Does it ensure it, or is it simply a basic characteristic? I think of the market-driven economy as amoral, but largely effective -- certainly better than any other solution we've seen to date. But your use of the term "ensure" connotes intent, and intent implies moral cause.
I meant 'ensure' in the sense that the structure of laws and government are designed to have the least impact and/or influence possible while maintaining a reasonably fair and level playing field. I understand the point you make and agree. The only 'morality' involved is in basic natural law like penalties for theft, fraud, etc that almost any kind of remotely functional system would demand.
I don't disagree with the larger point here, but sometimes I think pro-market people slip into thinking that markets are positively moral, rather than simply fair through consistency (so long as laws are justly enforced). Markets are not immoral, which socialism is. Markets are baseline neutral, and allow for positive moral decisions because people can do what they wish with charitable or humanitarian use of private property.
Spot on, sir. Could not agree more.
It's very hard to convey detailed meaning & nuance across a wee bit of text on some internet discussion forum concerning deep and fundamental concepts and principles. Intents and viewpoints can be easily and honestly misinterpreted.
Forgive me if my phrasing and choices in necessary brevity caused any misunderstanding or confusion.
act surprised when they pick controversial locations.
How is it controversial to add concentration camps as "historic locations and monuments"?
Because they were one of the results of fascism, but fascism seems to be coming back into fashion (see: US, UK, NSA, GCHQ, secret courts, 'crony capitalism', destruction of encryption/anonymity online, destruction of private property rights, destruction of right of conscious, domestic paramilitary SWAT for non-violent misdemeanor offenses, etc etc etc) so being reminded of them makes those wishing to control what others do uncomfortable to think about.
The US is making striking parallels to the former Wiemar Republic across multiple areas of government, economy, and society.
Capitalism uses the power of the state to ensure its corporations can oppress its citizens.
Incorrect, or maybe incomplete. "Capitalism" without a framework of equably-enforced reasonable and just laws is anarchy and chaos, not capitalism.
What you seem to be talking about is our current system which bears only passing resemblance to capitalism. Fascist oligarchy or crony-capitalism would be more accurate terms.
The larger the government, the more it controls both in wealth and power to control, the more tempting a target it is for corruption and the bigger the payoff when successful, so efforts to corrupt become intense and extreme.
Nobody is interested in buying off someone with little power to benefit them and will spend little or no effort to do so in that case, particularly if criminal penalties are severe for the attempt. And, with a less corrupt system overall, prosecution and conviction becomes a real possibility for all involved.
Corporations use the power and reach of government from lawmaking/enforcement to regulations on everything under the sun to enable them to remove wealth, liberty, privacy, and choice. Corporations can't kick in your doors with a paramilitary force. Yet. Not until the people allow government to become just a bit more powerful, then that will likely change.
A fairly well-run capitalist society ensures that as many people as practically and realistically possible have the opportunity, if they so choose to do so, to create a business/corporation *of their own* with hard work, sacrifice, and whatever other capital they can invest, and with a good business plan, have a chance at competing with others in the market.
The US used to be a fairly-well run capitalist society (compared to most) to which people from around the world took extreme measures to emigrate to. That has not been true for decades.
Yes, I and many others realize the government considers the people they are allowed to govern by consent of those very same people "agents of evil" if they do not give up their civil rights without push back
Your entire diatribe is based on false assumptions and strawman arguments.
NSA IRS CIA
Neither myself, nor anyone in my particular agency, has anything to do with violating any U.S. person's civil rights.
You work for the government. At this point so much of the government is corrupt and has assumed powers it does not have that it's highly likely the agency/dept. you work for should not exist in the first place.
same persons you wish will murder my family.
I don't wish anyone murdered. I want your activities and associations brought out into the sunlight, as it needs a thorough disinfection. The people most likely to "murder your family" work for the same government you do.
none of which changes our responsibility to protect you
I'll take my chances, thank you very much, as it seems to the government to be a free license to remove liberty, privacy, and civil rights. Please STOP.
If you would be so kind as to not make me and my family an assassination or harassment target because I happen to work for a defense agency protecting your own family, I would be most grateful.
You misspelled "committing unconstitutional civil rights violations against me and my family".
If these programs were actually aimed at stopping domestic acts of foreign terror then the Tsarnaev brothers would have been caught, as well as the perpetrators of other terrorist acts. All you are protecting are fascist oligarchs' lust for power.
Sorry, I do not feel kindness towards those complicit in enabling those who violate my civil constitutional rights.
