Especially the bit about someone bringing a gun to a fistfight. I know plenty of 65 year olds who can no longer "fight" as they could 30 years ago. If given no option, I'd certainly take a gun to a fight if it was with some punk 25 year old. There are a lot of punks walking the streets in America that have no or little respect for their elders. So if carrying a gun evens the odds, well hooray for them.
In general, I'd agree, at least loosely. I'd qualify your assertion that it doesn't really require (mass) violence. There have been countless mass protests that achieved their goal (even if just in part) by virtue of their shear size, public appeal, etc. The problem in modern America is that the generation most capable of organizing mass protests, ideological movements, etc. are to preoccupied with their personal social lives, techno-mania, competing in a shrinking job market, chronic ambivalence, fear, and just plain laziness of intellect to mount sufficient motivation to address many of the evils present today. Nearly every 18 - 35 year old I've met, when asked about "doing something about this fucked up country, righting some of the wrongs" have responded "what for? It's an impossible task." So no one even tries. That's one reason voter turn-out is so low. Who gives a shit anymore? Every man for himself. And one other thing, America has become so culturally diverse and ethnocentric, common interests and values no longer apply. Look at the fact that there are modern states (mostly southern) who have suggested secession from the union. America is a divided country. So who's going to expend much effort to fix it? Not many. Ergo, nothing changes.
Hearsay. I've not seen or read one instance in which Snowden is claimed to have revealed covert operatives names, etc. Other than what government sycophants have alluded to. No legitimate news agency has made such specific assertions.