Can Technology Eliminate Politicians?

I'm writing this on the fly, but I really want to post to Skunkworks because I love the idea of this forum.

Here's my idea: Technology instead of politicians.

Yes that's right. I would like to suggest that technology actually should modify political philosophy. What I mean is that once technology delivers us to an age where person-to-person communication is simple and ubiquitous (like today), we can fire all or most politicians.

My basic thumbnail sketch looks like this:

A: Convince banking institutions to become polling stations. The fine-tuned ATM machine network then becomes the regulated, paper-trail-providing, place where you vote as a citizen.

B: Reduce the power of the three branches of government by making all their communique's known to the citizenry. Absolutely no private business-email for any elected person.

C: Instead of politicians, we elect technicians in County elections, who then administrate the ATM/voting network, and who are local persons of good character and whose sole goal is to make the network reliable and a non-partisan tool. These elected technicians would become the true voice of the people. They'd be like tech-support for the masses, which is what the masses need more than another political corporate-lobbyist.

..Sure, this sounds nuts, but I'd like to invite everyone to post ideas here on how this sounds. Essentially, I think technology, if properly monitored and administrated, could replace the hordes of worthless, trough-slurping politicians who none of us respect anyway.

Since people want to trust the Internet, why don't we elect tech-"leaders" who are tasked with making a "voting" Internet that is actually simple, reliable and safe? I use the example of ATMs because the infrastructure is already there and all citizens of Earth know how to use them.

Can technology somehow free us from our current no-win situation with politicans and their supposed status as "necessary evil"? Use this thread for all ideas that might help!


[edit on 11-11-2005 by smallpeeps]

The "enthroned" shadow government would never give up power.
You can't even vote em out of office anymore because the vote is corruped.
You can't even kill em because they got suitcase nukes.
The country we have now is the one we're stuck with.
All you can do is fiddle while america burns.
Republics always get destroyed from the inside. You'd think a republic would learn something from that.

After americas constitutional convention, Franklin came out and a reporter asked "What have you all wrought?" Franklin replied "A republic- if we can keep it." ONLY LASTED ABOUT 212 YEARS- UNTIL 2001.

Basically what you're proposing, and please correct me if i'm wrong, is abolishing the republic in favor of a true democracy, yes?

I'm not so sure it would have the outcome you hope for. Is it better to have a bunch of narrow-minded political hacks running the show or your average ignoramous. Let's be honest, on average the "average Joe" ain't too bright. Present company excluded of course.

Link

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

Originally posted by Rren
Basically what you're proposing, and please correct me if i'm wrong, is abolishing the republic in favor of a true democracy, yes?

I'm not so sure it would have the outcome you hope for. Is it better to have a bunch of narrow-minded political hacks running the show or your average ignoramous. Let's be honest, on average the "average Joe" ain't too bright. Present company excluded of course.

Yes, exactly. True, technology-based democracy.

As for the second part, yes, I agree that the average joe is somewhat dumber than you or I, let's say. However, I've known lots of average Americans and the beauty of the stupid is that they'll rarely take chances when their own ass is on the line. This means: Less laws, less legislation of any kind, and less government.

In a way, even though the pack is stupid, they are smart enough to reject a lot of the larger, planned-stupidity like the Iraq debacle and similar things. Stupid folk are also simple folk, and simple is always better when it comes to government.

As for the technology, it cannot be simple in its parts (therefore the simple-folk will never, ever get it) so that's why "politics" should be replaced by a different type of system. I propose electing not a philosopher king or a politician, but locally-based (county or city) techno-representatives. Such people would be skilled and honest. I know lots of IT/IS people who qualify. Let the masses vote for these people as their leaders, and these techno-electors will implement true democracy.

I am open to any criticism of this idea. I like the idea of a forum where we can hash out ideas like this. If we don't think up something different, I'm convinced there's no hope. Politicians are not the answer. Representative government can work, but it gets infected quicker than dirty wound.

Since humanity has arrived at the moment of the Internet (unseen before in history) why can't we take the next step and remove the pork by making them obsolete?

[edit on 13-11-2005 by smallpeeps]

Originally posted by shot messenger
You can't even kill em because they got suitcase nukes.

shot messenger, I'm intrigued by this comment. Do you think that politicians would use violence against the people if we tried to create a true, techno-democracy? Specifically which Americans have suitcase nukes and which have the triggers? Also, how big are these nukes? I've read a lot on the topic, but I'm open to new data. Tell me what you know.

We have to seize this moment in history because once the American bureaucracy sets their hand on the Internet and sunset of technology fades due to infrastructure breakdown, it will be too late. There's a window in time here to make this happen. I'm not afraid of violent reprisals from the people in power. Eventually you simply stop fearing the powerful and start thinking ways around them.


