EU: Vote to leave or stay?

[Cpt.America]

Scimi

Oh I'm not arguing that. Fox especially bashes Muslims every chance they get.

I just meant the Brexit stuff specifically.


I'm also not patriotic, so please don't accuse me of that. I simply wanted to point out that from my experience as a whole the US does not normally concern itself with British politics.
That is not to say they do not fear monger or incite divisions and anti-muslim rhetoric. (I never defended American media as being free of that.) But they don't turn to the UKs ongoings.

The fact that people were (honestly stupid enough to be) led to believe that Birmingham was a Muslim city with Sharia law within the UK, only points out both how uneducated the average American is about Britain,
and how anti-Muslim media and news stations such as Fox/CNN truly are.

 

[kritikvernunft]

I Think it is terribly wrong for any country to expose its currency to asset stripers.

In God we trust and in nothing else. The British pound is not God. It is obviously something else. I systematically short every possible false pagan belief in things that are obviously not God.
Therefore, the collapse of the British pound, confirms my faith in God, because God is the only value that you cannot short. Everything else can be shorted and therefore will be shorted, and therefore I will be the first one to do it, and make money from shorting yet another false, pagan god.

All your trust and belief in things that are not God, are just an open invitation for me to short it and make money from sinking yet another false, pagan belief.

The stock market is evil, it allows asset stripers to gamble and make money on people's jobs, this is not investing in companies.

Yes, I short the very concept of the stock market itself. If it wholesale crashes and burns, I stand to make lots of money.
I reject, reprobate, repudiate and denounce the false, pagan belief in the stock market, because in God we trust and in nothing else.
The collapse of the stock market, and the fact that such collapse would make me lots of money, is full proof for my religious belief.
These pagans trust in the stock market. Let them put their money where their mouth is, so that I can collect it from them.
Therefore, I seek to confiscate all pagan money, and to dispossess the pagans of everything they own. All money, assets, and value in the world is ultimately the property of God and should therefore be handed over in one way or another to his believers. I am a believer and therefore, I short the pagans, and when they crash and burn, I make lots of money.

Asset striping again.

Yes, I seek to stripe the pagans of everything they have.

The people of Britain voted to come out of Europe, why should asset stripers be allowed to take advantage of a democratic vote?

Because in God we trust, and in nothing else. I am a believer in God. They are not. Therefore, all their money, assets, and value must be transferred to believers such as myself, because that is the will of God.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you kritikvernunft;

The collapse of the stock market, and the fact that such collapse would make me lots of money, is full proof for my religious belief.

From what you say, it sounds as if money is your god, and you worship money. Coffee famers earn a couple of dollars a day, commodity traders earns tens of thousands, exploiting the work of these desperately poor coffee farmers. Self interest and greed is not going to destroy pagan ways, it fuels pagan ways.

Because in God we trust, and in nothing else. I am a believer in God. They are not. Therefore, all their money, assets, and value must be transferred to believers such as myself, because that is the will of God.

You have Bill Gates as a role model, he pays his Chinese workers a pittance, he overcharges his customers, and the odd seventy billion left over goes in his back pocket. He looks in his penny jar, and gives his loose change to the poor, but he still remains the richest man on Earth.

in God we trust and in nothing else.

The way you say this sounds very similar to George Bush, when he said, God bless America, before going off to bomb Iraq.

In the search for God, we have to do something, and it often involves changing ourselves.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people,

Eric

 

[kritikvernunft]

From what you say, it sounds as if money is your god, and you worship money.

Well, certainly not fiat money. I pretty much don't hold any. I am against the use of fiat (=government-emitted) money. If fiat money goes down the drain, my gold and bitcoin goes up. So, fiat money is certainly not my god. I consistently short fiat money. I actively seek to see the fiat money banking system being brought to its knees. Of course, I am not doing all this effort for no good reason, since I make money (bitcoin and gold) from every calamity in the fiat money realm. Therefore, you claim is a bit simplistic. You fail to distinguish between the various types of money. By amalgamating them, you are quite missing the point. As I said, in God we trust, and in nothing else. How could that view include worshipping money?

