The end of secrecy

[alal...@gmail.com]

I hate secrets. And lies. The government lies to me, and operates in secrecy. In the future, I hope for an end to secrecy. Fully transparent government, means all government officials will be under 24/7 surveillance (by AIs) to ensure open, ethical, and legal government. All surveillance should also be made available to the public. Instead of surveillance of the public, we will have surveillance of the government. As people have a tendency to lie and cheat, and act in their own self-interest, this step is necessary to ensure that government serves the public.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Ye shall, know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

alal...@gmail.com wrote in
news:fc719494-44e9-4f13...@googlegroups.com:

> I hate secrets.

Just because you want something to not be true doesn't mean it's not,
no matter how hard you stomp your feet and yell "I'M NOT LISTENING!"

Plus, of course, you're stupid.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

In article <fc719494-44e9-4f13...@googlegroups.com>

alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I hate secrets. And lies. The government lies to me, and operates in secrecy. In the future, I hope for an end to secrecy. Fully transparent government, means all government officials will be under 24/7 surveillance (by AIs) to ensure open, ethical, and legal government. All surveillance should also be made available to the public. Instead of surveillance of the public, we will have surveillance of the government. As people have a tendency to lie and cheat, and act in their own self-interest, this step is necessary to ensure that government serves the public.

Everybody has secrets.

Which government is it that you want to commit suicide in this
manner?


Adamastor Glace Mortimer

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iEYEAREKAAYFAlm/hLwACgkQ1vVH2r/FDv2y1ACfRvNXsvLl5xxbi/51UWTVY+CO
W7gAn3Ea+XyO6NhljOrParA1IIxTuKZW
=5U1D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[alal...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 5:01:05 PM UTC+5:30, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> In article <fc719494-44e9-4f13...@googlegroups.com>
> alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I hate secrets. And lies. The government lies to me, and operates in secrecy. In the future, I hope for an end to secrecy. Fully transparent government, means all government officials will be under 24/7 surveillance (by AIs) to ensure open, ethical, and legal government. All surveillance should also be made available to the public. Instead of surveillance of the public, we will have surveillance of the government. As people have a tendency to lie and cheat, and act in their own self-interest, this step is necessary to ensure that government serves the public.
>
> Everybody has secrets.
>
> Which government is it that you want to commit suicide in this
> manner?

In the future, I hope for the establishment of a world government. Which will bring an end to war and economic inequality, with no local, and only global defence forces, and redistribution of wealth from the rich to poor. A global transparent participatory meritocracy. By participatory, I mean that everyone will be required to serve the public for a limited time period. By meritocratic, I mean that what function and level people serve at, will be determined by objective tests.

We are not ready yet, and perhaps we will never be, but we won't know until we try.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor



>
>

[Kevrob]

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 7:56:57 AM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 5:01:05 PM UTC+5:30, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> > In article <fc719494-44e9-4f13...@googlegroups.com>
> > alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I hate secrets. And lies. The government lies to me, and operates in secrecy. In the future, I hope for an end to secrecy. Fully transparent government, means all government officials will be under 24/7 surveillance (by AIs) to ensure open, ethical, and legal government. All surveillance should also be made available to the public. Instead of surveillance of the public, we will have surveillance of the government. As people have a tendency to lie and cheat, and act in their own self-interest, this step is necessary to ensure that government serves the public.
> >
> > Everybody has secrets.
> >
> > Which government is it that you want to commit suicide in this
> > manner?
>
> In the future, I hope for the establishment of a world government. Which will bring an end to war and economic inequality, with no local, and only global defence forces, and redistribution of wealth from the rich to poor. A global transparent participatory meritocracy. By participatory, I mean that everyone will be required to serve the public for a limited time period.

Oh, good. Reintroducing human slavery to those parts of the
world where it hasn't been stamped out.

> By meritocratic, I mean that what function and level people serve at, will be determined by objective tests.
>

We just have to have TOP MEN in charge, huh?

> We are not ready yet, and perhaps we will never be, but we won't know until we try.

Who gets to be "Wings Over The World?" Not you, I hope.

Your utopian scheme smells like centralized tyranny.

It's like the 20th century never happened for you, isn't it?

Kevin R

[alal...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 5:56:32 PM UTC+5:30, Kevrob wrote:
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 7:56:57 AM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 5:01:05 PM UTC+5:30, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA512
> > >
> > > In article <fc719494-44e9-4f13...@googlegroups.com>
> > > alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I hate secrets. And lies. The government lies to me, and operates in secrecy. In the future, I hope for an end to secrecy. Fully transparent government, means all government officials will be under 24/7 surveillance (by AIs) to ensure open, ethical, and legal government. All surveillance should also be made available to the public. Instead of surveillance of the public, we will have surveillance of the government. As people have a tendency to lie and cheat, and act in their own self-interest, this step is necessary to ensure that government serves the public.
> > >
> > > Everybody has secrets.
> > >
> > > Which government is it that you want to commit suicide in this
> > > manner?
> >
> > In the future, I hope for the establishment of a world government. Which will bring an end to war and economic inequality, with no local, and only global defence forces, and redistribution of wealth from the rich to poor. A global transparent participatory meritocracy. By participatory, I mean that everyone will be required to serve the public for a limited time period.
>
> Oh, good. Reintroducing human slavery to those parts of the
> world where it hasn't been stamped out.

In slavery, people are generally not paid for their services. Even in USA, in the 20th century people were forced to serve in the military. Here, people will be compensated for their time, and won't have to kill anybody.

>
> > By meritocratic, I mean that what function and level people serve at, will be determined by objective tests.
> >
>
> We just have to have TOP MEN in charge, huh?

Are you one of those people, who like having Trump in charge? Trump is a failure as a businessman: he would be several times richer, if he invested in index funds, rather than in his own businesses. Trump is also prejudiced against minorities, like Mexicans and Muslims.

The most intellectually capable people should be in charge.

>
>
> > We are not ready yet, and perhaps we will never be, but we won't know until we try.
>
> Who gets to be "Wings Over The World?" Not you, I hope.
>
> Your utopian scheme smells like centralized tyranny.
>
> It's like the 20th century never happened for you, isn't it?

The 20th century saw two world wars, and increasing economic inequality (at the end of the 20th century). With a global political and economic union, there will be open borders, and no national militaries. With global security, there will be no more wars between nations. Like the Eurozone.