I have a suggestion: If you don't wish to reap the consequences then don't work for those who commit such acts. If you cannot remain employed at your current position without committing or being complicit in such acts, either find new employment or be prepared to reap the consequences.
I have absolutely zero sympathy. Grow a set or live with the consequences of being an unprincipled coward.
What we should be doing is filing FOIAs [nsa.gov] for all data collected on our elected officials.
I think it would better drive home the point if elected officials have to file an "FOIA" with the citizens for *their* data and plead their case, humbly, with hat in hand.
Surely it wouldn't be beyond the collective wit of the internet to set up a parallel surveillance system targeting judges, politicians and others involved in dismantling these freedoms. After a couple of months of having their every private movement made public I suspect they'd change their outlook.
Quite a while back I posted a comment suggesting a smartphone application that allows people to take a snapshot of a government official/bureaucrat/judge/LEO/agent as well as officials/employees of NSA/NRO/CIA/etc private contractors and upload it and location/time and other relevant data to a website in a non-5-eyes nation where facial recognition and data-mining software could analyze it and make that information and analysis publicly available. Track all their travel, associations, purchases, everything possible.
France can always be counted on to do things in the least logical way possible.
In which alternate universe is arresting the people running an illegal business the "least logical way possible"?
The fact that it's illegal for a private person to accept payment for a car ride principally to protect politically-connected businesses practicing an outdated/obsolete business model is both corrupt and illogical. It's protectionist crony-capitalism. Rather than logically correcting such a corrupt system, they doubled down on it. Just because a government declares something "illegal" does not mean it is morally and/or ethically wrong, or a detriment to society and/or the economy.
You can get a pretty good gun for $200 and a really good gun for $500 these days. You can get a CNC'd 1911 for that now... or something more modern:) And yet a 3d printed gun will literally never be as good, because it will never output forged stock. (Perhaps one day we will develop a universal assembler, and that will be better than either of course.)
All quite true at this time.
The one thing a 3D printed gun can do that a normal gun cannot: Not yet exist when authorities come to confiscate guns, and then exist once the authorities have departed.
That, more than anything else, is what makes 3D printed guns unique and the ability to produce them attractive, especially to those who live under a government bent on disarming the population.
But as 3D metal printing technology advances (and it won't be long, as it was only a handful of months ago that all there was out there was the Liberator plastic single-shot and now there's metal 1911-style semi-auto pistols being produced.), expect the cost/time required to drop dramatically and for quality to keep pace.
Can you think of a legitimate application for which a 3D-printed gun would be superior to a weapon made by a real gunsmith?
"Superior"? Probably not for a little while yet, but at the same time it will not be long at the rate 3D printing tech advances these days. "Legitimate application"? Depends a lot on what you would consider a "legitimate application", but I get your point and in many cases you would be correct. This will soon not be true as 3D printing technology advances & matures, however.
Well, it's not like black youth are inundated with the glorification of "thug life" and "gangsta" culture, or that blacks that *do* do well are often labeled by their peers as "actin' like dey white"...
I'm black and I don't know a single person that talks like that. Not among my family, friends, or acquaintances. I do encounter this stereotype quite frequently on television, music and on the internet though.
I'm not saying there aren't people who think like that. But that it's not as common way of think as rap videos and off-hand comments would lead you to believe.
E.g. How many of these people you overheard were actually being serious? And not making fun of the stereotype?
I live a short distance outside Detroit. Come take a drive with me some afternoon and I'll introduce you to countless examples. I'm a professional blues guitarist and regularly live, work, and eat with black people and have for decades, and have dated a number of black women over the years as well, many with children. It's a result of the culmination of decades of cultural and social messages blacks receive their entire lives from government entitlement programs, affirmative action laws & policies, schools/colleges, music/media/mainstream news, and their peers.
Oh, good. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to say "Black people just don't want technology jobs." I suppose they prefer working in fast food and sports?
Well, it's not like black youth are inundated with the glorification of "thug life" and "gangsta" culture, or that blacks that *do* do well are often labeled by their peers as "actin' like dey white", "uncle Toms", "house niggas" (all things I've heard blacks say personally, as well), and any that profess anti-entitlement-society, pro-family views are excoriated by both their peers and "news" media.
I frankly greatly admire minorities in the US that have the courage and determination to run that gauntlet instead of cave to the pressure to "stay on the plantation" and instead go on to use their intelligence, talents, skills, and strong work ethic to do well and become an asset to their communities and to society.
