notthegov

If the FBI really wanted to save lives, they would put governors on every vehicle and make owning a lighter require a license.

The lies of the tobacco industry, lead industry and food industry have killed millions of people. And the selfish desire to drive personal automobiles have killed millions of people.

If we are going to restrict human freedom for safety, let's do it in a way that saves the most lives?

Yes.

Whenever you fight back against a meaningless misdemeanor, the city attorney and police will vindicatively punish you. It happened to me in a small town.

Antonio is a graduate of Wespoint, Stanford and Harvard. There are better more engaging challenges in the world he could focus on but he has to fight injustice and city corruption over the right to film police.

The problem is epidemic not just to Austin but to all of America. It has to do with human nature. Don't comply? They will crush you by any means possible. Guilty or innocent? They do not care.

How much of Morgan Stanley's business is from Primerica, the deceptive MLM company? Primerica bought Smith Barney in 1987 whicu used egregious marketing tactics to build its business. Then Morgan eventually bought them.

If anything, I'd downgrade Morgan Stanley's stock. They were recently fined $3.2 billion for crimes causing the financial crisis. That news broke 1-2 days after Morgan dropped nearly 7%.

Austin is an interesting town as an example of the flaws of law enforcement. It widely considered this liberal paradise, as noted by the article, but the abuses by the police and city government are like anywhere else. Power corrupts and the system is flawed-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Buehler

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/10/29/is_filming_a_police_o...

This is not true. Just because modern scholars pretend it is, doesn't make it so.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_theory

This is highly inappropriate. The argument should be based in principles and philosophies, not in political machinations motivated by a diplomat with a history degree.

Denis McDonough is not qualified or educated to understand what he is arguing against. He is a man standing for the wave of Establishment thinking without ever having offered an original thought of his own.

The idea that the White House could unduly influence Apple on this issue is frightening. The Chief of Staff should not be doing this. He yields ridiculous power; what if the next Tim Cook is weaker or the next Denis McDonough is even more authoritarian.

We should argue from principles and philosophies. This is a dangerous world we are creating. One where individual personalities dominate us and determine our freedom, instead of philosophies derived from reason and analytical thinking.

Truth should be defended with honor, while power blinds those from knowing there was ever such a thing as truth. What is right is not relative, there is only one correct answer here.

The general idea is that since humans are self-conscious and born with innate natural rights, that these are the rights that can never be taken away unless proven guilty of a crime in a court of law (ideally if there's an actual victim but this could be argued against).

There are some 18th century philosophers who talked about two types of rights but I can't remember the analogy.

But essentially, you were born with human freedom, even your ancestors and all of our ancestors in Africa. And these are the rights that existed prior to civilization, government, the Bill of Rights, the UN and the EU.

This is why some say they come from God, to distinguish them from the government. But you might as well say they came from the Higgs Boson because Jefferson et al were Deists.

The reason this is important is because why would you want to diminish your own personal sovereignty knowing what we all know about human nature and power?

This is why the Bill of Rights says Congress shall make no law restricting Freedom of Speech. It does not grant or create a right or privilege. It acknowledges it.

The organic law (Dec. of Indepedence) declares this in the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Deny this to an Enlightenment-thinker, and prepare for silent revolution.

We should resist the utopian temptation to accept the falsehood that rights are privileges. In the 20th century in the United States, wealthy idealists who often doubled as Marxists created the American Historical Association (historians.org), and promoted the idea that the centralization of power was always a good thing, i.e. collectivism. And to do that, they taught that truth was relative and that natural rights and classical liberalism was irrelevant in the face of supranational political utopias.

This is covered in Professor Allen Bloom's book, "The Closing of the American Mind."

We are all from Africa and we all have natural rights. So since the US was the first nation to acknowledge this, and since the EU does not acknowledge natural rights and in fact is a bureaucratic nightmare, then it is fair to suggest that we all are in fact "African Americans", free and individually powerful since our ancestors lived in Ethiopia and Somalia.

How does a nation built upon the concept of natural rights in turn deny non-Americans those same innate rights?