Coffee famers earn a couple of dollars a day, commodity traders earns tens of thousands, exploiting the work of these desperately poor coffee farmers.

I have no opinion about other people's income. It is of absolutely no importance to me.

Self interest and greed is not going to destroy pagan ways, it fuels pagan ways.

I do not desire money for the money. I desire to sink the pagans and their false beliefs, and obviously, to make money doing so. Why would I seek to lose money sinking the pagans and their false beliefs? What would that be good for? Your views are possibly irrational and ultimately also inconsistent.

You have Bill Gates as a role model, he pays his Chinese workers a pittance

I have no opinion about what Bill Gates pays to his Chinese workers, and I never will. Your claim is neither tautological, nor provable, nor falsifiable, and not even corroborated. Unless you back up your views with something substantiated, its validation status must be considered close to zero.

he overcharges his customers, and the odd seventy billion left over goes in his back pocket. He looks in his penny jar, and gives his loose change to the poor, but he still remains the richest man on Earth.

So? There is nothing wrong with being the richest man on earth. Morality is about NOT breaking a number of categorical imperatives. Morality is NOT about outcomes. One man could accumulate all the income on the globe, and it would still not be an issue, if while doing so, he does not engage in any of the behaviours listed as forbidden in the scriptures. You may not like a particular outcome, but nobody cares about that. I certainly do not. Outcomes in and of themselves are not fair or unfair. The laws of God do not say how income should be distributed. Therefore, all views about how income should be distributed, should fundamentally be considered to be false, pagan beliefs.

The way you say this sounds very similar to George Bush, when he said, God bless America, before going off to bomb Iraq.

I would absolutely have no problem whatsoever seeing the Iraqis (suicide) bombing them back. In my impression, sooner or later, they very well may do that. In the end, everybody does what they want. If you bomb people, that means that you are willing to risk your life and die for what you believe in, and then you must also embrace and cherish the idea of getting bombed yourself. In that sense, both sides should be grateful to each other for giving each other the opportunity to prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update. Interesting analysis on why the EU is failing.

Marine Le Pen writes in the New York Times

The European Union has become a prison of peoples. Each of the 28 countries that constitute it has slowly lost its democratic prerogatives to commissions and councils with no popular mandate. Every nation in the union has had to apply laws it did not want for itself. Member nations no longer determine their own budgets. They are called upon to open their borders against their will.

Countries in the eurozone face an even less enviable situation. In the name of ideology, different economies are forced to adopt the same currency, even if doing so bleeds them dry. It’s a modern version of the Procrustean bed, and the people no longer have a say.

And what about the European Parliament? It’s democratic in appearance only, because it’s based on a lie: the pretense that there is a homogeneous European people, and that a Polish member of the European Parliament has the legitimacy to make law for the Spanish. We have tried to deny the existence of sovereign nations. It’s only natural that they would not allow being denied.

Brexit wasn’t the European people’s first cry of revolt. In 2005, France and the Netherlands held referendums about the proposed European Union constitution. In both countries, opposition was massive, and other governments decided on the spot to halt the experiment for fear the contagion might spread. A few years later, the European Union constitution was forced on the people of Europe anyway, under the guise of the Lisbon Treaty. In 2008, Ireland, also by way of referendum, refused to apply that treaty. And once again, a popular decision was brushed aside.

When in 2015 Greece decided by referendum to reject Brussels’ austerity plans, the European Union’s antidemocratic response took no one by surprise: To deny the people’s will had become a habit. In a flash of honesty, the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, unabashedly declared, “There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties.”

Brexit may not have been the first cry of hope, but it may be the people’s first real victory.

 

[سيف الله]

salaam

Seems our globalist overlords are getting nervous at the sight of the peasants revolting. How are they going to protect their privileges now?