Heavens forbid that the best candidates are picked! Oh the horror!
And of course if there's a vastly smaller pool of minority and women applicants, that's the employer's fault as well! Maybe we could force them to pay to educate then train minority/women parolees and force them to hire them! That will assure private data stays private!/s*
Strat
*I find it rather tragic that Western culture and society has devolved so far into reactionary mob-rule that a 'sarc' tag is necessary. We used to have these things called Rule of Law and individual liberty coupled with individual responsibility. No more, apparently.
Oh please! Really? Of course the US wants him after the huge mess and dog-and-pony show in Congress regarding Assage/Wikileaks, and the repeated attempts by the US to destroy Wikileaks however they can.
Do you have any evidence that I'm wrong? Assange has wasted years of his life for nothing if the US was *not* intent on grabbing him (or having him grabbed by allies to cover involvement). Of course the US will not say anything about wanting him, until they're able to get him back to US territory somehow.
You do not alert a fleeing/hiding subject to your plans to abduct him, particularly when it's highly dubious that said subject is even legally prosecutable, given US law/jurisdiction outside national borders, foreign citizenship, and how/where the actions in question occurred. Of course they'll keep their cards close to their chest.
The US wants Assange, there is no doubt. They just want it all taken care of quietly, as they'd basically be prosecuting him for the same thing the NYT did when it published the Pentagon Papers, and the NYT *is* in US territory and are/were mostly comprised of US citizens. It's just that these days, Rule of Law in the US only exists in textbooks.
You do realize Assange and Snowden are two different people, right?
But they are both wanted by the US for essentially the same thing.
They 'pantsed' the US intelligence services in public and exposed their criminal actions to the world and most importantly to the US population.
Like any organized crime cartel, they feel they must do their best to make these individuals pay a heavy price in order to keep their own people too scared to rat them out on their criminal activities.
My wife says that the only thing that only kind of fastrak [bayareafastrak.org] that she is in favor of is the one that gets her over the bridge more promptly.
The authors of the Constitution were rightly afraid of corruption in government power, but their solution, as you point out, was to set government power in opposition to itself.
Right, they set the branches up to oppose and balance each other, so as to limit and slow the exercise of government power.
This still doesn't address the problem that good government comes from people governing well, not from more or less of a quantity of "government"
Here is where you go off the rails. Depending on the virtue of politicians is...unwise. The corrupt always rise to power. That is why you only give politicians and bureaucrats only just enough power to accomplish only those things that cannot be accomplished otherwise while maintaining a free and open society under Rule of Law.
Government is a necessary evil. It is force and so must be strictly limited. Again, I would refer to a computer network as an analogy. A mainframe/dumb terminal system (strong central government) is much easier to suborn than a distributed network (roughly co-equal States with a relatively domestically weak central government) which by it's nature limits the damage possible and can detect and take steps to protect the other networked machines and correct any damage caused.
If that's incoherent, I would posit it is a confusion of the willful variety by the reader, not the writer
You are aware, I trust, that you are describing a very small group of men that made up some of the Nazi leadership. The overwhelming majority of Nazis were Catholics and Lutherans.
And *you* are aware, I trust, that churches throughout Germany had many of their priests/pastors/clergy killed and replaced by Party-approved men, and crosses and other sacraments & symbols were stripped out and replaced with Nazi symbols and flags.
Right?
Read up on Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the context of the events related to churches etc in Germany during the Nazi reign.
It is our society, and we should run it to benefit us.
The simplest things are sometimes the most difficult to achieve. You and I may see government as created by the people agreeing to temporarily loan a limited amount of their power, amenable and existing solely at our discretion, but they do not. Far from it.
They consider the people as little more than livestock. The farmer does not take orders or counsel from his livestock. Farmers control or cull the troublesome ones.
They are increasingly losing their fear of the people as their power and control grows, and so are doing even more openly. What would have certainly resulted in resignations, prosecutions, indictments, and impeachments just 2 or 3 decades ago are now almost a regular occurrence every 'document-dump Friday'.
This is not a partisan or any other thing issue, as it's been ramping-up over many decades.
Slashdot Mirror
right of conscious,
Gah! Should have been "conscience". Curse you, autocorrect!
Does it ensure it, or is it simply a basic characteristic? I think of the market-driven economy as amoral, but largely effective -- certainly better than any other solution we've seen to date. But your use of the term "ensure" connotes intent, and intent implies moral cause.
