RIAA Goes Offline, Joins MPAA As Latest Victim Of Successful DDoS Attacks

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by soficrow

 

... in practical application, the CREATION of information has a value, and one which must be paid.

Under international "free trade" legislation, the act of digitalizing information renders the 'digital information' a commodity - by law, ownership is conferred to the one responsible for the digitalization. The law encompasses virtually everything from YOUR credit and medical histories to YOUR DNA - and a whole lot more.

..."Creating" digital information is NOT an act of "creation" - it is an act of translation that enables distribution and trade - one which dismisses the "creator" as irrelevant to any further transactions.

[In this light for example, the recurrent "online personal privacy" issue must be seen as manipulation - evidence of the Turf War between the historical 'owners and traders' of your personal information (banks and insurance companies), and the digital upstarts. ...Anyone 'on the grid' has never had personal privacy. ]

If there is no means by which the creation of information can be compensated, the result will be a denigration of the quality of information. Applied practically, if I like a certain type of music, but musicians cannot be fairly compensated for their work, the result will not be economically poor musicians, but poor quality music, as the good musicians find more lucrative things to do.

ACTA is about compensating distributors, NOT creators.

I am not sure that your "Robin Hood" defence provides a reasonable refutation to this, as the root of the Robin Hood myth is based on a person's needs, rather than a person's merit. ... the poor needed the assets of the rich, though they did not deserve them, but the need outweighed the valuation. Personally, I'm kind of okay with that, though I recognize that, for the reason I specified above, it is not sustainable.

Erm, are you saying that the Kings, Nobles and Sheriffs merited their power and wealth? [tsk]

...The wealth in the Western capitalist system is created by distributing money and product, NOT by creating 'product.' ...Western capitalism doesn't work if producers and laborers are adequately paid for their labors - else why produce off-shore?

...Given the inability of Western corporations to maintain the required profit level without finding cheaper / slave-labor production off-shore, it's obviously Western capitalism that's unsustainable. And it's NOT the creators/producers being "compensated."

Eventually, those who merit the capital will resent the fact that they're supporting those who want it (or need it) but are incapable of producing it, and will abandon the effort (ala "Atlas Shrugged".)

I too considered Ayn Rand an icon - spent the middle part of my life as an upwardly mobile yuppie with the world by the balls - until I became horribly ill, lost everything and reassessed. ...Later on, I came to realize that like everything, Rand's views were contextual, and valid primarily in historical context.

In any event, again, Western capitalism does NOT reward creator/producers - only distributors. It's just a modified monarchy/empire feudal system, designed to reward financiers.

Now, applying all of this to the current instance, the RIAA and MPAA claim to represent the interests of the aggregate -- all musicians or filmmakers who belong to those groups.

Nope. No matter what they say, they represent the distributors, NOT the creators. ...Moreover, they're front-lining for ACTA and global feudal-authoritarian Intellectual Property Rights - the "right" to profit from distribution over creation.

...I don't dispute that a musician or a movie maker, doesn't deserve defence,

I agree that creators deserve more compensation that distributors. The system doesn't work - it's failing by Libertarian standards, not just other ones.

reply to post by soficrow


Well, we're moving kind of far afield here, but I should make it clear that I'm not a proponent of any of this stuff. I believe in protecting the rights of those who produce, over those who consume, but not at the expense of the rights of the consumer. A consumer does not have the "right" to illegally download media, so I see no infringement in the instance of laws which prohibit this. I believe that a consumer has the "right" to make copies of things that he owns, for his own use, so laws which prohibit that are laws which I do not support.

In a capitalistic society, capital MUST be respected, whether it be financial, resources, intellectual property, or something else. Without the capital aspect, there is no product, and without expectation of reward, there is rarely capital available. One cannot expect that musicians, for example, will continue to produce music on a full time basis if they are not to be paid. One cannot expect a factory to be built out of promises and hopes -- capital needs to be raised, and it is only raised on the promise of return.

Sadly, we are beginning to see a system which exists solely to sustain itself, which is what much of this battle is over. But there is a place for entities like record labels -- they provide opportunity for artists, and a useful filter mechanism (I often have my doubts about the latter, as things that I like to listen to are rarely found on mainstream labels, but I recognize my uniqueness in that regard.) As I said, ITMS is demonstrable proof that the business models have changed, and there is still a reasonable place for musicians, record labels, and consumers.