The politics of anger

The triumph of the Brexit campaign is a warning to the liberal international order

MANY Brexiteers built their campaign on optimism. Outside the European Union, Britain would be free to open up to the world. But what secured their victory was anger.

Anger stirred up a winning turnout in the depressed, down-at-heel cities of England (see article). Anger at immigration, globalisation, social liberalism and even feminism, polling shows, translated into a vote to reject the EU. As if victory were a licence to spread hatred, anger has since lashed Britain’s streets with an outburst of racist abuse.

Across Western democracies, from the America of Donald Trump to the France of Marine Le Pen, large numbers of people are enraged. If they cannot find a voice within the mainstream, they will make themselves heard from without. Unless they believe that the global order works to their benefit, Brexit risks becoming just the start of an unravelling of globalisation and the prosperity it has created.

The rest of history

Today’s crisis in liberalism—in the free-market, British sense—was born in 1989, out of the ashes of the Soviet Union. At the time the thinker Francis Fukuyama declared “the end of history”, the moment when no ideology was left to challenge democracy, markets and global co-operation as a way of organising society. It was liberalism’s greatest triumph, but it also engendered a narrow, technocratic politics obsessed by process. In the ensuing quarter-century the majority has prospered, but plenty of voters feel as if they have been left behind.

Their anger is justified. Proponents of globalisation, including this newspaper, must acknowledge that technocrats have made mistakes and ordinary people paid the price. The move to a flawed European currency, a technocratic scheme par excellence, led to stagnation and unemployment and is driving Europe apart. Elaborate financial instruments bamboozled regulators, crashed the world economy and ended up with taxpayer-funded bail-outs of banks, and later on, budget cuts.

Even when globalisation has been hugely beneficial, policymakers have not done enough to help the losers. Trade with China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and brought immense gains for Western consumers. But many factory workers who have lost their jobs have been unable to find a decently paid replacement.

Rather than spread the benefits of globalisation, politicians have focused elsewhere. The left moved on to arguments about culture—race, greenery, human rights and sexual politics. The right preached meritocratic self-advancement, but failed to win everyone the chance to partake in it. Proud industrial communities that look to family and nation suffered alienation and decay. Mendacious campaigning mirrored by partisan media amplified the sense of betrayal.

Less obviously, the intellectual underpinnings of liberalism have been neglected. When Mr Trump called for protectionism this week, urging Americans to “take back control” (see article), he was both parroting the Brexiteers and exploiting how almost no politician has been willing to make the full-throated case for trade liberalisation as a boost to prosperity rather than a cost or a concession. Liberalism depends on a belief in progress but, for many voters, progress is what happens to other people. While American GDP per person grew by 14% in 2001-15, median wages grew by only 2%. Liberals believe in the benefits of pooling sovereignty for the common good. But, as Brexit shows, when people feel they do not control their lives or share in the fruits of globalisation, they strike out. The distant, baffling, overbearing EU makes an irresistible target.

Back to the future
Now that history has stormed back with a vengeance, liberalism needs to fight its ground all over again. Part of the task is to find the language to make a principled, enlightened case and to take on people like Ms Le Pen and Mr Trump. The flow of goods, ideas, capital and people is essential for prosperity. The power of a hectoring, bullying, discriminatory state is a threat to human happiness. The virtues of tolerance and compromise are conditions for people to realise their full potential.

Just as important is the need for policies to ensure the diffusion of prosperity. The argument for helping those mired in deprivation is strong. But a culture of compensation turns angry people into resentful objects of state charity. Hence, liberals also need to restore social mobility and ensure that economic growth translates into rising wages. That means a relentless focus on dismantling privilege by battling special interests, exposing incumbent companies to competition and breaking down restrictive practices. Most of all, the West needs an education system that works for everyone, of whatever social background and whatever age.

