Shielding Wrongness?

Prompted by “Majority of Americans OK With Warrantless Internet Surveillance”:

A new poll conducted by the Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research gathered opinions on the U.S. government’s surveillance of internet communications. The poll found that a majority of Americans, 56%, were in favor of warrantless surveillance.

I don’t know if we should trust polling data, but my gut combined with the lack of obvious public outrage over the idiocy of warrantless anything concludes the sheeple among the people have chosen idiocy.

Ready to quickly publish Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote about liberty and security (after searching for it), I ran across this

I started looking into this quotation because I am writing a frontal attack on the idea that liberty and security exist in some kind of “balance” with one another […]

In short, Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade.

Mr. Franklin wasn’t upholding the common sense popularly and righteously concluding that liberty and security can’t both be maximized (they need to be balanced right), according to that author, but some confusing idea apparently mixing security and liberty together to the point where spin easily takes over (and maybe sells some books for some relevant one)?

Objectively (so fairly and therefore justly) speaking, liberty is the condition of being free from restriction or control.

Security is directly reducing liberty, factually speaking.

Even if the endgame is an indirect boost to liberty (e.g. protecting society from constant and widespread barbaric raids), the loss of some liberty to government pressure is absolute.

The liberty lost in the case of military defense applies only to soldiers making the honorable commitment, so that form of security (liberty loss) makes sense.

Regardless of the comparison and validity of security and liberty in any case, the right question in this case, however…

Is warrantless anything an improvement in security?

Putting aside the odds of getting hit by a terrorist attack resting with the victims of lightning strikes (roughly but fairly speaking), and the unhealthy stress from government oppression is far more likely and concerning to the masses, the growing loss of control over the most important tool for the public in history (the Internet) should not be taken lightly.

Logically the only strength against a rogue oligarchy is an organized masses.

The Internet is critical for that organization, so it should be wisely defended by the masses as their own, because the ultimate balance of power within humanity is the one between the oligarchy and everyone else (nationally and internationally).

Liberty in a civilized sense is the unalienable right to liberty, so the limit of your liberty is the right itself. That logically means the government (and/or the sheeple) have no authority to take away that right in any sense. Validity of that lacking authority serves to prevent the abuse of law (such abuse at least arguably the grossest insecurity).

Sticking your head in the sand is also popularly considered wise security.

Perhaps the odds of being crushed by a rogue oligarchy (e.g. Stalin’s insane rule crushing millions of innocent lives) is small for most generations, but the signs (excessively fictitious economy for short-term elitist benefit, presidential candidate and all other guilty elitists operating clearly above the law, warrantless anything, etc.) at least strongly suggests that the generations caught holding the abusive oligarchical bag are hovering around fruition.

Liberty Shield requires the true enemy of society (stupidity) be minimized for humanity’s survival — otherwise, humanity clearly isn’t worth saving, right?

That starts with strong leadership (ultimately real security).

By strong, I mean sincerely caring about public safety (humanity) as the method towards a better life for us all.

That care is utterly absent for all intents and purposes.

There’s no security.

There’s no liberty.

There’s the global dominance of reason abuse and thuggery by way of stupidity.

The global invitation to Big Brother has strong momentum to keep us “safe”.

If you loathe that invitation (i.e. if you’re intelligent), then get involved now.

Nothing shy of posterity is counting on us to right the shield.

I am an honest freak (or reasonably responsibly balanced "misfit", if you prefer) of an artist working and resting to best carefully contribute towards helping society. Too many people abuse reasoning (e.g. 'partial truth = whole truth' scam), while I exercise reason to explore and express whole truth without any conflict-of-interest -- all within a sometimes offbeat style of psychedelic artistry.

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in Liberty Shield
One comment on “Shielding Wrongness?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

my pEarthly and earthly self blended together via the energy of the reality "There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them." – Niels Bohr

Feel free to join us in seamlessly riding our boundless community waves.

Fun through serious, my carefully formed results are honest and usually offer a freshly unique view.

Follow Spirit Wave Journal on
Thank You
Thank you for your undeniably necessary role for (and as part of) my beloved 3Fs (family, friends, and fans).
Help Needed

Helping raise awareness and any other constructive way to participate in our growing community is equally appreciated.

Legal Disclaimer

Spirit Wave (“entertainer” herein) disclaims that entertainer only publicly posts content (“entertainment” herein) for entertainment purposes only. You (the reader of this sentence) agree to the fullest extent permissible by law that entertainer is not liable for any damage. Moreover, entertainer never advocates breaking the law, so any expression involving drug use is addressed solely to anyone capable of lawfully engaging in that use.

%d bloggers like this: