On Politicians

In the Guantanamo context, I was talking specifically about the right to trial and the presumption of "innocent until proven guilty" that is supposed to be conferred to everyone in the US justice system.

 

Pretty sure my answer would be obvious here. The US (and many other governments) have abridged human rights a great many times, and in a great many ways.

This is wrong.

I take it you're not a Big Bang type.

Or a Chaos Theory type. Go forth my butterflies!

But seriously, on a Cosmic scale, how can you know that the ripples have no effect? Far too little time has passed, to know how the chain of events started by an individual or group of individuals will impact the Universe in the long run.

An "Inevitability" argument.

It presupposes that things will happen regardless of how individuals influence things. For example...

One of the common tropes of Time Travel speculation, is: "what would you do with it?"

One of the most common tropes for answers is : "go back in time and kill Hitler!"

While there are many other questions involved (the nature of time travel, the moral dilemma involved in punishing someone before the crimes they've committed have even occurred, whether or not it would not be more effective to instead teach him a better way, etc.)

However, the Inevitability argument essentially argues that Germany, or at least WW2, would have gone that way anyway, even if Hitler himself were removed from the equation. While that specific argument is not, I think, what you're stating (you might classify WW2 as a "random fluctuation" for example, and while essential for pushing forward the Globalist movement, not necessarily essential), it's the type of argument you're making.

"The renaissance would have gone forward without the specifics" Giotto's popularizing of a painting style could have, eventually, been mimicked by another, or even a different style becoming emblematic of the arts of that time.

It's an interesting argument mind, but I don't put much stock into it. There are a couple reasons for this.

1. My inherent cynicism. My cynicism states that not everyone would be capable of pushing forward certain events and especially certain results. In theory, it's possible, but what is possible does not always come to pass. Hitler accomplished great (terrible) things as a ruler of Germany, and while in theory someone else could have taken his place, or repeated/initialized those efforts and results in a similar fashion, but it would likely come at a different time, which means a very solid chance for different results, even without the individual factors involved. Many events can turn on individual choices.

2. My inherent optimism. There's no reason to believe that people can't have an impact as an individual. It being "just the way humans look at it" doesn't make it inaccurate.

I disagree. First of all, the inventors of the signal devices. While it might have been made eventually, the timing would likely have been different. This changes the content of the signals, as well as the window of opportunity for a reception by another entity.

Second of all, again, the content. The content is likely to be jibberish (even if it's intact, which is also incredibly unlikely given the interference available in the universe). However, jibberish can be interpreted in different ways. Heck, non-jibberish can be interpreted in different ways. For example, Trump makes a speech about some illegal immigrants not being the "best" their respective cultures can offer. Obama had made a similar speech a while ago, one gets called "racist" and the other gets a pass. Jibberish is more open to interpretation by it's very nature, but it is still limited, to a point.

No, it's ONE realistic expectation... but it's not the only one. Besides, being dead doesn't mean we don't have an impact, it just limits how much of an impact can be accomplished in the long run, or, more accurately, how many opportunities we have to make an impact (or multiple impacts more likely).

Except that that signal was sent by an individual (or rather, several individuals), and as mentioned, interpretation is vast, but still limited. Besides that, being a catalyst for a pre-existing movement can easily lead to a larger overall impact. It can easily change the timing, duration, and result of that movement.

For example. Say there's a pre-existing movement in Ukraine by separatists that wish for a different government. The results of that type of movement can easily be impacted by an individuals contributions. Say a fellow named George Soros pours millions into supporting the protesters and rebels. This can easily embolden the movement and cause it to move earlier, with more strength, etc. than it would have had otherwise. That can easily change the fate of that rebellion and thus the entire Nation itself, as well as any nations that choose to involve themselves, such as NATO or Russia.

Even if they would have acted eventually on their own, their success (the "details") and/or timing might be different, leading to different results for all involved parties. Perhaps instead of "now" it would have been delayed for decades, and had a vastly different political landscape surrounding it, which both influences the result and makes the action itself have different influence on the other players.