Getting back to the issue at hand, my complaint is not with protesting these new and proposed laws. It is, rather, with the tactics, which are illegal, ineffectual and serve to demonstrate that, while the protestors have a pretty good grasp of the concept of the value of their own rights, they have little regard for the rights of others. Given fuel to the opposition seems a bad idea, regardless of your purpose for doing so.

reply to post by adjensen

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by soficrow

 

Well, we're moving kind of far afield here,

True, but reasonably so. ...The issues are fundamental.

I believe in protecting the rights of those who produce, over those who consume,

I believe in protecting the rights of those who produce over unnecessary parasitic middlemen.

Your statement reminds of a truly prophetic sci-fi book, Twilight of the Basilisks - written in 1974 by "Jacob Transue" aka Joan Matheson (a policy analyst as I recall).

...The book describes a post-apocalyptic society where people live in self-contained "towers" and never go outdoors; all are categorized as producers OR consumers. There are welfare wards, which we later learn are cryo-crypts to keep bodies prepped for organ donation. ...Turns out the real future and hope of this society lies with the ragtags who chose to live outside the system and created an interdependent, cooperative, productive alternative ...

One cannot expect that musicians, for example, will continue to produce music on a full time basis if they are not to be paid.

You'd be surprised then. Many do. ...Before there were "stars" there were artists.

Sadly, we are beginning to see a system which exists solely to sustain itself, which is what much of this battle is over.

The vaunted "system" is a giant Ponzi scheme - it doesn't even work well enough to sustain itself, much less fulfill any other objective or obligation.

Getting back to the issue at hand, my complaint is not with protesting these new and proposed laws. It is, rather, with the tactics, which are illegal, ineffectual and serve to demonstrate that, while the protestors have a pretty good grasp of the concept of the value of their own rights, they have little regard for the rights of others. Given fuel to the opposition seems a bad idea, regardless of your purpose for doing so.

It was illegal for Jan Val Jean to stand against the monarchy and steal bread to feed his dying child. It was illegal for Robin Hood to stand against the King and his enforcers to give hope to the peasants. It was illegal for Braveheart, Rob Roy, and the First Americans to stand against unjust, inhuman systems and demand their rights.

Heroes often have little appreciation for their true role or the larger issues. Usually, they have just "had enough" in a narrow, incognizant, human sort of way. Much like Frodo when he went against the Dark Lord, or David when he stood against Goliath.

Strictly speaking, I do NOT support illegal actions. On the other hand, it is my understanding that the same tactics used by 4chan hackers are fairly standard "competitive" strategies used in the marketplace, and currently are considered 'quasi-legal.' ...I didn't know the final draconian legislation had passed. ...???


[ASIDE: I do like the way your mind works and the way you articulate your thoughts. Could I ask you an almost entirely unrelated question? ..."How do Christians reconcile the eugenics component of Libertarian philosophy?" (Given Christ's inclusive teachings.)]

Originally posted by soficrow
Your statement reminds of a truly prophetic sci-fi book, Twilight of the Basilisks - written in 1974 by "Jacob Transue" aka Joan Matheson (a policy analyst as I recall).

...The book describes a post-apocalyptic society where people live in self-contained "towers" and never go outdoors; all are categorized as producers OR consumers. There are welfare wards, which we later learn are cryo-crypts to keep bodies prepped for organ donation. ...Turns out the real future and hope of this society lies with the ragtags who chose to live outside the system and created an interdependent, cooperative, productive alternative ...

Have not read the book, but it sounds like one that I might enjoy... looks to see if it's on amazon.com for downloading to my Kindle... skunked! Well, I'll see if I can turn it up at some point.

One cannot expect that musicians, for example, will continue to produce music on a full time basis if they are not to be paid.

You'd be surprised then. Many do. ...Before there were "stars" there were artists.

My comment wasn't that people wouldn't continue to make music, it was that they wouldn't continue to make music as their occupation, bereft of the opportunity to earn a living from it. Unless one is independently wealthy, it would be difficult to spend all of your time on something that earns no money. Not saying it can't be done, just saying it probably isn't.

Sadly, we are beginning to see a system which exists solely to sustain itself, which is what much of this battle is over.

The vaunted "system" is a giant Ponzi scheme - it doesn't even work well enough to sustain itself, much less fulfill any other objective or obligation.

My Dad is a very wise man. One of the things that I remember him telling me is that everyone has to do something, and in an environment where the amount of stuff to do remains reasonably constant, but the number of people who are around to do them continues to increase, inefficiency and ultimate failure are pretty much inherent. That's the cause of a lot of this, though whether we're at (or even near) the tipping point remains to be seen.