The fight for liberalism is at its most fraught with immigration. Given that most governments manage who comes to work and live in their country, the EU’s total freedom of movement is an anomaly. Just as global trade rules allow countries to counter surges of goods, so there is a case for rules to cope with surges in people. But it would be illiberal and self-defeating to give in to the idea that immigration is merely something to tolerate. Sooner than curb numbers, governments should first invest in schools, hospitals and housing. In Britain new migrants from the EU contribute more to the exchequer than they take out. Without them, industries such as care homes and the building trade would be short of labour. Without their ideas and their energy, Britain would be much the poorer.

Liberalism has been challenged before. At the end of the 19th century, liberals embraced a broader role for the state, realising that political and economic freedoms are diminished if basic human needs are unmet. In the 1970s liberals concluded that the embrace of the state had become smothering and oppressive. That rekindled an interest in markets.

When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister, amid the triumph of Soviet collapse, an aide slipped Mr Fukuyama’s essay on history into her papers. The next morning she declared herself unimpressed. Never take history for granted, she said. Never let up. For liberals today that must be the rallying cry.

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...s?zid=293&ah=e50f636873b42369614615ba3c16df4a

 

[M.I.A.]

Well as euro 2016 draws to a close, we can safely say that most of Europe will participate the next time round.

Nothing changes.

..although seth platter may have to make a new title for himself.



Also if Scotland remain in the eu how will England keep out immigrants?

...Yes am that thick :/

Well, certainly not fiat money. I pretty much don't hold any. I am against the use of fiat (=government-emitted) money. If fiat money goes down the drain, my gold and bitcoin goes up. So, fiat money is certainly not my god. I consistently short fiat money. I actively seek to see the fiat money banking system being brought to its knees. Of course, I am not doing all this effort for no good reason, since I make money (bitcoin and gold) from every calamity in the fiat money realm. Therefore, you claim is a bit simplistic. You fail to distinguish between the various types of money. By amalgamating them, you are quite missing the point. As I said, in God we trust, and in nothing else. How could that view include worshipping money?

I have no opinion about other people's income. It is of absolutely no importance to me.

I do not desire money for the money. I desire to sink the pagans and their false beliefs, and obviously, to make money doing so. Why would I seek to lose money sinking the pagans and their false beliefs? What would that be good for? Your views are possibly irrational and ultimately also inconsistent.

I have no opinion about what Bill Gates pays to his Chinese workers, and I never will. Your claim is neither tautological, nor provable, nor falsifiable, and not even corroborated. Unless you back up your views with something substantiated, its validation status must be considered close to zero.

So? There is nothing wrong with being the richest man on earth. Morality is about NOT breaking a number of categorical imperatives. Morality is NOT about outcomes. One man could accumulate all the income on the globe, and it would still not be an issue, if while doing so, he does not engage in any of the behaviours listed as forbidden in the scriptures. You may not like a particular outcome, but nobody cares about that. I certainly do not. Outcomes in and of themselves are not fair or unfair. The laws of God do not say how income should be distributed. Therefore, all views about how income should be distributed, should fundamentally be considered to be false, pagan beliefs.

I would absolutely have no problem whatsoever seeing the Iraqis (suicide) bombing them back. In my impression, sooner or later, they very well may do that. In the end, everybody does what they want. If you bomb people, that means that you are willing to risk your life and die for what you believe in, and then you must also embrace and cherish the idea of getting bombed yourself. In that sense, both sides should be grateful to each other for giving each other the opportunity to prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in.

..well, at least he didn't say Jews.

Quoted the wrong post :/

Although I would think none of the things you think are God are actually God..

Just the people you associate with.

 

[Muezzin]

Brits... How are you all doing? Are news reports exaggerated or is it really that bad? Racists out in open abusing women and kids, beating up people.

Nah, that's just Thursdays.

 

[cooterhein]

This is after the fact, but....stay was the right choice, and the United Kingdom got it wrong. Well, more specifically England.