It is a crime what the NSA is doing. Against Americans, the world and the first principles of governance (i.e. classical liberalism).

If Jefferson's notion of an Empire of Library was alive and vibrant today, the target would not be Canada but the United States government.

Jefferson on defending the concept of popular sovereignty etc all over the world-

"...we should then have only to include the North [Canada] in our confederacy...and we should have such an empire for liberty as she has never surveyed since the creation: & I am persuaded no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire & self government." - Jefferson to James Madison, 27 April 1809

"where this progress will stop no-one can say. Barbarism has, in the meantime, been receding before the steady step of amelioration; and will in time, I trust, disappear from the earth" - Jefferson to William Ludlow, 6 September 1824

How do we distinguish between someone who is an introvert and someone who is socially lazy? Or someone who is quiet and someone who is mean?

Also saying everyone is somewhere on the austic spectrum is questionable. I am skeptical of such claims and think behaviorial choices and self-fulfilling prophechies are to blame.

Scientists and engineers can be outgoing. Introverts can be gregarious. I resist the temptation to label ourselves, I'm this or I'm that. Or the temptation to indulge our emotions; "I just speak my mind".

You are whatever you limit yourself to be. Focus, being in the zone and being mathematically inclined is not Aspergers. We are all smart enough and human enough to know and feel emotions. We aren't robots no matter how much our intellect makes us hate society or become misanthropic or antagonist towards the opposite sex.

If Temple Grandin can do what she did, a shy awkward nerdy kid can learn confidence, can challenge himself to break out of pre-defined molds, and be anything and everything humanly possible and then some.

Being social isn't easy for anyone just like coding isn't easy for anyone. Except those who practice it.

There's nothing complex or ambiguous about it. The United States' organic law is based in the acknowledgment of natural rights. Academics can debate if this has any legal enforcement or if the right of revolution is valid, but it doesn't matter to me.

My rights existed prior to the Bill of Rights and the government. If a local, state, federal or international government tries to diminish or deny my rights, I will fight to alter or abolish their policies and their institutions.

The FBI, NSA and DHS as a whole are enemies of human freedom and a threat to classical liberalism. There is no enumerated power that gives the federal government the authority to create a federal police force and what the NSA has done is unequivocally a crime.

Pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it legal. Abolish the FBI. And build a new organization from the ground up.

In the future, there won't be ISIS and there won't be the FBI. That is, if the future is of a better world.

You (and others) misinterpeted my comment and missed the point. I purposely wrote it a bit obtuse as a firewall of sorts.

Consider the broader philosophical implications of what I wrote. And proving it was a simulation would explain all those questions you proposed.

I have asked some of the smartest people I know about this topic, and no one seems to know.

It would be awesome if someone reading this thread knew something unique about it and emailed me. That's my only motivation.

That's a distortion of what I meant.

So respecting natural rights and popular sovereignty are not the right way to serve people? Your perspective on this was the point of Professor Bloom's book, The Closing of the American Mind.

I don't personally care what ill-informed people who are victims of the American Historical Association think about classical liberalism and human freedom.

The FBI will not exist in the future, solely because it is a threat to human freedom and in a better world, such a powerful authoritarian organization won't be needed.

You are probably right, that it means nothing. And I am happy people think this because nothing is meaningless. I believe there is no grand secret to this number or of life.

In other words, things are the way they are because we wouldn't be able to fall in love, dance to the music and enjoy life, if things were otherwise.

Thinking too much about why, distracts from the now. Mystery is what makes life worth living. And hiding ourselves from our self is what makes discovery possible.

If reality is a computer simulation, then proving that is a bit redundant in my opinion.

However, I think it can be proven but once it is, what will there be to know?

DMT is much different than LSD. I have never heard anyone talk about machine elves and LSD.

DMT is a legitimate mystery of science and is not a drug in the traditional sense.

This sounds like you are saying truth is relative. Isn't there one best way to serve the people? Which is by protecting tenets of classical liberalism and natural rights; and ideally promoting and defending these ideas elsewhere to prevent such things as terrorists.