Getting back to the issue at hand, my complaint is not with protesting these new and proposed laws. It is, rather, with the tactics, which are illegal, ineffectual and serve to demonstrate that, while the protestors have a pretty good grasp of the concept of the value of their own rights, they have little regard for the rights of others. Given fuel to the opposition seems a bad idea, regardless of your purpose for doing so.

It was illegal for Jan Val Jean to stand against the monarchy and steal bread to feed his dying child. It was illegal for Robin Hood to stand against the King and his enforcers to give hope to the peasants. It was illegal for Braveheart, Rob Roy, and the First Americans to stand against unjust, inhuman systems and demand their rights.

The point of Les Miserables is not the justification of Jean Valjean's original act, but the vindication of the act of grace. Valjean was, rightly, convicted of a crime, but the implication of his crime went beyond the punishment he received. The story is about the grace (receiving something that you do not deserve) that he receives from the Bishop, and then grants to others in his life. It is an amazingly insightful and inspirational story, though it reduces me to tears every time I watch it (the musical.)

Justice is receiving what you deserve. Mercy is not receiving what you deserve. Grace is receiving what you do not deserve. It is an amazing thing. But, again, we're getting far afield, lol.

If one lives in a society of laws that one does not agree with, it is incumbent on the citizen to oppose the laws, demonstrate how they are not in the best interest of the people, and fight to have them overturned. Simply ignoring the law (if it one which is enforced) is not a reasonable solution, as the arbitrary individual assessment of the validity of law leads to anarchy, not a reasonable set of laws.

[ASIDE: I do like the way your mind works and the way you articulate your thoughts. Could I ask you an almost entirely unrelated question? ..."How do Christians reconcile the eugenics component of Libertarian philosophy?" (Given Christ's inclusive teachings.)]

Though I can't tell you how Christians, in general, might answer that (particularly given that few Christians would declare themselves Libertarians, lol,) I can give you my personal opinion. If you are referring to Friedman's book "Future Imperfect", I don't know that it is a generally accepted Libertarian practice, but I personally believe that it is best to allow nature to take its course.

My approach to both Christianity, and politics, is that I have a set of beliefs and values that I have built up, and that are important to me. I recognize that you (and everyone else,) most likely have something similar. Your decision, and what got you there, is none of my business, and none of anyone else's business, so long as you arrived at your decision in a valid environment (which means that, if you have an incorrect view of Christianity, I see it as my responsibility to correct your mistake.)

Within that scope, if you were to abort fetuses that are the wrong colour, sex, shape or whatever, I view that as an evil act, but the decision to do that is yours, and thus, any consequences of that action are yours, as well. I would just as soon that we did not do such things, but the greater evil is done by my forcing my beliefs on you, than it is by your act, because I do not represent true morality, I merely represent my own morality.

God put us in a world where bad things happen, where we must make the choices between our starving children, or stealing bread, and the ultimate resolution to that, both from God's standpoint, and mine, is to allow you to sort it out for yourself.

reply to post by adjensen

Much to say, wish I had time to respond point by point. But RL intervenes...

Suffice to say, the Hactivists are not clearly breaking the law - the law is not clear - and will not be unless and until the new ACTA legislation goes through.

Moreover, the Hactivists are just doing to MPAA and RIAA what those agencies did to them using AIPLEX hackers.

More here

Originally posted by soficrow
Moreover, the Hactivists are just doing to MPAA and RIAA what those agencies did to them using AIPLEX hackers.

If I may once again reference a favourite musical, this time Fiddler on the Roof

Villager: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
Tevye: Very good. That way the whole world will be blind and toothless.

Address the original evil, fix it, but do not just do it in return. If nothing else, it tacitly approves the original action.

reply to post by adjensen


You seem to think there IS a system through which to address these conflicts.

There's not. We truly live in interesting times.

Right now, the world's global corporations are moving to take full sovereign powers from the world's nations - and putting the finishing touches on global corporate government via international trade law, "free" trade agreements, the WTO et al.

...ACTA is key to global corporations' securing global power.

Sometimes it seems that the Hacktivists are the only ones able to see the dangers, and act against global corporate fascism.

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by adjensen

 

You seem to think there IS a system through which to address these conflicts.