I meant 'ensure' in the sense that the structure of laws and government are designed to have the least impact and/or influence possible while maintaining a reasonably fair and level playing field. I understand the point you make and agree. The only 'morality' involved is in basic natural law like penalties for theft, fraud, etc that almost any kind of remotely functional system would demand.
I don't disagree with the larger point here, but sometimes I think pro-market people slip into thinking that markets are positively moral, rather than simply fair through consistency (so long as laws are justly enforced). Markets are not immoral, which socialism is. Markets are baseline neutral, and allow for positive moral decisions because people can do what they wish with charitable or humanitarian use of private property.
Spot on, sir. Could not agree more.
It's very hard to convey detailed meaning & nuance across a wee bit of text on some internet discussion forum concerning deep and fundamental concepts and principles. Intents and viewpoints can be easily and honestly misinterpreted.
Forgive me if my phrasing and choices in necessary brevity caused any misunderstanding or confusion.
Strat
Because they were one of the results of fascism, but fascism seems to be coming back into fashion (see: US, UK, NSA, GCHQ, secret courts, 'crony capitalism', destruction of encryption/anonymity online, destruction of private property rights, destruction of right of conscious, domestic paramilitary SWAT for non-violent misdemeanor offenses, etc etc etc) so being reminded of them makes those wishing to control what others do uncomfortable to think about.
The US is making striking parallels to the former Wiemar Republic across multiple areas of government, economy, and society.
It's an ideological 'lalalala I can't hear you!'.
Strat
Capitalism uses the power of the state to ensure its corporations can oppress its citizens.
Incorrect, or maybe incomplete. "Capitalism" without a framework of equably-enforced reasonable and just laws is anarchy and chaos, not capitalism.
What you seem to be talking about is our current system which bears only passing resemblance to capitalism. Fascist oligarchy or crony-capitalism would be more accurate terms.
The larger the government, the more it controls both in wealth and power to control, the more tempting a target it is for corruption and the bigger the payoff when successful, so efforts to corrupt become intense and extreme.
Nobody is interested in buying off someone with little power to benefit them and will spend little or no effort to do so in that case, particularly if criminal penalties are severe for the attempt. And, with a less corrupt system overall, prosecution and conviction becomes a real possibility for all involved.
Corporations use the power and reach of government from lawmaking/enforcement to regulations on everything under the sun to enable them to remove wealth, liberty, privacy, and choice. Corporations can't kick in your doors with a paramilitary force. Yet. Not until the people allow government to become just a bit more powerful, then that will likely change.
A fairly well-run capitalist society ensures that as many people as practically and realistically possible have the opportunity, if they so choose to do so, to create a business/corporation *of their own* with hard work, sacrifice, and whatever other capital they can invest, and with a good business plan, have a chance at competing with others in the market.
The US used to be a fairly-well run capitalist society (compared to most) to which people from around the world took extreme measures to emigrate to. That has not been true for decades.
Strat
advocating siccing agents of evil on innocents
Yes, I and many others realize the government considers the people they are allowed to govern by consent of those very same people "agents of evil" if they do not give up their civil rights without push back
Your entire diatribe is based on false assumptions and strawman arguments.
NSA IRS CIA
Neither myself, nor anyone in my particular agency, has anything to do with violating any U.S. person's civil rights.
You work for the government. At this point so much of the government is corrupt and has assumed powers it does not have that it's highly likely the agency/dept. you work for should not exist in the first place.
same persons you wish will murder my family.
I don't wish anyone murdered. I want your activities and associations brought out into the sunlight, as it needs a thorough disinfection. The people most likely to "murder your family" work for the same government you do.
none of which changes our responsibility to protect you
I'll take my chances, thank you very much, as it seems to the government to be a free license to remove liberty, privacy, and civil rights. Please STOP.
Strat
If you would be so kind as to not make me and my family an assassination or harassment target because I happen to work for a defense agency protecting your own family, I would be most grateful.
You misspelled "committing unconstitutional civil rights violations against me and my family".
If these programs were actually aimed at stopping domestic acts of foreign terror then the Tsarnaev brothers would have been caught, as well as the perpetrators of other terrorist acts. All you are protecting are fascist oligarchs' lust for power.
Sorry, I do not feel kindness towards those complicit in enabling those who violate my civil constitutional rights.
I have a suggestion: If you don't wish to reap the consequences then don't work for those who commit such acts. If you cannot remain employed at your current position without committing or being complicit in such acts, either find new employment or be prepared to reap the consequences.