I am weary of this idea that no man is wrong except the man who says he is right. The FBI is an institution that was built by a seriously flawed megalomaniac.

I think in terms of building a just and reasonable federal law enforcement agency, you'd 1) need to pass a federal amendment and 2) not build it upon an overreaching and power hungry organization built by J. Edgar Hoover.

We can do better.

This is kind of like saying, if Elon Musk doesn't recycle, he isn't helping the world. I don't mind the inherent hypocrisy because you need those jets and to go to Davos in order to influence policy etc in the right direction.

Abstaining and vowing an ascetic life to practice what you preach only puts one at a disadvantage to the opposition.

Of course, the powerful who don't actually care about they solution are going to fly on jets no matter what.

I don't need the Supreme Court to tell me what my natural rights are regarding privacy.

The answer is to reject this perverse notion of Judicial Review. This is what we should be lobbying for.

I do not care what SCOTUS or a private corporation does or says. If you attempt to diminish natural rights you should be forwarned; I am coming after you directly to either alter or abolish the policies and government you have unjustly imposed over me and society.

I don't care about these silly irrelevant constructs. My rights to privacy preexisted government, Apple, encryption and the Bill of Rights.

If the DoJ ot FBI disagrees, then we should abolish them. I am no fan of the FBI and their fascist organization built by an oppressive corrupt criminal named Hoover.

One day they will no longer exist and neither will this idea that little men in robes need to tell people what their obvious natural rights are.

He is suggesting that the FBI sees this as an opportunity to set a precedent and doesn't care about the data?

If so, in FBI logic, in the future there could be a more legitimate need for Apple to comply because a suspect could have a WMD. But so far no such threat exists.

However, let's distort the issue and exploit this opportunity now knowing few will go against law enforcement tactics against the San Bernardino killers?

Because they will need the power in the future but the public has to be scared into acting now to prevent the real hypothetical future attack?

Humanity and biology in general is a precursor to addictive behavior. One of the major reasons people self-medicate, is because they think they are their thoughts. They indulge every whim and emotional impulse as if it is a command line directing their life.

If people could separate themselves from their emotions, if they were taught stoicism, Buddhism or how free will and the self is a (likely) an illusion, then maybe they'd be stronger.

I can't elaborate, but I know people worth hundreds of millions of dollars, that are young, beautiful and have everything, but can't handle life, and tried to kill themselves but why?

Because an obese corrupt doctor told them that he knew the mysteries of the brain, and that they need to take a lighter form of methamphetamine every day for the rest of their life to be normal.

As Dr. Carl Hart explained, adderall is basically meth- http://www.vice.com/read/a-neuroscientist-explains-how-he-fo...

That person is in college, and the social acceptance of taking adderall to succeed is scary. If you can handle a low dose, great, I'm all for practicality. But most can't and the idea that amphetamines can cure a lack of focus is pseudoscience.

So excuse my tone, but I don't believe in what you said. The problem is behavioral choices (health, what you read/watch/interact) and learning how to deal with one's own thoughts and impulses, not mythical theories on brain chemisty.

What you are saying is often the cause of the problem, not the solution.

I agree, most prefer the lifestyle because A) life is hard and B) they adapt and/or give-up.

There are 25,000 homeless in my city. I don't know exact numbers but a lot come here to pursue their dreams and some to escape a bad situation back home.

But it is so expensive here. Housing is difficult. Deception is everywhere, in terms of convincing people they have a chance at a career. But more often, they fall into drugs and prostitution, and running the streets -- because it is fun and easy, at first.

So an 18 year old kid who wants to be a singer, can run around meeting interesting people, act like he/she is achieving their dream but really is just partying. Then their irresponsible ways get them on the street.

And a once bright kid becomes diminished by drugs, and stress, and the struggle and emotional pain and torture that living on the streets causes. They then look "mentally ill" but most, in my experience, are merely exhausted and are irresponsible.

I have young friends who are homeless, and I'd start my day drinking coffee with them at Starbucks and then later eating breakfast at my building (a 5-star hotel) with people who could afford to feed a million people for a year.