Of course there is. Corporations aren't some sort of evil alien entity -- though they are granted legal status through civil code, they only exist as the composite of humans who operate it. Change the humans, you change the corporation. Change the laws, you change the corporation.

STOP BUYING THEIR CRAP, YOU CHANGE THE CORPORATION.

That is the power that we, as consumers, have over them, the distributors, manufacturers and retailers. Because they exist, SOLELY, to extract money from your wallet, if you decline to do so, and encourage enough others to do the same, you have ultimate power to control their actions.

The RIAA and MPAA act the way that they do solely because their source of income is threatened by people who think that the digital age empowers them to steal movies and music. If that was not the case, they wouldn't be doing any of this stuff -- believing otherwise has no support beyond paranoia or wishful expectation.

The reason that they continue to behave this way is because you (well, not you personally,) have failed to convince the majority of the public that you are right, and the corporations are wrong. And that failure is added to by these behaviours which demonstrate a disregard for the law on the part of the dissenters, hardly the way to the hearts and minds (and pocketbooks!) of the unwashed masses that are your only real hope for changing this.

Originally posted by adjensen

STOP BUYING THEIR CRAP, YOU CHANGE THE CORPORATION.

That's what's happening all right.

That is the power that we, as consumers, have over them, the distributors, manufacturers and retailers.

That's the ONLY power most people have over corporations - and it's not enough. Which is why we have democratic government. Not corporate government.

...have failed to convince the majority of the public that you are right, and the corporations are wrong. And that failure is added to by these behaviours which demonstrate a disregard for the law on the part of the dissenters, hardly the way to the hearts and minds (and pocketbooks!) of the unwashed masses that are your only real hope for changing this.

The "public" is busy looking for work. They're not paying attention.

And the laws you say are being broken have not been passed yet.

The only legal action taken so far is against ACL Law for fraudulent lawsuits accusing people of copyright infringement.

ACS:Law Solicitors, a UK law firm known for sending threatening letters to Internet users suspected of copyright infringement and asking them for money in order to avoid being taken to court.

True, as you say...

Anonymous claims to fight for Internet neutrality, freedom of information and other noble causes, but the group doesn't hold back from using controversial or even illegal methods to get its message across.

But Anonymous ARE playing by the rules the corporations established.

Or do you think it's okay that global corporations ride roughshod over individuals and nations, playing seriously dirty hardball with money, guns and everything - but no one is allowed to fight back? Fire with fire?

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by adjensen

STOP BUYING THEIR CRAP, YOU CHANGE THE CORPORATION.

That's what's happening all right.

No, it is not, because if the answer is to steal their stuff, they're going to fight against the stealing. The answer is to stop listening and live life without Kelly Clarkson, Susan Boyle and Pink.

Until you acknowledge that Sony, for example, has a right to distribute and earn income from the music that they have invested in, you have no argument, no basis, and no sympathy from me.

Right now, I'm watching a movie ("The Gamers: Dorkness Rising", highly recommended) that is being streamed to my Sony Bravia tv over my broadband connection from Netflix Instant Viewing. I paid for my tv, I pay for my broadband, and I pay for Netflix. The new business model works, but only if you live up to your side of it -- paying for what you consume.

Originally posted by adjensen

The new business model works, but only if you live up to your side of it -- paying for what you consume.

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in your argument - defining life as a process of consumption, and people as nothing but consumers. With no legitimate role except to sanction the existence of the holy corporation by the act of consuming.

SO not true.

Which is the point being made by Assange and Anonymous.

Tis a time for redefinition. And taking back our rights and freedoms to live and to be.

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by adjensen

The new business model works, but only if you live up to your side of it -- paying for what you consume.

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in your argument - defining life as a process of consumption, and people as nothing but consumers. With no legitimate role except to sanction the existence of the holy corporation by the act of consuming.

SO not true.

Which is the point being made by Assange and Anonymous.

Tis a time for redefinition. And taking back our rights and freedoms to live and to be.

I agree that we are not mere consumers, but when we act as them, we are them. Denying this is to lose the argument before even entering into it. You are entitled to nothing in this world, beyond some basic rights and expectations and none of those are the rights to my mind, or my creations.

Earlier today, it occurred to me that something that happened to me was reminiscent of a song by one of my favourite vocalists, Fish (no, you've never heard of him, lol.) I've been singing bits of that song to myself as the day has worn on, and a short while ago, I decided that I wanted to hear it. I own the CD that it's on, but have no idea where it is, so I could rationalize going someplace and just downloading it, but instead I went to ITMS and found a live version, which is a real snapper. Glad I did it.