I have absolutely zero sympathy. Grow a set or live with the consequences of being an unprincipled coward.
Strat
Where are the hardware skills?
'Tech skills' don't mean much without hardware.
Strat
What we should be doing is filing FOIAs [nsa.gov] for all data collected on our elected officials.
I think it would better drive home the point if elected officials have to file an "FOIA" with the citizens for *their* data and plead their case, humbly, with hat in hand.
Strat
Wonder what the NSA has on Judge Mossman?
Maybe he doesn't want himself or loved ones to end up like Michael Hastings.
Strat
{Darth Vader voice}
"We will crush this 'rebel alliance' and destroy all who oppose the Empire!"
{/Darth Vader voice}
Strat
Surely it wouldn't be beyond the collective wit of the internet to set up a parallel surveillance system targeting judges, politicians and others involved in dismantling these freedoms. After a couple of months of having their every private movement made public I suspect they'd change their outlook.
Quite a while back I posted a comment suggesting a smartphone application that allows people to take a snapshot of a government official/bureaucrat/judge/LEO/agent as well as officials/employees of NSA/NRO/CIA/etc private contractors and upload it and location/time and other relevant data to a website in a non-5-eyes nation where facial recognition and data-mining software could analyze it and make that information and analysis publicly available. Track all their travel, associations, purchases, everything possible.
Strat
France can always be counted on to do things in the least logical way possible.
In which alternate universe is arresting the people running an illegal business the "least logical way possible"?
The fact that it's illegal for a private person to accept payment for a car ride principally to protect politically-connected businesses practicing an outdated/obsolete business model is both corrupt and illogical. It's protectionist crony-capitalism. Rather than logically correcting such a corrupt system, they doubled down on it. Just because a government declares something "illegal" does not mean it is morally and/or ethically wrong, or a detriment to society and/or the economy.
Strat
You can get a pretty good gun for $200 and a really good gun for $500 these days. You can get a CNC'd 1911 for that now... or something more modern :) And yet a 3d printed gun will literally never be as good, because it will never output forged stock. (Perhaps one day we will develop a universal assembler, and that will be better than either of course.)
All quite true at this time.
The one thing a 3D printed gun can do that a normal gun cannot: Not yet exist when authorities come to confiscate guns, and then exist once the authorities have departed.
That, more than anything else, is what makes 3D printed guns unique and the ability to produce them attractive, especially to those who live under a government bent on disarming the population.
Strat
No, it's because a 3D printed gun is not anywhere near as good as a gun made by a gunsmith.
Not really so true anymore, currently it's the price per copy.
http://3dprint.com/21109/3d-pr...
But as 3D metal printing technology advances (and it won't be long, as it was only a handful of months ago that all there was out there was the Liberator plastic single-shot and now there's metal 1911-style semi-auto pistols being produced.), expect the cost/time required to drop dramatically and for quality to keep pace.
Can you think of a legitimate application for which a 3D-printed gun would be superior to a weapon made by a real gunsmith?
"Superior"? Probably not for a little while yet, but at the same time it will not be long at the rate 3D printing tech advances these days. "Legitimate application"? Depends a lot on what you would consider a "legitimate application", but I get your point and in many cases you would be correct. This will soon not be true as 3D printing technology advances & matures, however.
Strat
Why can't he use them? Does he not have any high ranking federal government officials within reasonable traveling distances? :)
Strat
I live a short distance outside Detroit. Come take a drive with me some afternoon and I'll introduce you to countless examples. I'm a professional blues guitarist and regularly live, work, and eat with black people and have for decades, and have dated a number of black women over the years as well, many with children. It's a result of the culmination of decades of cultural and social messages blacks receive their entire lives from government entitlement programs, affirmative action laws & policies, schools/colleges, music/media/mainstream news, and their peers.
Strat
Oh, good. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to say "Black people just don't want technology jobs." I suppose they prefer working in fast food and sports?
Well, it's not like black youth are inundated with the glorification of "thug life" and "gangsta" culture, or that blacks that *do* do well are often labeled by their peers as "actin' like dey white", "uncle Toms", "house niggas" (all things I've heard blacks say personally, as well), and any that profess anti-entitlement-society, pro-family views are excoriated by both their peers and "news" media.
I frankly greatly admire minorities in the US that have the courage and determination to run that gauntlet instead of cave to the pressure to "stay on the plantation" and instead go on to use their intelligence, talents, skills, and strong work ethic to do well and become an asset to their communities and to society.
