Absurd Law

The dissent and disservice of the whistleblower is the fundamental fact on which the state must orient itself, otherwise it lacks the capacity to follow through the logic of its power. Bringing any high ranking official to his knees (such as Nixon) weakens the the state and forces it to become brutish and insidious. Honor is of the greatest importance.

If you’re going to address the power of the state at all, you have to recognize that you’re addressing a fiction that’s been agreed upon as the modus operandi. The state is always “absurd” in its self-defense. After all, who is going to protect the authority of a supreme court if this court does not protect the authority of the branch that protects it? You can’t address power, which is nothing besides the will to enact itself and never receptive to lesser power, with appeals to laws, it will just change or reinterpret the laws. A revolutionary movement that appeals to laws is thus often damaging to the legislation, as it causes a struggle over the legitimacy of these laws. If a revolution does not kill the old system it will make it stronger for better or worse.

So my natural answer to this conundrum is that to influence the state, the citizen has only one option – appeal to the values as they live within the current population, and not to the document of the law. The law is a derivative of values. It can not create value or manifest them where other values have proven to be more important to the momentum of whatever is in play at any given moment. Laws can facilitate the production and propagation of the value genus they derive from, but time erodes the significance of laws, so contra-entropic forces have to be applied to government to restore its beneficial effect. To American standards, I am conservative toward the spirit of the law and retro-progressive toward the letter.

I know I’m right, but that doesn’t mean that no one of those who were ignorant of the grounding logic of a state has to acknowledge that. Just staying away after your points have been proven invalid is something everyone does once in a while, but as a rule its not graceful.

It is only an issue for God-wannabes.
“The highest purpose of the government is to maintain its power!!” (preached for years during the 70’s and 80’s)

…bullshit.

A state is all or nothing. That is the absurdity.
Absolute trust in the state is the only way for a state to be absolutely benevolent.
Why you ask? Because of the otherwise lingering incentive to suppress.

You know what else the govt can do? Something similar, but that encompasses more, that they’ve had up their sleeve for a long long time??

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_ … ted_States

See this is exactly what I mean. It was instated in 1976, by Nixon’s successor, obviously as a result of Watergate.
Look at what happened to Caesar was assassinated. “Away with the tyrant” was the idea, but what sprouted from it was a lineage of tyrants.

What’s the lesson to be drawn? The government is here to stay, in some form or another, and it must have security that it is carried by the majority of the people. That is always a prerequisite to stability.

The government is stupid, so it is not going to stop until it has the power that it feels it needs. It is going to increase its hold over public opinion if this opinion is radicalizing toward dissent. It is going to chill out somewhat if people get involved in constructive government work.

But the flaws in the system right now (from a perspective of human self valuing) can not be repaired without really stitching some issues back together to form a rational constitution. I’m a retro-constitutionalist, If the New Deal was a Constitution 2.0, I want a 3.0 that is more like the template of the first one. But it has to evidently include racial equality of rights and rights for women and all that. Gay marriage and stuff like that should be left up to the city or parish or whatever where they want to get married. All non-basic moralities should be left up to the region in which they’re practiced - for the single reason that if not, there will necessarily be a dissent in many many many parts of the empire. Dissent dies when the state is totally invisible except in the correction of three types of crimes - inflicting bodily harm, theft and lying in the courtroom. These are the only three of the ten commandments that make sense from the perspective of a state authority.

I think we can basically re-write the state like that. We can’t fight what it does now but we can fight why and how it will do in the future what it says that it does now. Its prerogative is to exist as justifying its own power. For that it requires justifying values, a constituency, a reflection in the form of a mandate. It will always value its citizens in terms of its prerogative.

The prerogative of the state is to have the permission to exist. Whether it does this by appealing to the values it was at its foundation meant to represent, or by simply forcing people to comply, is of course of grave importance to us humans, but not ultimately to the states logic. We, or our ancestors rather, have created this logic again and again. The logic has now acquired nuclear weapons so we are basically stuck with it. There has to be a state, and ideally, this state has the perfect mandate.

We are never getting rid of the state. If we try to get rid of it, it will try to get rid of us.

We are the state dude.

That’s basically my point, but the context where that’s made is that the state pretty ill at this point in time. So where does that leave us? As doing something wrong obviously. We’re not there to maintain the state. Well you are, I think you’re an extremely good citizen doing a lot of people rational services. But - well yes. We are the state.

We are the state but most of us are disavowing the state. When parts of the body begin to disavow the body, that’s bad for the body and it can’t maintain the other parts anymore.

Nooo… that was the intent.
The “State” got usurped and convinced that its adversary is it own people, “You are either with us or a terrorist”.

It is an insidious game, not easy to resolve… until you see the only solution. At that point, all the “problems” go away.

James, Americans aren’t terrorists.

Jesus. Can we get a real discussion going around here?

I fundamentally agree with this. But what do you do in the case of a nation that isn’t a community, and is encouraged to have completely different sets of values? We’re approaching a point where our relationship to State authorities is purely financial.

The problem here is that as a conservative, the value of a transparent state (along with every other political value) isn’t pure. It’s nice to have a transparent state, but it’s also nice to have an effective intelligence/counter intelligence/law enforcement mechanism, and one conflicts with the other. This issue, and issues like it, are an example of those two values being in conflict, and by definition there’s not going to be a simple or objective answer. A person can SAY “I don’t give a shit about security, so the answer is this,” or “I don’t give a shit about privacy, so the answer is that,” but both of those people are just being foolish ideologues.
That’s sort of been my point here, or at least the idea motivating my points, in these discussions- if you deny the US Gov’t the ability to spy on citizens’ telecommunications, you are most likely denying them access to what is going to be THE single most important sort of intelligence, which every rival agency is going to be using against us.

The ancient protection against such “rival agencies” is the best one, “Salt”. And with the new technologies, it is even better.

What does that mean?

Yes, it is an Absurd Law but absurdity is relative.
Most state laws are absurd.

The real problem with the secret data collection is very rarely discussed: blackmail and defamation.
The data is collected to secretly coerce anybody and everybody.

The state is an illusion.
The reality is that secret thugs can control (politicians, judges, you and me) through their ability to blackmail, to destroy reputations by falsefying the World Wide Web and to disappear people.

Our achilles heel is technology: every single mobile device whether it is on or off is sending our individual geographic position on Earth and time to the data centers. Every where you have been and will be in the future are documented and discoverable in real time.

Most state laws are absurd?

That’s a pretty bold one.

I have a feeling that you hold some absurd beliefs about how society either is or how you think it ought be.

Do you care to discuss?

That’s what was just doing.

Thats what politics is. The dialectic of pure negation.

“Hegel is an incinerator oven. I just threw him in it.” - Parodites