It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by drblair
reply to post by wcitizen
After watching my share of bbc and brit media live coverage, I started to get annoyed with the "Helpless Child" role the media started to portay. MP's would be paraded in front of the camera to whine about the blackberry messaging service. It seems the media are trying to re-enforce the false notion of real privacy existing in off-the- shelf consumer products and "leaky" social media sites like fb, twitter etc.
Ask yourself a few questions. Who owns the infrastructure these services run on? Is it mega-corp + gov or is it broke azz looters? What conforms to a higher level of technological specification? Is it mass produced consumer electronics (the joke you call a smart phone) or latest Generation Military, Secret service & Police hardware + all infrastructure used to support it? Suddenly the UK police state can't police itself? BS I say.
Originally posted by Lightrule
reply to post by AkumaStreak
The things no body ever wants to admit are the items in these stores technically belonged to the people that stole them to begin with.
I was at lunch with a few colleagues yesterday and we were discussing this topic. We were all disappointed in the behaviors exhibited by these rioters. Then we got discussing the law and justification. I brought up the idea that since the natural resources of a country are only held in trust by the government of said country for the people of that country. They are responsible to run country in the best interest of the people.
Governments are not looking out for the best interests of the people, they are looking at the corporations best interests. In order for any company to start up and begin turning natural resources into goods a license must be granted from the government. If they didn't receive a license the government would charge them with, among other things, theft. Theft of the countries natural resources, held in trust by the government for the people.
Considering now that no decision made by government is in the best interests of the private person, it makes all the contracts to take the natural resources null and void. It also returns the stolen property to the original owners. Since businesses are used to the legal protection granted by their contracts and licenses they feel like they are the sole owners of the goods they produce, therefor they have no intentions of giving those products away. They must be stolen back.
Needless to say this one single topic then consumed our lunch, in the end out of the business owner, 3 lawyers and a student, it was the student and a lawyer that disagreed.
The student's reasoning was because the time and effort to make the product was put in by the company that made it, it belongs to that company. With follow up questions it became clearer she was having trouble grasping the concept of the trust relationship between people and government.
My colleague pointed out that fees and taxes most likely would have been paid to the government and by extension the people of the country to use the natural resources. The major disagreement he had was that government is in fact looking out for the welfare of the people, but people don't understand the complexities of the system.
Originally posted by wcitizen
Originally posted by cj6
Makes sense but the question i still have is WHY???
Cause a problem. Create a reaction. Provide a solution.
Order out of chaos.
The problem...riots, damage,violence, looting
The reaction...people asking for more policing, for the military to step in.
The solution...implementation of tighter police/military state control by consent through manufactured fear.