The entire premise of the vote was problematic from the beginning. The United Kingdom has four countries in that country, and the Leave result should have been contingent on all four parts of the whole- England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland- getting a majority of votes to leave. Any other result should have kept them in, albeit with the possibility of a re-vote.

As it is, England was the main reason that Leave won by a razor-thin margin, while some other parts of the UK voted pretty decisively to stay. But now England is dragging the entirety of the UK out of the EU, and that's not how this is supposed to work.

 

[Zafran]

and wales

 

[kritikvernunft]

Although I would think none of the things you think are God are actually God.

We can use Aristotle's theorem in order to define the One God as the attraction point for the repeated application of the causality function. It is just a fancy mathematical way to say that Genesis 1:1 . In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Quite a few people confuse belief in the One God with gullibility. However, as you can clearly see around you, the One God does not particularly extend his favours to the uneducated, the gullible, the incompetent, or anybody else whose poverty is also the result of a persistent Dunning-Kruger issue. Therefore, we can show our gratitude to the One God by affirming that in the One God we trust and in nothing else.

 

[Zafran]

We can use Aristotle's theorem in order to define the One God as the attraction point for the repeated application of the causality function. It is just a fancy mathematical way to say that Genesis 1:1 . In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Quite a few people confuse belief in the One God with gullibility. However, as you can clearly see around you, the One God does not particularly extend his favours to the uneducated, the gullible, the incompetent, or anybody else whose poverty is also the result of a persistent Dunning-Kruger issue. Therefore, we can show our gratitude to the One God by affirming that in the One God we trust and in nothing else.

What about the murderers and cheaters - they sit on golden thrones in the world. God guides who he wills. God promises the truthful, the patient, righteous and the martyrs will have there reward with there lord be they rich or poor on the last day.

wealth, health, youth and life are all a test at the end of the day.

 

[kritikvernunft]

What about the murderers and cheaters

These behaviours are outlawed and explicitly mentioned in the Quranic text as forbidden. Therefore, it is just a question of enforcing the Law. I do not see where the problem is. There is no problem. Just knock them out. As you know, the One God has given us the Law. Are we so lazy that we should ask our beloved Master to also apply it case by case for us? If it is our beloved Master who is going to do all the work, anyway, what does he need us for? Either people are going to start pulling their own weight, and show that they are at least remotely useful, or else what the hell are they here for?

they sit on golden thrones in the world.

Everybody can sit on a golden throne, if he wants to. That particular behaviour is not mentioned as forbidden in the Quranic text. Therefore, I am not going to lift a finger. Let them sit where they want. The Quranic text does not mention where exactly people should be sitting. Therefore, everybody is free to sit where he wants.

God guides who he wills. God promises the truthful, the patient, righteous and the martyrs will have there reward with there lord be they rich or poor on the last day.

Yes, most likely. But above and beyond the Quranic text, I am not going second-guess the will of our beloved Master. I certainly do not know what all of this was supposed to be useful. He has his reasons for having created the universe. Figuring out why exactly it was supposed to be a good idea, is not my call, nor my ambition. The Quranic text will tell what is forbidden onto you. The text will tell you what is impermissible behaviour. If you truly believe, you will seek to refrain from engaging in that kind of depravities. Besides that, I would say: just keep yourself busy, until our beloved Master calls you back. In the meanwhile, you have been informed of the Qasis, i.e. the Codex Hammurabi, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If somebody does Satanic things, and you feel that your interests have been damaged, seek to knock him out. That will teach him.

wealth, health, youth and life are all a test at the end of the day.

Who cares about these things? If there are people who want these things badly, let them seek them. Who are we to tell them what to do? There is no compulsion in religion. Of course, they should not dream of breaking our beloved Master's law and believe for one second that we are not going retaliate. That is also not how it works. That would just be a silly form of gullible naivism.