Strat
Heavens forbid that the best candidates are picked! Oh the horror!
And of course if there's a vastly smaller pool of minority and women applicants, that's the employer's fault as well! Maybe we could force them to pay to educate then train minority/women parolees and force them to hire them! That will assure private data stays private! /s*
Strat
*I find it rather tragic that Western culture and society has devolved so far into reactionary mob-rule that a 'sarc' tag is necessary. We used to have these things called Rule of Law and individual liberty coupled with individual responsibility. No more, apparently.
Got any evidence that the US is after Assange?
Oh please! Really? Of course the US wants him after the huge mess and dog-and-pony show in Congress regarding Assage/Wikileaks, and the repeated attempts by the US to destroy Wikileaks however they can.
Do you have any evidence that I'm wrong? Assange has wasted years of his life for nothing if the US was *not* intent on grabbing him (or having him grabbed by allies to cover involvement). Of course the US will not say anything about wanting him, until they're able to get him back to US territory somehow.
You do not alert a fleeing/hiding subject to your plans to abduct him, particularly when it's highly dubious that said subject is even legally prosecutable, given US law/jurisdiction outside national borders, foreign citizenship, and how/where the actions in question occurred. Of course they'll keep their cards close to their chest.
The US wants Assange, there is no doubt. They just want it all taken care of quietly, as they'd basically be prosecuting him for the same thing the NYT did when it published the Pentagon Papers, and the NYT *is* in US territory and are/were mostly comprised of US citizens. It's just that these days, Rule of Law in the US only exists in textbooks.
Strat
You do realize Assange and Snowden are two different people, right?
But they are both wanted by the US for essentially the same thing.
They 'pantsed' the US intelligence services in public and exposed their criminal actions to the world and most importantly to the US population.
Like any organized crime cartel, they feel they must do their best to make these individuals pay a heavy price in order to keep their own people too scared to rat them out on their criminal activities.
Strat
Sounded more like a threat! :)
Strat
The authors of the Constitution were rightly afraid of corruption in government power, but their solution, as you point out, was to set government power in opposition to itself.
Right, they set the branches up to oppose and balance each other, so as to limit and slow the exercise of government power.
This still doesn't address the problem that good government comes from people governing well, not from more or less of a quantity of "government"
Here is where you go off the rails. Depending on the virtue of politicians is...unwise. The corrupt always rise to power. That is why you only give politicians and bureaucrats only just enough power to accomplish only those things that cannot be accomplished otherwise while maintaining a free and open society under Rule of Law.
Government is a necessary evil. It is force and so must be strictly limited. Again, I would refer to a computer network as an analogy. A mainframe/dumb terminal system (strong central government) is much easier to suborn than a distributed network (roughly co-equal States with a relatively domestically weak central government) which by it's nature limits the damage possible and can detect and take steps to protect the other networked machines and correct any damage caused.
If that's incoherent, I would posit it is a confusion of the willful variety by the reader, not the writer
Strat.
You are aware, I trust, that you are describing a very small group of men that made up some of the Nazi leadership. The overwhelming majority of Nazis were Catholics and Lutherans.
And *you* are aware, I trust, that churches throughout Germany had many of their priests/pastors/clergy killed and replaced by Party-approved men, and crosses and other sacraments & symbols were stripped out and replaced with Nazi symbols and flags.
Right?
Read up on Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the context of the events related to churches etc in Germany during the Nazi reign.
Strat
Another bright individual or group will see the opportunity and absorb the users Secunia leaves behind, eventually rendering Secunia irrelevant.
If Secunia is determined to cripple itself, that's their call. The rest of the internet will not follow them over that cliff.
Strat
It is our society, and we should run it to benefit us.
The simplest things are sometimes the most difficult to achieve. You and I may see government as created by the people agreeing to temporarily loan a limited amount of their power, amenable and existing solely at our discretion, but they do not. Far from it.
They consider the people as little more than livestock. The farmer does not take orders or counsel from his livestock. Farmers control or cull the troublesome ones.
They are increasingly losing their fear of the people as their power and control grows, and so are doing even more openly. What would have certainly resulted in resignations, prosecutions, indictments, and impeachments just 2 or 3 decades ago are now almost a regular occurrence every 'document-dump Friday'.
This is not a partisan or any other thing issue, as it's been ramping-up over many decades.
It's a civil rights issue for all.
Strat