Wealth will flow from the rich to the poor, providing a basic income, providing education and infrastructure.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
>

> Kevin R

[Kevrob]

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:58:32 AM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 5:56:32 PM UTC+5:30, Kevrob wrote:
> > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 7:56:57 AM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 5:01:05 PM UTC+5:30, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > Hash: SHA512
> > > >
> > > > In article <fc719494-44e9-4f13...@googlegroups.com>
> > > > alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I hate secrets. And lies. The government lies to me, and operates in secrecy. In the future, I hope for an end to secrecy. Fully transparent government, means all government officials will be under 24/7 surveillance (by AIs) to ensure open, ethical, and legal government. All surveillance should also be made available to the public. Instead of surveillance of the public, we will have surveillance of the government. As people have a tendency to lie and cheat, and act in their own self-interest, this step is necessary to ensure that government serves the public.
> > > >
> > > > Everybody has secrets.
> > > >
> > > > Which government is it that you want to commit suicide in this
> > > > manner?
> > >
> > > In the future, I hope for the establishment of a world government. Which will bring an end to war and economic inequality, with no local, and only global defence forces, and redistribution of wealth from the rich to poor. A global transparent participatory meritocracy. By participatory, I mean that everyone will be required to serve the public for a limited time period.
> >
> > Oh, good. Reintroducing human slavery to those parts of the
> > world where it hasn't been stamped out.
>
> In slavery, people are generally not paid for their services. Even in USA, in the 20th century people were forced to serve in the military. Here, people will be compensated for their time, and won't have to kill anybody.
>

Slavery with pay is still slavery. It may be temporary slavery, and that
is less awful than lifelong slavery, but it is slavery still. Do I
oppose military conscription? You are damned right, I do.

> >
> > > By meritocratic, I mean that what function and level people serve at, will be determined by objective tests.
> > >
> >
> > We just have to have TOP MEN in charge, huh?
>
> Are you one of those people, who like having Trump in charge?

You have no reason to assume that.

Anybody who has read this group or rec.arts.sf.fandom for awhile will
know I'm a libertarian, who votes Libertarian, not Republican.

> Trump is a failure as a businessman: he would be several times richer, if he invested in index funds, rather than in his own businesses. Trump is also prejudiced against minorities, like Mexicans and Muslims.
>

I know all this. He's a crony capitalist. These are just the types
who would be entrenched in a technocratic scheme such as you propose.

> The most intellectually capable people should be in charge.
>

This old wheeze goes back to Plato, and that trick never works,
to quote another great philosopher.

> >
> >
> > > We are not ready yet, and perhaps we will never be, but we won't know until we try.
> >
> > Who gets to be "Wings Over The World?" Not you, I hope.
> >
> > Your utopian scheme smells like centralized tyranny.
> >
> > It's like the 20th century never happened for you, isn't it?
>
> The 20th century saw two world wars, and increasing economic inequality (at the end of the 20th century). With a global political and economic union, there will be open borders, and no national militaries. With global security, there will be no more wars between nations. Like the Eurozone.
>

The Communists were aiming at a global political and economic
union, and the Nazis were at least trying to establish a "Eurozone,"
as was Napolean in earlier days.

> Wealth will flow from the rich to the poor, providing a basic income, providing education and infrastructure.
>

You get right on that. Maybe you will be able to repeal human
nature where other utopians have failed.

Basic income is likelier to emerge from the wealthier Western
and Asian Tiger economies, seeking an end to bureaucracy-based
government welfare systems.

ObSF: Mack Reynolds' "People's Capitalism?"
Privatizing state resources by issuing shares to the public
has been tried, with very mixed result, in the post-Soviet
east. Trying it in countries that have a tradition of
share-holding and individual investing might end up differently,
or the "immediate sell-off with resources in the hands of a few"
situation might recur.

Kevin R

[Default User]

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 6:31:05 AM UTC-5, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iEYEAREKAAYFAlm/hLwACgkQ1vVH2r/FDv2y1ACfRvNXsvLl5xxbi/51UWTVY+CO
> W7gAn3Ea+XyO6NhljOrParA1IIxTuKZW
> =5U1D
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Oh man, what a blast from the past! I don't know when the last time I saw one of these anon remailer messages was. They used to be such a part of usenet, back when usenet really meant something. Aw, I made myself feel sad.


Brian

[Lynn McGuire]

Hey Mr. Troll,

How many bank accounts do you have, what are the routing numbers, what
are the account numbers, and the balance in each ? I especially want to
know about your bank account in the Bahamas.

Lynn

[Scott Lurndal]

WTF? Not even distantly equivalent. A government "of the people",
"by the people" and "for the people" shouldn't keep secrets "from
the people".

At a minimum, the bar for keeping something secret should be
_very very_ high, and must not be capable of abuse by those
in power to hide malfeasance, stupidity or blind incompetence.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <_PTvB.85922$TH2....@fx02.iad>,

Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:
>>On 9/15/2017 5:31 PM, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I hate secrets. And lies. The government lies to me, and operates
>in secrecy. In the future, I hope for an end to secrecy. Fully
>transparent government, means all government officials will be under
>24/7 surveillance (by AIs) to ensure open, ethical, and legal
>government. All surveillance should also be made available to the
>public. Instead of surveillance of the public, we will have
>surveillance of the government. As people have a tendency to lie and
>cheat, and act in their own self-interest, this step is necessary to
>ensure that government serves the public.
>>>
>>> Abhinav Lal
>>> Writer & Investor
>>>
>>> "Ye shall, know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"
>>
>>Hey Mr. Troll,
>>
>>How many bank accounts do you have, what are the routing numbers, what
>>are the account numbers, and the balance in each ? I especially want to
>>know about your bank account in the Bahamas.
>
>WTF? Not even distantly equivalent. A government "of the people",
>"by the people" and "for the people" shouldn't keep secrets "from
>the people".
>

As I recall, the breakdown of gvt secrecy played a big part in Brin's _Earth_
and Brunner's _Shockwave Rider_.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[alal...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:50:06 PM UTC+5:30, Kevrob wrote:
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:58:32 AM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 5:56:32 PM UTC+5:30, Kevrob wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 7:56:57 AM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 5:01:05 PM UTC+5:30, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
> > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > > Hash: SHA512
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <fc719494-44e9-4f13...@googlegroups.com>
> > > > > alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I hate secrets. And lies. The government lies to me, and operates in secrecy. In the future, I hope for an end to secrecy. Fully transparent government, means all government officials will be under 24/7 surveillance (by AIs) to ensure open, ethical, and legal government. All surveillance should also be made available to the public. Instead of surveillance of the public, we will have surveillance of the government. As people have a tendency to lie and cheat, and act in their own self-interest, this step is necessary to ensure that government serves the public.
> > > > >
> > > > > Everybody has secrets.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which government is it that you want to commit suicide in this
> > > > > manner?
> > > >
> > > > In the future, I hope for the establishment of a world government. Which will bring an end to war and economic inequality, with no local, and only global defence forces, and redistribution of wealth from the rich to poor. A global transparent participatory meritocracy. By participatory, I mean that everyone will be required to serve the public for a limited time period.
> > >
> > > Oh, good. Reintroducing human slavery to those parts of the
> > > world where it hasn't been stamped out.
> >
> > In slavery, people are generally not paid for their services. Even in USA, in the 20th century people were forced to serve in the military. Here, people will be compensated for their time, and won't have to kill anybody.
> >
>
> Slavery with pay is still slavery. It may be temporary slavery, and that
> is less awful than lifelong slavery, but it is slavery still. Do I
> oppose military conscription? You are damned right, I do.