 

[cooterhein]

Who cares about these things? If there are people who want these things badly, let them seek them. Who are we to tell them what to do? There is no compulsion in religion. Of course, they should not dream of breaking our beloved Master's law and believe for one second that we are not going retaliate. That is also not how it works. That would just be a silly form of gullible naivism.

Are you law enforcement? Who hired or otherwise appointed you to be the enforcer of laws?

Is it a silly form of gullible naivism to believe you do not, in fact, have any business punishing people in order to enforce laws of any kind? As far as I know, that would just be an accurate assessment of reality.

So once more, are you law enforcement? Yes or no, please.

 

[BeTheChange]

Asalamualykum,

A reminder for all.

Please stick to the original thread discussion.

If you feel something else needs to be discussed feel free to create a relevant thread.

Jazahka Allah.

 

[Zafran]

These behaviours are outlawed and explicitly mentioned in the Quranic text as forbidden. Therefore, it is just a question of enforcing the Law. I do not see where the problem is. There is no problem. Just knock them out. As you know, the One God has given us the Law. Are we so lazy that we should ask our beloved Master to also apply it case by case for us? If it is our beloved Master who is going to do all the work, anyway, what does he need us for? Either people are going to start pulling their own weight, and show that they are at least remotely useful, or else what the hell are they here for?

Everybody can sit on a golden throne, if he wants to. That particular behaviour is not mentioned as forbidden in the Quranic text. Therefore, I am not going to lift a finger. Let them sit where they want. The Quranic text does not mention where exactly people should be sitting. Therefore, everybody is free to sit where he wants.

Yes, most likely. But above and beyond the Quranic text, I am not going second-guess the will of our beloved Master. I certainly do not know what all of this was supposed to be useful. He has his reasons for having created the universe. Figuring out why exactly it was supposed to be a good idea, is not my call, nor my ambition. The Quranic text will tell what is forbidden onto you. The text will tell you what is impermissible behaviour. If you truly believe, you will seek to refrain from engaging in that kind of depravities. Besides that, I would say: just keep yourself busy, until our beloved Master calls you back. In the meanwhile, you have been informed of the Qasis, i.e. the Codex Hammurabi, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If somebody does Satanic things, and you feel that your interests have been damaged, seek to knock him out. That will teach him.

Who cares about these things? If there are people who want these things badly, let them seek them. Who are we to tell them what to do? There is no compulsion in religion. Of course, they should not dream of breaking our beloved Master's law and believe for one second that we are not going retaliate. That is also not how it works. That would just be a silly form of gullible naivism.

You dont seem to understand my post at all. Here is a tip - read stuff In context, you might actually understand the post and not go on a contradictory tangent that doesn't have anything to do with the post and frankly does not even make any sense.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Are you law enforcement? Who hired or otherwise appointed you to be the enforcer of laws?

You see, decentralization is indeed a problem considered to be hard, but still very possible. The easy way out is to centralize the system. That is the main reason why law enforcement is centralized. It simply takes a lot of hard work to decentralize anything.

For example, do you need to store all data in one central database, or can you use a swarm of system that will collectively form one database?

Since it is possible to decentralize a possible basic building brick of a database system, i.e. a distributed hashtable, for which we now have years of practical experience with bittorrent, and since a btree can clearly be implemented in terms of hash tables, the theoretical possibility clearly exists to deploy a database as a decentralized swarm without central authority. You can clearly do all of that while still sailing under the flag of provability.

Furthermore, our technology clan has most famously solved the problem of decentralizing the issuing of currency. So, indeed, yes, you do not need a central authority to issue currency. Bitcoin has no central authority issuing currency. It is completely decentralized. Furthermore, Bitcoin has also famously deployed a functioning solution for the otherwise unsolvable Byzantine generals' problem that automatically arises in a situation of decentralization.

Therefore, you can reasonably assume that we will at some point be able to propose a decentralized system, a swarm, of law enforcement, as a replacement for the centralized system currently implemented through national states. It is obviously a similar technology problem, of the kind of which we have in fact solved so many already.