Cosmically, this in itself does not make much of a difference, certainly. However, it could, in theory, be the difference between Nuclear War and Not Nuclear War. A feather that breaks the camel's back, or the single extra hand that holds it together. So long as Not Nuclear War persists, humans have a much better chance, and many more chances, at having a Universal Impact. And that would have been, in part, due to the individual impact of George Soros.

That would, of course, not mean he would be to blame, (or to be praised) pending the result, at least not beyond the immediate results. But that ripple an bounce around and the nature and shape of the wave, particularly as it bounces around and interacts with all the other ripples.


TL;DR: I don't buy Inevitability, even on the cosmic scale. I think it's based too much on presumption of an immutable Fate (for lack of a better term). But it is fun to think about and examine.

 

Ahh, in that context, I completely agree, a government shouldn't claim that something is a human right then ignore that claim when convenient. That said, I haven't expected my government to follow through on what it says since I was in high school.

 

I actually do believe in Inevitability. I believe that everything ultimately falls under one rule: Cause and Effect. What we perceive as random events are actually events that we cannot observe all of the minute details that sum up to the cause. What we believe are decisions are actually events that could only have one outcome based on all of the contributing factors.

When Chaos Theory is explained in Jurassic Park by the water drop rolling down the back of the hand, the drop had only one path to take based on the position the drop fell from, the velocity of the helicopter, the moisture of her hand, the trail from the previous drop, the ambient temperature, the impurities in the water, and a multitude of other factors that I cannot even consider.

 

You haven't watched the original Jurassic Park? I was wrong, the scene was in a car, not on a helicopter. I linked the video below. As for what you said about stopping the water drop from hitting the ground, that's easy enough to do. You catch it in a cupped hand and drink it or wait for it to evaporate off your skin. Does that change the world? I doubt it, but our brains are not complex enough to take into account all the factors that cause an event to happen.

 

Thread went too deep for this employed little gnome. Best of luck to all.

Prepare for the worst, but hope for the best. But really prepare for the worst. Savvy?

 

Nor do I, it's just a hypothetical for the sake of discussing interesting concepts.

 

Been reading through this. Interesting discussions.

I'd just like to add, similar to Sok's annoyance at the UK 36% votes still 51% seats of the tories, that while I dislike many facets of political systems around the world I have the utmost dislike for the american system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's how I think it goes.

• Presidential elections. Instead of voting for X or Y, I have to vote for A, B, or C who tells me beforehand he/she will vote for X or Y. Apparently A, B, or C can still change his vote afer receiving my own, which blows my mind. Every state has a set numbe of A,B, or C's for that state and X & Y gotta catch 'em all. Large states be tripping. Bush beats Al Gore with less votes from the people, but has more A, B, or C's so he wins. Which seems to me that some votes are worth more than others, which is freaky in a democracy.

Note that I only watch it from afar, reading what I see in my "highest European standard newspaper", which is no doubt biased. I do scour the internet for some info on certain US political issues, but how much do I really know? Not much, most likely.

Anyhow, with that said, help me out. I'm confused on how this is supposed to be "we the people".

 

Oh and, I believe that the simple fact that people running for any kind of office sponsor their own runs, thus accepting bribes- I mean funds from people with no special interest in stopping/passing laws, is enough to make me feel like the whole system is rotten/corrupt.

Please don't hate me.

 

That's a bit simplified, but yes, the Electoral College can do some weird Bane Shift regarding the popular vote. The thing is, America isn't and never was a democracy, despite Americans claiming that that's what the country "stands for" or whatever. It's barely even a "Democratic Republic," which is what it's officially labeled as.

In my opinion, it's more akin to a republic with strong oligarchical elements and a bunch of other complicating Bane Shift tacked on, especially if you consider things like lobbying, gerrymandering, campaign funding systems, incumbency, and party politics.

tl;dr: American political system sucks, buff pls.

