>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com>
> > Believe it or not I'm not stupid enough to believe that power
> > transparency is now in place to any significant extent. I was merely
> > replying to Mike Lorrey who suggested that a system which allowed the
> > guy to know more about the leaders than the leaders knew about the
> > guy would lead to the leaders being assasinated forthwith. I was just
> > pointing out that that is not necessarily the case.
>Without offering an evidence that it would not be. There are very few
>today where a national leader can go about his business like an average
>The rate of assassination of national leaders is somewhere around 60%,
>worldwide. Those that stay in power longest are those who don't expose
I don't know where you get 60%, but assuming that's true, I bet that 95%
percent of those assasinations occurred in closed or undemocratic societies.
Transparency will solve that.
Also, you are again mixing apples and oranges. You are talking about the
state of affairs "today." I am talking about "tomorrow" where there will be
greater technological means to protect the safety of those leaders from whom
we require the greatest transparency.
> > Perhaps you came in late in the thread, but Mike Lorrey was replying to
> > proposal that once a democratic "Global" government was in place there
> > be no need for such things as "national" security. I never proposed
> > *all* government disappear. I don't want to (nor expect that I ever
> > live in a global anarchy. I presume that there will *always* be rules
> > means by which to ensure that they are complied with. A global
> > would be no less a government than a national government. And as long
> > there is government, and as long as antitrust rules are deemed
> > society, there will be antitrust rules and the means by which to enforce
> > them.
>How about anti-trust action against government. After all, its a monopoly,
>for one monopoly to go around destroying other monopolies is not justice,
>merely showing the hypocracy of the idea of government.
Well presently its not against the law to be the only government in your
state. In fact I can't think of how multiple governments per jurisdiction
could possibly work. There's nothing hypocritical about it. I think you're
letting your hyberole get away with you again :)
>As long as one person wants what another person has, or hates another
>no good reason, there will always be a need for people to defend themselves
>In your world, the average person would be deluged every day by
>that they were monitored by 200 national intelligence and law enforcement
>agencies, 3,465,783 corporations, and 54,567,892 individuals. If you think
>inbox is big now, wait till your xanadu is reached....
You've never heard of a killfile?
> > Although keeping in mind that for everytime you *get* information about
> > someone else you also have to *give* that same information about
> > don't know how anxious you would be to be doing research on 90% of the
> > population. That could very well make you a *very* popular guy :)
>So what if I tell 6 billion people what my sexual preference is? I tell
>fact, and I can get 6 billion facts on the same question about each and
>one of those people. Its not equivalent. I may have pissed off a small
>minority, but I now KNOW a huge amount of data about a lot of people, and
>gives me power.
That gives you *nothing* except that X% of the population is homosexual.
What are you going to do with that? Take over the world? Here let me help
you: I'm heterosexual. Only 5,999,999,999 more people to ask and then boy
will you be powerful.
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:43 MDT