So once more, are you law enforcement? Yes or no, please.

All enforcement, of any kind, rests on technology, which is indeed under full control of the technology clan.
So, yes, it is ultimately the clan that controls all arrows of enforcement.

The clan is a virtual entity that consists of the people who actually understand how technology works and who control the lowest-level accounts on the existing systems. We are collectively the root account of the internet.

Now, you also have to realize that the clan may indeed be a libertarian bulwark, and therefore staunchly opposed to systems of national states, which we consider to be utterly inferior constructs, but also that the clan is not particularly united beyond that.

We could, indeed, from the one day to the other, just expel the political idiots and simply take over, since it is us who control everything anyway. Unfortunately, there is no consensus. Therefore, the clan will not do it.

So, yes, as a collective, we could trivially easily start explicitly controlling law enforcement, military enforcement, or any type of enforcement.
It would indeed be trivially easy for us to push the political idiots on their knees.
The political idiots know this, and that is why they shiver in fear for us.

I am a hawk, but the majority of the clan are doves. The doves will not agree to knock out the political idiots. That is why the hawks are waiting for the statist enemy to bomb Perl Harbor, so that the hawks can overrule the doves, and finally solve the problem.

I am a bit frustrated with the inaction of the clan. That is why I also like to hang out with the islamic clan, hoping to see a bit more motivation there. I personally think that the national state is just a filthy Satanic wh.or.e that wants to suck us dry and tell us what to do, and that the sl.ut has to go now. Of course, it would make a lot of sense if members of the islamic clan managed to pick up a bit of knowledge on technology, because that would allow them to join the other clan, and more staunchly oppose the idea of using arrows of enforcement against islamic populations. In the end, looking at these things from their inner sanctum, it would be trivially easy to prevent jet fighters to take off, or to disturb the coordinates of their targets, or to arrange failures during their landing approaches. I mean, as anybody who understands technology can tell you, it is very hard to make these things work properly, and very easy to introduce subtle failures. If such subtle failures were introduced deliberately, the whole system would simply collapse.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Are you law enforcement? Who hired or otherwise appointed you to be the enforcer of laws?

By the way, for people who are ignorant of technology, like yourself, all of this sounds like magic. From what you say, I know that you do not understand whatsoever how this page actually works, or how its underlying software, vBulletin 4.2.2, could possibly create this kind of magic?

For the cognoscenti, a thing like this very forum is considered to be an utterly menial low-tech construct.

Of course, we already know how to do particular forms of decentralized law enforcement.

We do things that are way more complicated than that; but with even the simplest things obviously unattainable for you someone like you, it is obviously beyond your wildest dreams that you would be able to construct something as simple as this forum. However, this says something about you, and not about the real world around you, of which you understand approximately nothing.

For example, look at the Jim Bell assassination market concept.
In terms of technology, it is nothing to build that.

Look at how the political idiots start panicking because one of the 10+ million people who are capable of building a thing like that, from their own laptops, suddenly decides to do it.

I could show you things of which just the theoretical description would give them an instant heart attack.

I do not know if you realize that, but the political idiots do not control the nuclear arsenal. Anybody who feels like putting in the effort of taking control over the chain of keys and passwords that control the nuclear arsenal, would control it in their stead. Therefore, their nuclear arsenal is an illusion. They do not control it. We control it.

You see, I am a hawk, but I do not feel like overruling our doves just like that. I prefer to wait for the statist enemy to finally give use the excuse that we need.

 

[cooterhein]

Okay, yeah, bethechange was right. This is something for a different thread.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Okay, yeah, bethechange was right. This is something for a different thread.

If the answer was, then the question was too.
In that case, do not raise the issue.
At the same time, do not impute your own limitations to other people. It is not because you cannot do it, that everybody cannot do it, because in that case we would not have cars, airplanes, or computers for that matter; if only what you can do, is what would actually be possible, we would probably not even live in caves.