 

USA is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. But most American peeps go on and on and on about "the greatest democracy" or "our democracy" as if that word is good, wise, and/or noble. How do I benefit in a "democracy" if the laws reward corruption, theft, raping, lies, and violence against the innocent???

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
― Benjamin Franklin

America is currently a Crony Capitalist Oligarchy. Dems are intraspecies predators, and so are most Repubs. A Repub faction is in rebellion against the Kraptastic Oligarchy, as are libertarians and minarchists and anarchists and other groups too. It is my hope and prayer that the "Elephant" will be killed, eaten, and replaced with a REAL opposition party... or it will receive chemotherapy and radiation tx and surgery to remove the proglodytes and start afresh as a REAL opposition party to the--fittingly--Jack A$$ party. The Kraptastic Oligarchy will continue to plunder, lie, and perpetrate violence against the innocent until nothing is left for anyone in this region. And that, too, is a reset button. Reality will win. Eventually. It always does, and it always will.

 

You are correct that votes practically count differing amounts in the US; as far as I know that was more of a feature than a bug to make sure the urban population wouldn't dominate politics over the rural population. Of which one may think what he wants

 

Note that this is not necessarily to be confused with counting different votes, such as here:



(There are other videos, and I'm sure including forced Republican votes, but this is both recent and raw.)


Also, it baffles me that identification is usually NOT required for voting, but it is required for say driving or buying booze. Sweet, delicious booze.*

*cough*

*(I don't actually drink much or often. Maybe I'll have a bit at a party every couple of years or something. Part of the problem is that I haven't found any beers worth drinking beyond Root Beer yet, and that I don't care for most grape wines. I do enjoy a good whiskey, scotch, or mead, but it's not something I'd drink regularly, and in my area most people are focused on grape wine at parties anyway.)

On a completely unrelated note, DarkGelitine reminded me of this:
http://www.icij.org/blog/2014/03/kleptocrats-hiding-funds-us-warned-we-will-find-you

Which I find hilariously ironic.

The whole basis of Civil Asset Forfeiture is to charge inanimate objects with a crime, and seize them even without charging anyone in current possession of those objects (including money). Since they aren't charging someone, they don't have to prove their guilt prior to seizure. Since it is a "civil" action the funds are not afforded protection under the Fourth Amendment (which supposedly protects against all unwarranted searches and seizures) and indeed the person who possessed the object(s) (including most commonly money) gets no chance to defend themselves or said possessions in court, short of suing the department/organization that took it (and good luck with that once they've taken all your money).

Often it can result in cases like this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...lls-poker-game-seizes-cash-terrifies-players/

Why settle for $500 a head when you can charge their MONEY with a "crime" and take even more? Plus, you've got to pay that SWAT team's salary somehow...

 

I think the main thing, from my perspective, is that individual humans are capable of borrowing or stealing a great deal of force above and beyond what their own bodies and minds are normally putting out. For example, I could give a rough explanation of how the internet works, but I doubt I'd be able to rebuild it from scratch, maybe if I "borrowed" the power of others, but that's the point.

By borrowing the technology of the internet that someone else made, I can have greater influence and power than I would have had without it (or in some cases less). Information is more readily available and my poorly written rantings can reach more people. Yet the inventor of the internet is in no way determinant of my actions.

This is, of course, still very small scale.

The point, however, is that it shows how power can be borrowed (or, if hypothetically I were to be tapping into my neighbors internet connection, stolen). The scale and degree goes beyond technology. While many animals will work together to varying degrees, the ability to communicate complex ideas, and to absorb or combine with other groups of humans means that an individual or group of them could potentially amass a great deal of power.

While that power is not strictly limited to that Individual in a direct and literal sense, it is tied to their choices.

Washington would not have accomplished much of anything without an army, and the individuals comprising that army, but it is still through his use of their power that accomplishments were made (albeit not right away, he did lose a lot at first after all). He was not alone, but much credit goes to his individual choices of how to use what was given to him. Where that power given to someone else, different results may have occured, which would shape future trends in a different way.