A small sacrifice of your time, like about 2 years, is called for. Are you also against taxation, which is a large sacrifice of your income? If you want government services, why not be willing to serve the public? Instead of people complaining about the government, why not serve in the government?

>
> > >
> > > > By meritocratic, I mean that what function and level people serve at, will be determined by objective tests.
> > > >
> > >
> > > We just have to have TOP MEN in charge, huh?
> >
> > Are you one of those people, who like having Trump in charge?
>
> You have no reason to assume that.
>
> Anybody who has read this group or rec.arts.sf.fandom for awhile will
> know I'm a libertarian, who votes Libertarian, not Republican.
>
> > Trump is a failure as a businessman: he would be several times richer, if he invested in index funds, rather than in his own businesses. Trump is also prejudiced against minorities, like Mexicans and Muslims.
> >
>
> I know all this. He's a crony capitalist. These are just the types
> who would be entrenched in a technocratic scheme such as you propose.

Trump is democratically elected, and represents a failure of democracy. His intelligence is not nearly high enough, to give him the presidency in a meritocracy, or even a high post.

>
> > The most intellectually capable people should be in charge.
> >
>
> This old wheeze goes back to Plato, and that trick never works,
> to quote another great philosopher.
>

Who would you rather lead your government, power hungry demagogues, or smart people who don't particularly care for power?

> > >
> > >
> > > > We are not ready yet, and perhaps we will never be, but we won't know until we try.
> > >
> > > Who gets to be "Wings Over The World?" Not you, I hope.
> > >
> > > Your utopian scheme smells like centralized tyranny.
> > >
> > > It's like the 20th century never happened for you, isn't it?
> >
> > The 20th century saw two world wars, and increasing economic inequality (at the end of the 20th century). With a global political and economic union, there will be open borders, and no national militaries. With global security, there will be no more wars between nations. Like the Eurozone.
> >
>
> The Communists were aiming at a global political and economic
> union, and the Nazis were at least trying to establish a "Eurozone,"
> as was Napolean in earlier days.
>
> > Wealth will flow from the rich to the poor, providing a basic income, providing education and infrastructure.
> >
>
> You get right on that. Maybe you will be able to repeal human
> nature where other utopians have failed.

In a union of nations, the poor in poor countries will head to richer nations to make more money. Centrally collected taxes will transfer wealth from richer to poorer nations. All this will help decrease inequality.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

>

[Kevrob]

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 2:16:17 PM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:50:06 PM UTC+5:30, Kevrob wrote:
> > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:58:32 AM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 5:56:32 PM UTC+5:30, Kevrob wrote:
> > > > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 7:56:57 AM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 5:01:05 PM UTC+5:30, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
> > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > > > Hash: SHA512
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <fc719494-44e9-4f13...@googlegroups.com>
> > > > > > alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I hate secrets. ....

> > > > > >
> > > > > > Everybody has secrets.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which government is it that you want to commit suicide in this
> > > > > > manner?
> > > > >
> > > > > In the future, I hope for the establishment of a world government.

> > > > >..............................

> > > >
> > > > Oh, good. Reintroducing human slavery to those parts of the
> > > > world where it hasn't been stamped out.
> > >
> > > In slavery, people are generally not paid for their services. Even in USA, in the 20th century people were forced to serve in the military. Here, people will be compensated for their time, and won't have to kill anybody.
> > >
> >
> > Slavery with pay is still slavery. It may be temporary slavery, and that
> > is less awful than lifelong slavery, but it is slavery still. Do I
> > oppose military conscription? You are damned right, I do.
>
> A small sacrifice of your time, like about 2 years, is called for.

if i am going to make any "sacrifices," they are going to be voluntary.

> Are you also against taxation, which is a large sacrifice of your income?

In the main, yes. As much as possible, taxes should be reduce to fees
commensurate to the services provided by the jurisdiction, though I would
prvatize as much and as many of those functions as is practical.

> If you want government services,

I don't want many of those, if any.

> why not be willing to serve the public?

Why not leave the poor folks alone?

> Instead of people complaining about the government,
> why not serve in the government?
>

Why bitch about the the problem when you can become the problem?

> >
> > > >
> > > > > By meritocratic, I mean that what function and level people serve at, will be determined by objective tests.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We just have to have TOP MEN in charge, huh?
> > >
> > > Are you one of those people, who like having Trump in charge?
> >
> > You have no reason to assume that.
> >
> > Anybody who has read this group or rec.arts.sf.fandom for awhile will
> > know I'm a libertarian, who votes Libertarian, not Republican.
> >
> > > Trump is a failure as a businessman: he would be several times richer, if he invested in index funds, rather than in his own businesses. Trump is also prejudiced against minorities, like Mexicans and Muslims.
> > >
> >
> > I know all this. He's a crony capitalist. These are just the types
> > who would be entrenched in a technocratic scheme such as you propose.
>
> Trump is democratically elected, and represents a failure of democracy.

Trump was constitutionally elected. The democratic impulse is moderated
by the electoral college, as the Founders designed it.

> His intelligence is not nearly high enough, to give him the presidency in a meritocracy, or even a high post.
>
> >
> > > The most intellectually capable people should be in charge.
> > >
> >
> > This old wheeze goes back to Plato, and that trick never works,
> > to quote another great philosopher.
> >
>
> Who would you rather lead your government, power hungry demagogues, or
> smart people who don't particularly care for power?
>

You try to get the second type, and wind up with the first.
Instances where it is the other way `round are rare.

> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > We are not ready yet, and perhaps we will never be, but we won't know until we try.
> > > >
> > > > Who gets to be "Wings Over The World?" Not you, I hope.
> > > >
> > > > Your utopian scheme smells like centralized tyranny.
> > > >
> > > > It's like the 20th century never happened for you, isn't it?
> > >
> > > The 20th century saw two world wars, and increasing economic inequality (at the end of the 20th century). With a global political and economic union, there will be open borders, and no national militaries. With global security, there will be no more wars between nations. Like the Eurozone.
> > >
> >
> > The Communists were aiming at a global political and economic
> > union, and the Nazis were at least trying to establish a "Eurozone,"
> > as was Napolean in earlier days.
> >
> > > Wealth will flow from the rich to the poor, providing a basic income, providing education and infrastructure.
> > >
> >
> > You get right on that. Maybe you will be able to repeal human
> > nature where other utopians have failed.
>
> In a union of nations, the poor in poor countries will head to richer nations to make more money. Centrally collected taxes will transfer wealth from richer to poorer nations. All this will help decrease inequality.
>

You've never considered the principle of subsidiarity, have you?
Any world union would have to be federal, with significant autonomy
for the constituent members. Centralizing that much would provoke
independence movements and even armed rebellion.

> Abhinav Lal
> Writer & Investor
>

> > Basic income is likelier to emerge from the wealthier Western
> > and Asian Tiger economies, seeking an end to bureaucracy-based
> > government welfare systems.
> >
> > ObSF: Mack Reynolds' "People's Capitalism?"
> > Privatizing state resources by issuing shares to the public
> > has been tried, with very mixed result, in the post-Soviet
> > east. Trying it in countries that have a tradition of
> > share-holding and individual investing might end up differently,
> > or the "immediate sell-off with resources in the hands of a few"
> > situation might recur.

Note: he doesn't want to discuss scientifictional versions of
his "platform planks."

Kevin R

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 04:56:53 -0700 (PDT), alal...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 5:01:05 PM UTC+5:30, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA512
>>
>> In article <fc719494-44e9-4f13...@googlegroups.com>
>> alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > I hate secrets. And lies. The government lies to me, and operates in secrecy. In the future, I hope for an end to secrecy. Fully transparent government, means all government officials will be under 24/7 surveillance (by AIs) to ensure open, ethical, and legal government. All surveillance should also be made available to the public. Instead of surveillance of the public, we will have surveillance of the government. As people have a tendency to lie and cheat, and act in their own self-interest, this step is necessary to ensure that government serves the public.
>>
>> Everybody has secrets.
>>
>> Which government is it that you want to commit suicide in this
>> manner?
>
>In the future, I hope for the establishment of a world government. Which will bring an end to war and economic inequality, with no local, and only global defence forces, and redistribution of wealth from the rich to poor. A global transparent participatory meritocracy. By participatory, I mean that everyone will be required to serve the public for a limited time period. By meritocratic, I mean that what function and level people serve at, will be determined by objective tests.

You mean a dictatorship from which there is no escape.

>We are not ready yet, and perhaps we will never be, but we won't know until we try.

Just move to the Caliphate.

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:59:22 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:
>>On 9/15/2017 5:31 PM, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I hate secrets. And lies. The government lies to me, and operates in secrecy. In the future, I hope for an end to secrecy. Fully transparent government, means all government officials will be under 24/7 surveillance (by AIs) to ensure open, ethical, and legal government. All surveillance should also be made available to the public. Instead of surveillance of the public, we will have surveillance of the government. As people have a tendency to lie and cheat, and act in their own self-interest, this step is necessary to ensure that government serves the public.
>>>
>>> Abhinav Lal
>>> Writer & Investor
>>>
>>> "Ye shall, know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"
>>
>>Hey Mr. Troll,
>>
>>How many bank accounts do you have, what are the routing numbers, what
>>are the account numbers, and the balance in each ? I especially want to
>>know about your bank account in the Bahamas.
>
>WTF? Not even distantly equivalent. A government "of the people",
>"by the people" and "for the people" shouldn't keep secrets "from
>the people".

You mean we should all have the Treasury Department's passcodes and
the combination to Fort Knox?

[Moriarty]

Adamastor Glace Mortimer is a semi-regular who's been posting from anon remailers for years. Why he/she values anonymity so highly, I couldn't say. But it takes all sorts to make the world go around.

-Moriarty

[Greg Goss]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>ObSF: Mack Reynolds' "People's Capitalism?"
>Privatizing state resources by issuing shares to the public
>has been tried, with very mixed result, in the post-Soviet
>east. Trying it in countries that have a tradition of
>share-holding and individual investing might end up differently,
>or the "immediate sell-off with resources in the hands of a few"
>situation might recur.

When I was growing up, the government of my jurisdiction alternated
between a social-democratic party, and a populist rightish-wing plus
megaprojects plus social tolerance party.

The NDP bailed out a number of companies on one-industry towns on the
grounds that it was easier to recapitalize failing companies than to
deal with bankrupt cities.

The next time the rightish "Social Credit" (weird economic theories
long since dumped) government got back in, they didn't like the
government owning all these companies, so they formed a company to own
them all, and gave out free shares to every legal resident. Five
shares were free. Topping up those five to one hundred was a
particular price, and IPO shares beyond those 95 were a slightly
higher price. The company was called "Brick" which wasn't SUPPOSED to
predict the aerodynamics of the stock price.

The resulting company is now long forgotten. (quick google)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Resources_Investment_Corporation

says that Jimmy P (one of BC's "personality" millionaires) bought the
smoking hulk in 1997. I thought it was dead LONG before that.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <f564189c-9d42-4b45...@googlegroups.com>,

Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote:
>
>Adamastor Glace Mortimer is a semi-regular who's been posting from anon
>remailers for years. Why he/she values anonymity so highly, I couldn't
>say. But it takes all sorts to make the world go around.

Which makes it ironic that s/he is demanding an end to secrecy.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[David DeLaney]

On 2017-09-18, Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:58:32 AM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The most intellectually capable people should be in charge.
>
> This old wheeze goes back to Plato, and that trick never works,
> to quote another great philosopher.

And the reason WHY it never works? Is that the most intellectually capable
people are thus most capable of seeing what the job requires, and what it does
to its occupant(s), so they KNOW BETTER than to want to be in charge, and if
force is attempted are also the most capable of evading it creatively and
unexpectedly.

Dave, I mean, seriously, Obama's hair wasn't grey when he started his terms
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[alal...@gmail.com]

The president is not all powerful, and serves a temporary term. That said, dictatorship can be both the best and worst form of government, depending on the character and intelligence of the dictator.