Bottom line, though -- Fish owns that song, and he worked on creating it, every bit as hard as I work at software I write, or you create stuff at work, or Joe down at McDonalds makes Big Macs.

Why do we rationalize stealing Fish's music, but struggle, as Jean Valjean, with rationalize stealing Joe's Big Macs?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by adjensen

The new business model works, but only if you live up to your side of it -- paying for what you consume.

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in your argument - defining life as a process of consumption, and people as nothing but consumers. With no legitimate role except to sanction the existence of the holy corporation by the act of consuming.

SO not true.

Which is the point being made by Assange and Anonymous.

Tis a time for redefinition. And taking back our rights and freedoms to live and to be.

I agree that we are not mere consumers, but when we act as them, we are them.

In a corporate-run-and-defined world, virtually every human action is considered consumption.

I reject that paradigm.

Denying this is to lose the argument before even entering into it.

No, it's not.

You are entitled to nothing in this world, beyond some basic rights and expectations and none of those are the rights to my mind, or my creations.

As my avatar says, I advocate Open Access. As my signature implies, I too believe that "information is the currency of democracy," and that "knowledge is the sun of the firmament. Life and power are scattered within its beams."

Further, I believe in democracy, and recognize that as Jefferson said, "I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

Why do we rationalize stealing Fish's music, but struggle, as Jean Valjean, with rationalize stealing Joe's Big Macs?

I do not rationalize stealing Fish's music. I stated in the beginning that I'm looking at a MUCH broader issue, centered around the all-encompassing definition of "information" written into trade agreements.

Why do you persist in focusing on entertainment? This issue is NOT about music or film - it is about free access to information - and preventing global corporations from owning our minds along with our DNA.


EDIT TO ADD:

You are entitled to nothing in this world, beyond some basic rights and expectations and none of those are the rights to my mind, or my creations.

True - but if if I employed you, I would own the rights to your mind, and your creations. That's the way the laws work now.

Moreover, you should recognize the realities of Internet posting and also, check out the TOC here...

3) Content Copyright: By posting on this message board, you relinquish all exclusive copyright privileges to the material you post and you grant The Owners non-exclusive, non-revocable rights to publish your posts in perpetuity in all forms. ...

Check out the Creative Commons License too.

Originally posted by soficrow
Why do you persist in focusing on entertainment? This issue is NOT about music or film - it is about free access to information - and preventing global corporations from owning our minds along with our DNA.

Because that is the context of the thread that you've created! When you talk about the RIAA and MPAA, it IS about entertainment!

Understand, please, that I do not disagree with issues of privacy, but when you talk about "free access to information", you make a huge misstep, which Stallman actually addresses (though with typical flippancy :-)

"Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of 'free' as in 'free speech', not as in 'free beer'".

I do not differ with you on "free speech", I absolutely differ with you (apparently) on "free beer."

Protesting insurance companies being loose and "free" with our medical records, I'm with you on the front lines there. Protesting that you have the right to download music or movies for free (as hacking the RIAA web site, or pimping services such as Pirate Bay do,) nope, I'm still going to call you a thief.

reply to post by adjensen



Sorry - added this as edit to last post while you were responding...


EDIT TO ADD:

You are entitled to nothing in this world, beyond some basic rights and expectations and none of those are the rights to my mind, or my creations.

True - but if I employed you, I would own the rights to your mind, and your creations. That's the way the laws work now.

Moreover, you should recognize the realities of Internet posting and also, check out the TOC here...

3) Content Copyright: By posting on this message board, you relinquish all exclusive copyright privileges to the material you post and you grant The Owners non-exclusive, non-revocable rights to publish your posts in perpetuity in all forms. ...

Check out the Creative Commons License too.

RE: What this thread is about.

It's perfectly legitimate to expand scope. I noted the terms I was addressing in my OP, early on equated Assange's work with Annonymous' efforts and credited both with the broader view. You argued that they did not/could not understand the larger civil and political implications of trade law. I disagreed.

"Anonymous" and Pirate Bay are standing up against the global "free trade" corporate takeover of individual rights.

Seems like they're the only ones who've figured out that it's not us against Big Government.

...It's Our Government, us, against Global Corporate Big Government - already enabled and enshrined under international "free trade" legislation.

Originally posted by soficrow

You are entitled to nothing in this world, beyond some basic rights and expectations and none of those are the rights to my mind, or my creations.