You're thinking small scale. And that I think is where we disagree. You're talking about immediate impact on a universal scale. It takes time to accumulate power, and to get it under the control/direction of an individual or group of individuals.

An individuals actions can lead to shaping trends, which can be manipulated to accumulate power.

For example, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. The US Military claimed that North Vietnamese attacked the USS Maddox, a Destroyer. Because of this claim, it prompted support for engaging North Vietnam and allying with South Vietnam.

However, it came out later that there was no such attack. All the power that people put into fighting that "conflict" into enacting and enabling the Draft, was stolen from them via lies and deceit.

In in a similar time-frame world, the US Government, primarily through the CIA and military Intelligence, had funded, trained, and created Al-Qaeda as a means of organizing resistance against Russia within Afghanistan during the Cold War. Indeed "Al-Qaeda" means: "The base" and is a reference to a list of "freedom fighters" that the CIA had created, or a database in this specific instance.

Now, the US Government through the same means, "accidentally" drops supplies and weapons for ISIS in areas like Iraq, as well as purposefully providing supplies and training in areas like Syria.

These things are like the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. They are attempts to sway the public, in multiple areas, in order to create a conflict.

That in itself is still relatively small scale, but it is also merely a means to an end. "Divide and Conquer." The "Heads of the Snake" (the actual ones mind you) are pushing for more and more instability, this instability can be used to gather power to governments and international bodies like the UN and EU (and later the TPP, should that get passed). More and more centralization of power by concentrating it in local areas first, and then concentrating local powers into regional powers, until finally the regional powers are localized under one central world government, or "governance" or governing body or whatever they decide to call it.

It takes time, and has limited success in some cases, but it is an attempt to steal away the power of the world and concentrate it into a few individuals. Already there has been some success, but that success has also created a backlash, as people have borrowed or stolen other power, especially that of the internet and the information it provides.

However, a centralized power-base can also co-opt the internet. Already there are local examples of pushing for precisely this. The FCC for example recently claimed jurisdiction over the Internet in spite of any action by Congress to grant that agency such jurisdiction. If they can successfully claim and hold onto that power, and consolidate it further, it would be a relatively simple matter to take away one of the sources of de-centralized human power and use it to further their own ends.

This would shape the "trends" of the planet, and allow large-scale manipulation not before possible or seen. The individual would be able to guide the "wave" into a new direction.

The sun would still rise, but the accumulated power could be used to alter part of the solar system in some small way, for better or for worse.

Just as there are those that are trying to illegitimately steal power through fraud, violence, and puppetry, it is potentially possible for someone or some group to legitimately borrow that power.

I mentioned Mars One before in another post. I currently don't have much thought to its success. My main hope is that the likely deaths that result from an earnest attempt don't set back future attempts too much. My other main hope is that it's not some elaborate con-game to try and steal people's money.

But think about this. Terra-forming a planet is time-consuming, but the technology most certainly exists. If the world's humans used the majority of excess power (that used beyond survival) towards colonizing Mars, I think it would most certainly be successful.

The sun would still rise, but an expanded territory of humans would allow for greater gathering and use of resources. It might, eventually, even be possible to gather up enough power to destroy a few moons outright. At the very least, it might allow for a significant change in planetary rotations, any of which would be a significant change to at least part of the Solar System. Or it could be used to possibly further expand humanity, to expand the potential human power.

Of course, as human territory expands, the ability to unify it will become, likely, less difficult, pending how and why the expansion succeeded.

This is why "timing" is important. A revolution that happens "too soon" or "too late" for the "optimal outcome" (pending your view of "optimal") can provide setbacks in terms of utilization of human potential. To the point that if it gets "set back" enough it could end up consuming itself, thus, no human impact on the Solar scale, let alone universal...

Well, pending how thoroughly life on Earth is able to be destroyed or recover, and in what form.


The actions that individual take now, have a great impact on future trends, whether or not they can be harnessed, and towards what aims if they are.