I can't escape from the shadow government that hides under the covers of democracy. My human rights are denied. So I will take a chance with a global transparent participatory meritocracy.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
>

[Scott Lurndal]

Another strawman from Mr. Clarke. Clearly the PAL codes shouldn't
be public (although if the Air Force used anything other than 0000,
they'd probably be more secure).

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <wridnakyHYnXcV3E...@earthlink.com>,

David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>On 2017-09-18, Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:58:32 AM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> The most intellectually capable people should be in charge.
>>
>> This old wheeze goes back to Plato, and that trick never works,
>> to quote another great philosopher.
>
>And the reason WHY it never works? Is that the most intellectually capable
>people are thus most capable of seeing what the job requires, and what it does
>to its occupant(s), so they KNOW BETTER than to want to be in charge, and if
>force is attempted are also the most capable of evading it creatively and
>unexpectedly.
>
>Dave, I mean, seriously, Obama's hair wasn't grey when he started his terms

There's more than one way of giving your life for your country ...

To quote another, um, philosopher, laws are like sausages, you should
never let people see them being made.

[D B Davis]

Bismark sausage goes with mushrooms. Keep them in the dark and feed them
BS.

Thank you,

--
Don

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:wridnakyHYnXcV3E...@earthlink.com:

> Dave, I mean, seriously, Obama's hair wasn't grey when he
> started his terms

Every Preident for which have before and after photos looks a *lot*
older after even a single term. Trump will, too, though the symbiote
he wars on his head may not choose to show it.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:wridnakyHYnXcV3E...@earthlink.com:

> On 2017-09-18, Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:58:32 AM UTC-4,
>> alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> The most intellectually capable people should be in charge.
>>
>> This old wheeze goes back to Plato, and that trick never works,
>> to quote another great philosopher.
>
> And the reason WHY it never works? Is that the most
> intellectually capable people are thus most capable of seeing
> what the job requires, and what it does to its occupant(s), so
> they KNOW BETTER than to want to be in charge, and if force is
> attempted are also the most capable of evading it creatively and
> unexpectedly.
>

The problem likes in the utter impossibility of objectively
*definining* "most intellectually capable." Like defining science
fiction, ask a hundred people and you'll get two hundred answers. And
if you ask the same hundred people again tomorrow, you'll get two
hundred more answers. Hell, there's no objective definition of
"intelligence" that's meaningful.

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 4:07:13 AM UTC-6, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2017-09-18, Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:58:32 AM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> The most intellectually capable people should be in charge.

> > This old wheeze goes back to Plato, and that trick never works,
> > to quote another great philosopher.

> And the reason WHY it never works? Is that the most intellectually capable
> people are thus most capable of seeing what the job requires, and what it does
> to its occupant(s), so they KNOW BETTER than to want to be in charge,

Um, no. It never works for quite a different reason. Such a system is too easy
to rig, because too few people get to choose who is smartest.

Actually, the better question to ask is why didn't even electoral democracy work
in Haiti and most countries in the Third World?

Bigots have an easy answer - because non-Europeans are stupid or something.

But the real answer has to do with something else.

It _is_ true that the worst person to have running the country is someone who *wants* to run the country.

The major industrialized democracies, though, changed over from monarchies
gradually enough to put in place a lot of safeguards against a would-be dictator
successfully running for office. (They aren't _perfect_, of course, as an
infamous German example illustrates.)

A country where most of the people are desperately poor, and thus prime targets
for a demagogue, and in which there was no opportunity for a real tradition of
loyalty to the constitution and the courts on the part of the police and armed
forces to be built up?

There was really no hope, and most of the British colonies should have _stayed_
under colonial administration after World War II while being gradually prepared
for democracy and independence. A lot of human misery would have been avoided -
Uganda and Nigeria (remember Idi Amin and remember Biafra) stand out as
examples.

John Savard

[Peter Trei]

You're ignoring history. Half the countries, and most of the people of
Africa gained independence through waging war against their colonial
overlords, especially the ones which which tried to hang on too long.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonisation_of_Africa#Timeline

Britain was already facing an open rebellion in Kenya from the MauMau.

The UK would have paid a great price in British blood and treasure if
they'd stayed, especially once the USSR and Cuba entered the picture (or
don't you remember Angola?)

pt

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:df4223c6-4785-41f8...@googlegroups.com:

> It _is_ true that the worst person to have running the country
> is someone who *wants* to run the country.

A common enough childish fantasy, and like all childish fantasies,
over-simplied to the point of being dangerously stupid to take
seriously.

Force *me* to run the world against my will, and I guarantee you
worse government than *anyone* in all of human history who *wanted*
to be in charge.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0f2aece4-a87b-48c5...@googlegroups.com:

And facts, and reality.

This is Quaddie, after all. He really don't live in the same world
as everyone else.

[Lynn McGuire]

His first statement was "I hate secrets." I ignored the rest of his
dribble.

All of us have secrets.

Lynn

[Kevrob]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 4:10:02 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

> The problem likes in the utter impossibility of objectively
> *definining* "most intellectually capable." Like defining science
> fiction, ask a hundred people and you'll get two hundred answers. And
> if you ask the same hundred people again tomorrow, you'll get two
> hundred more answers. Hell, there's no objective definition of
> "intelligence" that's meaningful.
>
> --

Being a successful politician is a _talent_. As is being a salesman.
Neither of those require the sort of intelligence one needs to
acquire a law degree, an M.D. or a Ph.D. People made sport of
Ronald Reagan as an actor, and while he earned an undergraduate
economics degree in the days when less than 5% of the US population
achieved that, he was never portrayed as a scholar the way, say,
JFK's PR flacks made Kennedy him out to be. People like Arthur Krock
and Ted Sorenson did the heavy lifting on WHY ENGLAND SLEPT and PROFILES
IN COURAGE, respectively. RR's acting talent was transferable into
political skill, as were the performing talents of George Murphy
(Gov of CA) or any number of other performers, like Texas Gov "Pappy"
O'Daniel, later a US Senator, who had been a singer and bandleader on
the radio.

"Charisma" is an overused word in politics, especially since the
advent of televised campaigning. Another term, "superficial
charm" is one of the markers of the sociopath or psychopath.
But successful pols often have an undefined "it" that those with
a greater knowledge of policy don't. Great interpersonal skills
can make you a much superior politician compared to the person who
is less skillful. Note, I say politician, not statesman.

Of course, being learned and even brilliant can't prevent
you from adhering to awful policy. Woodrow Wilson was a
college president, earned a law degree and a political science
Ph.D, and I consider him among the USA's worst Presidents.
Academic achievement no more guarantees good practical judgment,
let alone a commitment to human freedom.