True - but if I employed you, I would own the rights to your mind, and your creations. That's the way the laws work now.

No, not entirely. Things that I do outside of what you've hired me to do are things that you do not have the rights to. For example, if you hire me to write video processing software, if I write an accounting program, or a book on bow hunting, you have no right to those things. But if I write video processing software, yes, that's yours.

Why would it not be?

3) Content Copyright: By posting on this message board, you relinquish all exclusive copyright privileges to the material you post and you grant The Owners non-exclusive, non-revocable rights to publish your posts in perpetuity in all forms. ...

If you're going to argue the insanity of our legally invasive culture, you'll have to find someone else to argue with, lol.

However, what does that bit say? It says that you've posted something on the ATS forum, so they have the right to post it on ATS. You can't come round in a couple of weeks, when you're a media darling for fighting the RIAA, and say that you've a copyright on your posts, and they owe you, because they're accessible on ATS.

It's perfectly legitimate to expand scope. I noted the terms I was addressing in my OP, early on equated Assange's work with Annonymous' efforts and credited both with the broader view. You argued that they did not/could not understand the larger civil and political implications of trade law. I disagreed.

No, what I said, all along, is that their actions are ineffectual, illegal, and nonsensical. I stand by that. It is ineffectual grandstanding, nothing more.

...It's Our Government, us, against Global Corporate Big Government - already enabled and enshrined under international "free trade" legislation.

You and I are bumpkiss. It's been that way for thousands of years, and whatever righteous indignation you might put forth at this time won't change it. Unless you can make a compelling argument that convinces millions, arguably billions, of people, you are Don Quixote in the 21st Century.

The real power of the Internet is that it allows people with minority perspectives to find sufficient people with similar views to allow them to delude themselves into believing that they're not so out of the mainstream. This is not, in any way, a judgement of whether the mainstream is right or wrong, but in a society without absolute morality, sorry to say, the mainstream is always right, by default.

I personally do not like that, but it is what it is.

Originally posted by adjensen
...their actions are ineffectual, illegal, and nonsensical. I stand by that. It is ineffectual grandstanding, nothing more.

...It's Our Government, us, against Global Corporate Big Government - already enabled and enshrined under international "free trade" legislation.

You and I are bumpkiss. It's been that way for thousands of years, and whatever righteous indignation you might put forth at this time won't change it.

You and I may be bumpkiss, but

Anonymous is Legion. Not to mention highly skilled.

Should give the power-brokers -and power-broker wannabes- pause, and the motivation to back off, rethink. Allow the creation of a system that leaves room for ordinary people.

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by adjensen
...their actions are ineffectual, illegal, and nonsensical. I stand by that. It is ineffectual grandstanding, nothing more.

...It's Our Government, us, against Global Corporate Big Government - already enabled and enshrined under international "free trade" legislation.

You and I are bumpkiss. It's been that way for thousands of years, and whatever righteous indignation you might put forth at this time won't change it.

You and I may be bumpkiss, but

Anonymous is Legion. Not to mention highly skilled.

Well, time will tell, though if the past is any indication, their enthusiasm and ideology will wane. I grew up in an era of lofty ideals that seemed both noble and achievable at the time, and while some of them were done (Civil Rights being the biggest, I suppose,) mortgages, marriages and money kind of held up the rest.

Should give the power-brokers -and power-broker wannabes- pause, and the motivation to back off, rethink. Allow the creation of a system that leaves room for ordinary people.

Perhaps, though consider that government (who I've yet to sort out if you consider an ally or not,) is in the business of taking away your freedoms, and they rarely give them back. And there are plenty of busybodies out there who actively campaign for the reduction of freedoms, and once they succeed in, say, banning smoking in public places, or requiring the use of car seats, they don't go away, they just move on to some other "wrong" that needs to be righted.

Can you think of the one major freedom that we lost in the past 100 years that the US government later returned to us? I think you'll smile when you do come up with it.

Originally posted by adjensen

Should give the power-brokers -and power-broker wannabes- pause, and the motivation to back off, rethink. Allow the creation of a system that leaves room for ordinary people.

Perhaps, though consider that government (who I've yet to sort out if you consider an ally or not,) is in the business of taking away your freedoms, and they rarely give them back.

imo - Our government is not "they." They are us.

Democracy (representative or otherwise) may not be perfect - but it's a far cry from the full-out fascism we'd see under corporate rule.