Member 2664
108 entries

Immortal since Jun 17, 2010
Uplinks: 0, Generation 4
mad-scientist and computer programmer looking for something more interesting than most people accept as their future
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • BenRayfield’s favorites
    From AsylumSeaker
    Christopher Langan
    From Yissar
    Technology Progress vs....
    From XiXiDu
    The Nature of Self
    From QESelf
    View Point Room Argument...
    From Jorgen
    My Paper on Computer...
    Recently commented on
    From gamma
    Is brain a computer?
    From BenRayfield
    Elections should be done...
    From BenRayfield
    The most dangerous thing...
    From BenRayfield
    Why is there no Content...
    From BenRayfield
    How can a set of computers...
    BenRayfield’s projects
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...

    Start your own revolution
    Catching up with the future. All major institutions in the world today are grappling to come to terms with the internet. The entertainment...

    Proposal for a multimedia...
    A musical mindstorm on the nature of sound, light, space and subjective experience powered by locally produced energy, heralding the ending of the...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.

    The USA government is arrogant and proudly hangs their balls out for all to see, thinking nobody would dare grab them and squeeze the corrupt politicians out. Time to put your pants on.

    This is about a theoretical sequence of legal precedents that lead to ending USA's propaganda games.

    This is 1 of many examples, but I originally wrote this as a response to this video:

    The huge infrastructure and complex laws they have set up make it hard for most people to see why its illegal for them to censor the internet, but if we choose to create our own communication infrastructure (like The Sticker Network) then average people will understand why the USA government can not legally stop us. We have the right to free speech, to not pay for free speech if we do all the work to speak it, and the legal system in USA says that internet communication and speaking with your mouth are both types of "free speech".

    I'll quote from the highest laws of USA, which means if any laws contradict these, we should obey these laws instead:
    Article the third ...... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    If anyone in USA (especially the government and businesses they influence) uses the USA government (lawyers, national security threats, propaganda, etc) to prevent us from creating our own communication network to be used for free speech and free internet access, then such action is treason and I will call the police and/or take other legal action against them. While I'm dealing with such criminals, the infrastructure will continue being built. Anyone who attacks communication infrastructure in USA is a terrorist. Anyone who attacks free-speech in USA is a treasonist. For instructions on what to do when you see a terrorist, please read the USA Patriot Acts. When reading the USA Patriot Acts, please remember that they are lower than the law I quoted which was amended to the USA Constitution. If you find anything in any laws against free speech in any case for any reason, such theoretical contradiction is not really part of the law. In other words, a million pages of laws can not change that 1 sentence I quoted unless they are amended to the USA Constitution. The law in USA is very simple in that way. Free speech is one of the highest laws.

    If we put up our own communication infrastructure, I will not pay any tax to use it, and I will ignore any government instructions to connect it to government systems or censor it, for a very simple reason: I have no legal obligation to pay for free speech or change my free speech so the government can observe it. My authority to build a communication network for free speech and free access to the internet is higher than the authority of the USA Patriot acts, and it is higher than the authority of Congress because such authority comes from a law that tells Congress what to do: " Congress shall make no law...". Congress can not tell me not to build things to do free speech. We're not trying to exclude anyone from our own communication infrastructure. As a decentralized part of the internet (peer to peer wireless network routers), it will not be possible for anyone to censor anyone else or prevent anyone from connecting. Anyone who puts up such a hardware will get access.

    We're inviting all governments to connect as peers instead of masters, the same as everyone else. There are many common goals between governments and non-government people (like efficiently organizing billions of people, having enough food, safety, advancing science, etc), but the normal way governments act as our masters prevents most kinds of cooperation. Starting completely as peers/peers instead of partially peers/peers and partially masters/slaves, in the ways everyone has equal power in a decentralized communication network, I expect that governments and non-government people will think of eachother less as enemies and more as someone to go to when you have a problem to solve. Why hasn't that happened already? Masters have little reason to solve slaves problems, and slaves only have a reason when their masters are watching. As peers (in the decentralized communication network), governments will either start solving our problems or be ignored the same way we ignore most advertisements. Politicians will think less about getting re-elected and more about getting people to follow them on Twitter or communicate with us on this decentralized network. Why are politicians using social networks? This is the next step in that. The master/slave attitude is a problem, and peer/peer communication is a solution.

    Any politician who wants to keep his job should read this and consider his weak position carefully: There are taxes on my cell-phone, internet access, television, and every kind of communication that the government has any ability to control. It is obvious that the USA government's goals include taxing, observing, and controlling communication. This has continued because in cases like taxing phone calls, it can't be proven that its not a tax on the phone system itself. Statistically its obvious that its a tax on communication. To all politicians involved in such taxing/controlling/censoring of communication, we have you "by the balls", because the only thing necessary to prove you are taxing free speech is to prove you will also try to do it for a new communication infrastructure that you had no part in creating and have no business deals with the owner of. If we prove you are taxing free speech, your entire system of control through propaganda would fall like a "house of cards", 1 legal precedent at a time, finally resulting in the defeat of the entire "national security" excuse. You will be accountable for everything you do in the government. So to all politicians involved in taxing/censoring free speech, you still have time to stop corrupting the USA government, but when we find the time and resources to put up our decentralized communication network, it will be too late to deny your involvement in keeping free speech from us. The fact is, if free speech costs any money, those who have less than that much money do not have free speech. If you say you did it for 1 reason but then we prove you did it for reasons against free speech, there will be criminal charges. We have such corrupt politicians "by the balls" because we can start a chain-reaction of legal precedents that includes proving who worked against free speech. It is treason to tax free speech or make it harder to do, especially for the purpose of controlling people through propaganda through the remaining ways to communicate (like television).

    The USA government is arrogant and proudly hangs their balls out for all to see, thinking nobody would dare grab them and squeeze the corrupt politicians out. Time to put your pants on.
      Promote (1)
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (3)