There's the old William F Buckley, Jr saw:

"I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed
by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than
in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard
University."

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley,_Jr.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nf_bu-kBr4

I would prefer a brilliant, well-educated politician that I agree
with to a less bright, less educated one, but no amount of those
qualities will get me to vote for one who backs the wrong policies.


Kevin R

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:f429218f-183f-47eb...@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 4:10:02 PM UTC-4, Gutless
> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>> The problem likes in the utter impossibility of objectively
>> *definining* "most intellectually capable." Like defining
>> science fiction, ask a hundred people and you'll get two
>> hundred answers. And if you ask the same hundred people again
>> tomorrow, you'll get two hundred more answers. Hell, there's no
>> objective definition of "intelligence" that's meaningful.
>>
>> --
>
> Being a successful politician is a _talent_. As is being a
> salesman.

According to the people who do research in the area (you know, the
kind who publish peer reviewed papers), there are many kinds of
intelligence. Including the sort of thing that makes one a
successful politician, or a successful salesman.

In other words, you've just provided an example of precisely what
I'm talking about.

> Neither of those require the sort of intelligence one
> needs to acquire a law degree, an M.D. or a Ph.D.

Those don't require intelligence so much a s persistance. I've met
more than one idiot with a PhD. (Worked for one, once, in a lab
building a neutrino detector. Brilliant engineer. Dumber than a box
of rocks about anything practical. She had her main assistant - who
was just like her, only with even less experience at not killing
himself in stupid ways - standing on top of the table, which was on
top of another table, which was 30 feet in the air on a forklift.
It amazed me that they both lived to finish the project.)

> People made
> sport of Ronald Reagan as an actor, and while he earned an
> undergraduate economics degree in the days when less than 5% of
> the US population achieved that, he was never portrayed as a
> scholar the way, say, JFK's PR flacks made Kennedy him out to
> be.

Bill Clinton was a Fulbright scholar. And a sleazy douchebag, at
the same time. But he was very smart at both.

>
> I would prefer a brilliant, well-educated politician that I
> agree with to a less bright, less educated one, but no amount of
> those qualities will get me to vote for one who backs the wrong
> policies.
>
>

I would prefer a sane politician with morals that don't include
human sacrifice, regardless of his (or her) IQ. Sadly, those are
vanishingly rare.

One might consider that, by most objective standards, Hitler and
Stalin were both "most intellectually capable." for their times and
places. Especially Stalin, who didn't lose the war.

As soon as you limit your criteria for leaders to only one, and
that one that is impossible to even define, you have failed.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ops2kl$5fm$2...@dont-email.me:

> On 9/18/2017 12:59 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 9/15/2017 5:31 PM, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I hate secrets. And lies. The government lies to me, and
>>>> operates in secrecy. In the future, I hope for an end to
>>>> secrecy. Fully transparent government, means all government
>>>> officials will be under 24/7 surveillance (by AIs) to ensure
>>>> open, ethical, and legal government. All surveillance should
>>>> also be made available to the public. Instead of
>>>> surveillance of the public, we will have surveillance of the
>>>> government. As people have a tendency to lie and cheat, and
>>>> act in their own self-interest, this step is necessary to
>>>> ensure that government serves the public.
>>>>
>>>> Abhinav Lal
>>>> Writer & Investor
>>>>
>>>> "Ye shall, know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"
>>>
>>> Hey Mr. Troll,
>>>
>>> How many bank accounts do you have, what are the routing
>>> numbers, what are the account numbers, and the balance in each
>>> ? I especially want to know about your bank account in the
>>> Bahamas.
>>
>> WTF? Not even distantly equivalent. A government "of the
>> people", "by the people" and "for the people" shouldn't keep
>> secrets "from the people".

A government that keeps *no* secrets cannot function.

>>
>> At a minimum, the bar for keeping something secret should be
>> _very very_ high, and must not be capable of abuse by those
>> in power to hide malfeasance, stupidity or blind incompetence.

In theory, that is how classified information works in the US.
There are strict rules against classifying information for any
reasons other than to protect national security. It is specifically
prohibited to classify something for personal gain, or to avoid
embarassment. It's a pity we don't live in that mythical place,
Theory.

>
> His first statement was "I hate secrets." I ignored the rest of
> his dribble.

Even before that was his identity. There was no reason to even read
the first word of the body.

>
> All of us have secrets.

So do all governments, and that will remain the case.

[Moriarty]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 2:00:05 PM UTC+10, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <f564189c-9d42-4b45...@googlegroups.com>,
> Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote:
> >
> >Adamastor Glace Mortimer is a semi-regular who's been posting from anon
> >remailers for years. Why he/she values anonymity so highly, I couldn't
> >say. But it takes all sorts to make the world go around.
>
> Which makes it ironic that s/he is demanding an end to secrecy.

Mr/Ms Mortimer is not the one demanding an end to secrecy. That would be Abhinav Lal who, when not making absurd demands, makes absurd claims to be the author of The Hobbit and a whole bunch of other famous works.

-Moriarty

[J. Clarke]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:37:59 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)

So you're saying that government _should_ have secrets?

[Butch Malahide]

On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> I hate secrets. And lies. The government lies to me, and operates in secrecy. In the future, I hope for an end to secrecy. Fully transparent government, means all government officials will be under 24/7 surveillance (by AIs) to ensure open, ethical, and legal government. All surveillance should also be made available to the public. Instead of surveillance of the public, we will have surveillance of the government. As people have a tendency to lie and cheat, and act in their own self-interest, this step is necessary to ensure that government serves the public.

Are you one of the smart people who will be ruling me for my own good? Or are
you one of the proles who will be ruled for your own good by your intellectual
superiors?

[David Mitchell]

Trying to broaden the SF'ness, given that many of us seem to think that
Al lal is a bit damaged.
I'm struggling to remember which novel had "Therapied" and "Untherapied"
citizens, (who were gradually being squeezed out of "important"
positions in office). I think it's a work by Egan.
Really gave me the creeps at the time; and I'm trying to parse why.
Seem familiar to anyone else?


(What bothers me is the "who watches" question. Who decides what "sane"
means?)

[David DeLaney]

On 2017-09-19, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 4:07:13 AM UTC-6, David DeLaney wrote:
>> On 2017-09-18, Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:58:32 AM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> The most intellectually capable people should be in charge.
>
>> > This old wheeze goes back to Plato, and that trick never works,
>> > to quote another great philosopher.
>
>> And the reason WHY it never works? Is that the most intellectually capable
>> people are thus most capable of seeing what the job requires, and what it
>> does
>> to its occupant(s), so they KNOW BETTER than to want to be in charge,
>
> Um, no. It never works for quite a different reason. Such a system is too easy
> to rig, because too few people get to choose who is smartest.