In modern times, by borrowing the power of that which went into make explosives, or other such convetions, it is possible for an individual to literally move mountains (okay, destroy them and put the rubble somewhere else), shape rivers, etc. This is a great increase from before, and part of that is the "natural" progression of technology. However, it is also impacted by the social limitations as well, and Society is a mixture of results from human action, and the timing in relation to technology and natural occurrence.

If the South had won the US Civil war, it is likely that Slavery would still have been phased out, but the culture of both societies would likely have been different. The laws and conventions of each would have been different, as would their reactions to later events (provided they even still happened). This would have an impact on how easy it is to "move mountains" in either place, which in turn impacts later timing and other issues.


TL;DR: Humans have an advance capability to, as individuals, gather up power beyond our initial means by borrowing or stealing that power. Thus, individuals can have more impact, which can shape future trends (although not always directly of course) as well. By shaping trends, more power can be accumulated (or granted) to an individual or group thereof. That power can be used to expand or contract human power in a general sense, which impacts both trends, and the degree to which an individual can influence things (and rarely symmetrically).

What we as humans do currently does not have a direct impact on the Solar System, but can impact how much and what (if any) life grows on the Earth. We also have the potential to impact how much and what (if any) life grows on other Planets or celestial bodies, and the decisions of which direction is taken is largely up to individuals.

From there it is not unreasonable to believe that additional territory, time, and resources could lead to enabling individuals to have a greater impact on the Solar System itself.

However, the timing is still important. Human life cannot be taken for granted. It is postulated by many that the Earth is rapidly (in a cosmic sense) approaching another Extinction Level Event, whether man-made or otherwise.

Since timing of events along with individual choices helps to shape society, which helps shape future trends, this means that it is entirely possible that humans will be "stuck" at merely controlling life on Earth, and never reach the Solar System level, let alone the Galactic level, let alone the Universal level, let alone the theorized Multi-Verse level, or whatever may be beyond that.

But it is also possible that we may reach those heights, where an individual can have an impact on a greater scale than hereto-fore seen.

Though I'd never claim it could be done with any ease or particular regularity.

EDIT:
Also:

Clearly you have not seen Armageddon

What is with your lackluster consumption of silly movies?

 

Tr-rrrrr-IPLE POST!

(Sorry, this one will be much shorter)

Basic flow (how I see it): Individual acts: creates a flow of events. Base Power expands or contracts, ease of utilizing power as an Individual expands or contracts.

For example, X does creates infrastructure or refines a new resource, borrowing power from Y people to do so. If people like the new infrastructure, it'll make it easier for people to use that infrastructure to borrow or steal power, as well as possibly increase base individual power. If people don't like it, it might get torn down, making it much more difficult to borrow or steal power to create something similar. Whether or not people like it will likely be up to how it is initially used. This is why gradual shifts towards centralization of power can be effective.

"Here are some roads to go with our new invention of 'the car'. Enjoy!"

"Well, these commercial trucks are tearing up these public roads, it's only fair we have them buy a license and help pay for maintenance, right?"

"You must have a state driver's license, it's only fair right?"

"You should have proof of insurance to be able to drive, what if you get stuck in an accident?"

"You need proof of insurance and valid identification, as well as to have your vehicle registered, and be at least X years old."

(That might not be the precise flow of events mind you, I never looked into it with great detail.)

And it goes on from there as well, there's a push for a Federal identification card, with the TSA announcing that you'll need a Federally approved ID (not just any state's ID mind) in order to fly.

Point being by shaping the "trend" it became easier and easier to accumulate additional regulatory and legal power, and by doing it generally step by step there was relatively little resistance. Now, this may or may not be a "good" result and it may or may not last, but if it were to change it would be primarily due to re-shaping the trend, either directly with people lobbying for more liberty, or indirectly by pushing people too far and causing a general back-lash, or something completely different. Such a shift would make it more difficult to borrow people's power for that specific exercise but it might make it easier to borrow power for something else, or it might increase Base individual power and make it harder to borrow power for anything period, pending the results.

 

You might want to look into writing a column or book at this point.

 

sok is canadian, their pop culture involves less bruce willis and more bathing in maple syrup