And my rich friends, a lot are on drugs, and some do insane illegal things, and are generally way worse for society than my homeless friends. And I could often trust my homeless friends more than my rich ones.

At the time, I lived in an $8 million condo for free. And through a conflict of over our philosophies on pandering and prostitution, I moved out abruptly, and was nearly homeless myself. I then got to experience first hand the atrocious public transportation services, the difficulty in renting an apartment and how the City just doesn't care about working class people or the homeless.

The City is inept and just not thinking about solving the problems in a valid way. Instead, they take away electrical outlets in most areas which just punishes tourists, commuters, regular working people etc.

And great institutions, like the pubic libraries, which Carnegie saw as a way to lift up all of society, become refugees for the homeless.

Of course, the majority of homeless people are too far gone. Most are lazy, selfish, destructive and just terrible people.

Were they like that before or did they learn to be that way? Maybe if schools taught kids critical thinking skills and stoicism and how to separate themselves from the emotions, then we'd have a stronger society that knew how to deal with adversity better.

A lot of people, rich poor, smart or uneducated, are slightly fragile and weak. Life is hard, for us all, and society doesn't teach us how to live life very well.

Where I live, it is more the opposite. People come here with irrational dreams, get on the street, fall into bad things, and then through dehydration, stress and living on the street, they become more irrational, and eventually permanently changed.

Tell that to them, not me.

I am just recounting what happened in a corner office with 2 Morgan executives who make about $1 million a year.

This is what they claim.

I believe in God and goodness, hope and love.

I do not believe in supernatural forces compelling man to be evil. The idea that a judge believes in Satan is absurd and dangerous.

And no, it is a tragedy of modern civilization that our Presidents must believe in silly mythological stories.

Freedom to be run by stupid people?

It's hard for me to have respect for an organization that was built by J. Edgar Hoover, a person who did not respect the law or American's rights.

The philosophy of corruption and oppression still echoes throughout the FBI. Even today, there are FBI agents that work for private interests. You can't reform a mafia, you must abolish it and start over.

I can't escape the thought of him driving to work and getting all his news only from conservative talk radio. And then declaring he literally believes in Satan.

I'm for religious freedom but a Supreme Court judge who literally believes in evil and refuses to read news contrary to his politics beliefs, seems dangerous.

How can internet access be a right? We can have fair access as part of the social contract; we can pass an amendment to exempt it in some special way; we can all agree to use other taxes to support it -- but we can't declare it a right.

You have a natural right to communicate and perhaps a natural right to access a public system that others can access. But no one has an inherent right to tax someone, or to fund some service.

Same can be said about children from good backgrounds. What makes Donald Trump's kids 'successful'? I know some extremely privileged people in the early 20s that could do anything, are very attractive, have no worries but live a life of complete chaos. I know others who were smart and super wealthy, but stumbled and couldn't recover emotionally/mentally.

I personally think it has a lot to do with stoicism and those who look for solutions vs those who just try to cope.

Federalism.

The only difference is the 50m makes profit with little or no risk. And the consequence of this is consistent inflation, lowering of the purchasing power of dollar, quanitative easing and military keynesianism, along with other things.

One example is if you had $10m in real estate, infinitebank with loan you super low interest rate and then you invest it in a limited $200m fund which had some quasi-guaranteed rate. I can't remember the details but the risk was zero or low. Can't remember the fund name.

However, the advisor to the 50k person probably knows more than the advisor to the 50m person. The high networth advisor is even more of a salesman with no real knowledge.

But at the world's largest wealth management firms, 50m clients are not so encouraged. Wouldn't want to be a threat to the Managing Director or CEO.

Could you elaborate or suggest any references? It sounds like you are saying something that appears chaotic forms some coherent beautiful image?

I know alpha refers to many things but one of those is the fine-structure constant. There's some remarkable beauty in it because it unites electromagnetism, relativity and quantum mechanics. And this is why many thought the reciprocal of alpha (137) would become as important as 0 and Pi.

I am assuming though none of that relates to fractals and that alpha in this context refers to the angles?