... and that there is why you'll never be President. (Apart from, you know, the
whole Canadian thing.) Silly savardian: you don't get to CHOOSE who is smartest
or most intellectually capable. (Whatever either of those means.) You
_discover_ it.

Dave, jacob barnett, i choose YOU!

[J. Clarke]

Queen of Angels, by Greg Bear. Reading it now.

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <SOadnYc9E43fil_E...@brightview.co.uk>,
david.robo...@gmail.com says...

A relevant authority. Historically "sane" has usually meant "close
enough to cultural norms." And, of course, declaring people with the
wrong political views insane has a long and storied history, too, so
shades of that should give anyone the creeps.

In Herbert's _The Heaven Makers_ an alien civilization outsourced the
monitoring of their mental health to machines. It didn't go so well
either.

--
Juho Julkunen

[Scott Lurndal]

As the portion of the article you so cleverly snipped
before your trollish reply indicated, yes.

[William Hyde]

If we'd just bought whatever Jim Pattison bought over the past three decades, we'd be doing very well now.

William Hyde

[alal...@gmail.com]

I have an IQ of 135, so I am sure that there are a lot of people with higher IQ, who will test better. The smartest will get the highest temporary positions in government.

As some people, rudely pointed out flaws in my plan for government transparency, I have an answer. Population transparency. The entire population should be under surveillance 24/7, so if anyone tries to steal money, or build WMD etc. they will be caught. I can't think of an easier solution, but maybe someone else can. I envision micro cameras planted in the eyes, and micro listening devices planted in the ears, so everyone can see and hear what you are seeing and hearing.

I am open to criticism of my plans, as discussions help me refine my ideas. But I don't appreciate personal insults, and try to avoid people who engage in such.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

alal...@gmail.com wrote in
news:00e186b8-17c4-49bb...@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 9:10:43 AM UTC+5:30, Butch
> Malahide wrote:
>> On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-5,
>> alal...@gmail.com wrot
> e:
>> > I hate secrets. And lies. The government lies to me, and
>> > operates in
> secrecy. In the future, I hope for an end to secrecy. Fully
> transparent government, means all government officials will be
> under 24/7 surveillance (by AIs) to ensure open, ethical, and
> legal government. All surveillance should also be made
> available to the public. Instead of surveillance of the public,
> we will have surveillance of the government. As people have a
> tendency to lie and cheat, and act in their own self-interest,
> this step is necessary to ensure that government serves the
> public.
>>
>> Are you one of the smart people who will be ruling me for my
>> own good? Or
> are
>> you one of the proles who will be ruled for your own good by
>> your intelle
> ctual
>> superiors?
>
> I have an IQ of 135,

That must be in centimeters, instead of inches. Or is it in
millimeters?

> I am open to criticism of my plans,

It's stupid.

> But I don't appreciate personal insults,

It's not an insult if it's factually true.

> and
> try to avoid people who engage in such.
>

By seeking them out, and waving your tiny little penis at them?
Son, you can't even get failing right.

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:14:39 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)

In other words you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

[Greg Goss]

The father of one of my close friends was a partner of Pattison back
in the really really early days. Pattison had an idea for how to make
a used car dealership more practical, and my friend's father was
skeptical and didn't want to throw in the new capital to try it. So
JP bought out his share.

The friend's father is doing very well now in spite of that. (Well,
not really. The finances are good, but the father's been in and out
of ICU for most of the past 18 months. Everyone I know is a lot older
than they were thirty years ago.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

Which beats the alternative.

[David Mitchell]

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

In article <c9e1a011-2614-4990...@googlegroups.com>
alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 5:01:05 PM UTC+5:30, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> > In article <fc719494-44e9-4f13...@googlegroups.com>

> > alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I hate secrets. And lies. The government lies to me, and operates in secrecy. In the future, I hope for an end to secrecy. Fully transparent government, means all government officials will be under 24/7 surveillance (by AIs) to ensure open, ethical, and legal government. All surveillance should also be made available to the public. Instead of surveillance of the public, we will have surveillance of the government. As people have a tendency to lie and cheat, and act in their own self-interest, this step is necessary to ensure that government serves the public.
> >

> > Everybody has secrets.
> >
> > Which government is it that you want to commit suicide in this
> > manner?
>
> In the future, I hope for the establishment of a world government. Which will bring an end to war and economic inequality, with no local, and only global defence forces, and redistribution of wealth from the rich to poor. A global transparent participatory meritocracy. By participatory, I mean that everyone will be required to serve the public for a limited time period. By meritocratic, I mean that what function and level people serve at, will be determined by objective tests.
>
> We are not ready yet, and perhaps we will never be, but we won't know until we try.

Uh huh. As I said, suicide.

I guess your answer specifies that ALL governments will commite
suicide, it'll need to be simultaneously for your scheme to work.
And then it still won't work. I think you have no idea why
governments exist or how to manage anything that involves people.

To achieve your goal you will need to come up with a thwart
mechanism for human nature. I cannot in good conscience wish you
good luck with that.


Adamastor Glace Mortimer

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iEYEAREKAAYFAlnDxTgACgkQ1vVH2r/FDv2o/gCgnJZxhiWvrD6h+xf+IWqBUWBj
ancAmwRv9WlJP1w95HNke52PcAuZbVay
=bqrn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Anonymous]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

In article <00e186b8-17c4-49bb...@googlegroups.com>
alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ....

> I have an IQ of 135, so I am sure that there are a lot of people with higher IQ, who will test better. The smartest will get the highest temporary positions in government.
>
> As some people, rudely pointed out flaws in my plan for government transparency, I have an answer. Population transparency. The entire population should be under surveillance 24/7, so if anyone tries to steal money, or build WMD etc. they will be caught. I can't think of an easier solution, but maybe someone else can. I envision micro cameras planted in the eyes, and micro listening devices planted in the ears, so everyone can see and hear what you are seeing and hearing.
>

Oh, jeez!

> I am open to criticism of my plans,

You've certainly gotten some. I suspect that you'll get a little
bit more after the above.

> as discussions help me refine my ideas.

Your ideas are uninformed and awful, 'nuff said.

> But I don't appreciate personal insults, and try to avoid people who engage in such.

Boo hoo! How about avoiding USENET from now on?

Adamastor Glace Mortimer

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iEYEAREKAAYFAlnDz2cACgkQ1vVH2r/FDv3XgQCgofJvllUzXbxI9ALoccH5hlBG
Co8AoLxEV5S46/qgkL6+WcrLy8gtq0ke
=3mux
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Kevrob]

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 12:10:02 PM UTC-4, Anonymous wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> In article <00e186b8-17c4-49bb...@googlegroups.com>
> alal...@gmail.com wrote:

> > But I don't appreciate personal insults, and try to avoid people who engage in such.
>
> Boo hoo! How about avoiding USENET from now on?

We don't need to insult the OP. Pointing out how ridiculously
utopian - or dystopian, in my view - his ideas are should be
enough. Is wondering what sort of personality wants so much
controlled by so few a personal insult? If it is, I'll own
up to it, but if someone is promoting the rankest statism, I
would think it OK to call him out as a statist.

Kevin R

[Adamastor Glace Mortimer]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

In article <owICt...@kithrup.com>

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
> In article <f564189c-9d42-4b45...@googlegroups.com>,
> Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote:
> >
> >Adamastor Glace Mortimer is a semi-regular who's been posting from anon
> >remailers for years. Why he/she values anonymity so highly, I couldn't
> >say. But it takes all sorts to make the world go around.
>
> Which makes it ironic that s/he is demanding an end to secrecy.

Wait a minute, I said what now?

You're confusing me with the OP. My signature is still being
included here and there from a reply made to the OP about three
days ago. Inadequate trimming by subsequent responders can make
proper attribution difficult, I know.

Adamastor Glace Mortimer

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iEYEAREKAAYFAlnDzK0ACgkQ1vVH2r/FDv1tEACdEIK7nGuPbSRjK2Fs8d4h8ZUC
V+sAoL1FBCN6jZ3oY5Lx/gepE7ePqz1n
=wZtk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 5:56:57 AM UTC-6, alal...@gmail.com wrote:

> In the future, I hope for the establishment of a world government. Which will
> bring an end to war and economic inequality, with no local, and only global
> defence forces, and redistribution of wealth from the rich to poor. A global
> transparent participatory meritocracy. By participatory, I mean that everyone
> will be required to serve the public for a limited time period. By
> meritocratic, I mean that what function and level people serve at, will be
> determined by objective tests.

> We are not ready yet, and perhaps we will never be, but we won't know until we
> try.

Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy... and Imagine by John Lennon... come to
mind.

We haven't tried a world government of any kind, it is true, but then that's
because the governments of some nations are not inclined to try that.

A utopian socialism where people don't get to choose jobs that match their
interests and desires, but are assigned to jobs based on aptitude tests... is
likely to make life less pleasant for many.

Getting rid of war would be a good thing. But those who would start wars,
because they are tyrants of their own countries, could only be disarmed *by* a
war. So implying that we have wars because humanity needs to be inspired by the
benefits of a world government is... disingenuous. Suggesting a problem should
be fixed without offering advice on how one might actually manage to go about
it, when everyone knows the problem is bad but also knows that it's difficult to
fix just because we want to, is not helpful.

Distributing wealth from the rich to the poor... well, we do engage in that to
some extent in most countries. Between countries, there's a little foreign aid.

But this is a very complicated issue, which is why it's been endlessly debated.

What makes it complicated is that people have *children*. If transferring wealth
from the rich to the poor would _permanently_ reduce poverty, it would be a good
thing we could all applaud. If, instead, it's just going to help the poor have
*more children* so that in the next generation, the poor are just as poor and
miserable as they are now... but the rich no longer have the money to make much
of a difference to that... then not much good has been done.

Of course, people will talk about the "demographic transition"; just give
*enough* money to the poor for once, and this problem will be fixed for good! I
happen to be suspicious of theories that fit too well with the politics of those
who advance them, especially when following their advice involves large costs
and large risks.

John Savard

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 1:08:05 PM UTC+10, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 5:56:57 AM UTC-6, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > In the future, I hope for the establishment of a world government. Which will
> > bring an end to war and economic inequality, with no local, and only global
> > defence forces, and redistribution of wealth from the rich to poor. A global
> > transparent participatory meritocracy. By participatory, I mean that everyone
> > will be required to serve the public for a limited time period. By
> > meritocratic, I mean that what function and level people serve at, will be
> > determined by objective tests.
>
> > We are not ready yet, and perhaps we will never be, but we won't know until we
> > try.
>
> Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy... and Imagine by John Lennon... come to
> mind.
>
> We haven't tried a world government of any kind, it is true, but then that's
> because the governments of some nations are not inclined to try that.
>
> A utopian socialism where people don't get to choose jobs that match their
> interests and desires, but are assigned to jobs based on aptitude tests... is
> likely to make life less pleasant for many.
>

Well if the aptitude tests are early enough and accurate enough it could also make life a lot more pleasant for many who now don't have the opportunities to get the jobs they could do and could do well.

[Cryptoengineer]

hamis...@gmail.com wrote in
news:7b0d62df-8450-4da5...@googlegroups.com:

That might work in a static, stagnent society with no progress and no
social mobility.

My job - which I'm good at - didn't exist at the time I'd have been
taking "aptitude tests".

pt

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Cryptoengineer <treif...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA7F862513...@216.166.97.131:

If you don't start off with a static, stagenet society, you'll end
up with one pretty quickly.

Fortunately, aptitude tests that accurate that early are, and will
remain, impossible. *People* aren't that static in either interests
or aptitude from that young an age.

Dystopian fantasies are still fantasies.

[Robert Carnegie]

Education is a proven preventative for imprudent
reproduction: I recommend it to you.

[J. Clarke]

Uh, I don't think that we have to worry about Quadi reproducing,
imprudently or otherwise.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 02:31:23 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

Wait -- QUADDIE said that? That's a startling level of ironic
self-ignorance even for him.





--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Tom Derringer in the Tunnels of Terror.
See http://www.watt-evans.com/TomDerringerintheTunnelsofTerror.shtml

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <5c0csc5off4ps2gfu...@reader80.eternal-
september.org>, misencha...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 02:31:23 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, 22 September 2017 04:08:05 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> >>
> >> I
> >> happen to be suspicious of theories that fit too well with the politics of those
> >> who advance them, especially when following their advice involves large costs
> >> and large risks.
>
> Wait -- QUADDIE said that? That's a startling level of ironic
> self-ignorance even for him.

Obviously this only applies to other people.

Incidentally, the risk involved here seems to be "we might not need to
genocide brown people after all."

--
Juho Julkunen