[edit on 13-11-2005 by smallpeeps]

While the core approach has merit and I can appreciate the "for the people, by the people" manner IMO the fatal flaw starts with, "if properly monitored and administrated,".

IMO our current system is based upon the same faulty premise.

All goes well until you insert the variable called "human nature".

Control leads to Corruption ... inevitably

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
IMO the fatal flaw starts with, "if properly monitored and administrated,".

An excellent point and I'm glad you raised it.

What would be monitored and administrated? ANSWER: The tools of the voting process. These tools must be A: Simple, B: Transparent, and C: Verifiable.

A is not difficult to achieve. How complex is a PC running windows 98? Not very. A tech who's job is to keep win98 running and operational could have that task verified by a party of his peers. The voting system could be even simpler

B could involve public walkthroughs of the network rooms. You could have videos playing which explain how the system works. There could be interrupts in the system which are wired and where voters could manually verify the operation of the voting network. Simple electronics would be enough. No place for viruses to hide because there would be no memory. All data is printed out and archived in hard form. Simple.

C could be accomplished by properly flushing any memory banks within the network and by using appropriate checksums in the program. In fact, the software should be written on interpreted code so that everyone in the nation can read it.

I'm not so sure we couldn't design a network simple enough to preclude hijacking or corruption. As for the network admins we elect, they'll be kept honest because We the People will have properly vetted their character, unlike politicians who reside in a totally different social class from the proles they hope to get votes from.

The key correlation between a machine and its corruptability resides in the machine's complexity. How difficult is an encrpyted HTML page which has 100 things to vote on? Not very. Imagine if you could then click on a side-link which explains the voting-issues from different viewpoints and in .mpeg video.

Imagine a voting/computer/library building in each city with Border's-style comfy chairs where people can learn about the 100 voting issues of that month/week/whatever and actually RUN their own government?

IMO such a system would be difficult to corrupt (once it came into being) because the people would jealously protect it.



[EDIT]

This does belong in Skunk Works, because if you'll look closer, you'll see that I am roundly describing a conspiracy people havne't seen because they haven't talked about this issue.

Why does Diebold (a global corporation) control the world's ATM/voting network? Wouldn't you rather have it controlled on a lower, more grass-roots level?

I do not think we'll be allowed to do anything like what I'm describing. Perhaps shot_messenger has a good point, eh?

Still. It's our only hope because technology has marginalized traditional political thinking. In essence, modern networks have made people-based networks (which all political thought prior to the computer-age is based on)into something totally different. Technology must become our leader since we are worshipping it anyway with our lifestyles.

If we continue to worship technology while allowing politicians to "administrate" the forces of power, technology will be used to enslave us.

Diebold is experimenting with biometric ATMs in South America. You can read the press release on their website. Notice the wording here:

www.diebold.com...

Biometrics at forefront of Diebold's LatAm offerings

From the October 14, 2005 edition of Business News Americas
By Scott Sadowsky

US banking equipment supplier Diebold (NYSE: DBD) is introducing increasingly more biometric and other high-tech systems into the Latin American financial sector, said Diebold Colombia marketing and communications director Paula Bonilla.

Diebold has been offering biometric technology for over five years, beginning with a system implemented throughout Colombia to verify the identity of retirees picking up their pensions.

But the highlight of Diebold's offerings is its biometric solution for ATMs. The main obstacle to the use of this technology has been the lack of standardization among different biometric devices, a problem Diebold has tackled with proprietary middleware.

"Biometric algorithms vary from brand to brand, so what Diebold did was create middleware that runs on its Agilis platform to allow clients to implement whatever technology they choose - they are not obligated to use biometric devices from a specific provider," Bonilla told BNamericas.

Whereas most biometric identification systems merely generate readings, such as those used by police agencies, the Diebold software also performs identity verification, which greatly reduces processing time. Users first identify themselves using a number or code, and then the biometric data gathered by the ATM is compared to data that the bank has already collected on the customer.

Diebold recently finished a small test run of its biometric ATMs in Chile, and "the pilot units passed the test successfully," said Bonilla.

However, the mass implementation of these systems is not without obstacles.

"Latin American banks are in general somewhat conservative. They don't want to implement anything they fear might be poorly received by customers, and biometric technology can make people feel invaded to a certain extent. It's going to require a cultural and educational process," said Bonilla.

See the last part about how Latin American banks are conservative? Isn't the US equally conservative? Why is this being tested south of us?

Is this not an issue for people?

www.diebold.com...

November 10, 2005

DIEBOLD ELECTION SYSTEMS’ TOUCH-SCREEN DEPLOYMENT DESCRIBED AS GREAT SUCCESS

Voters and elections officials praise the ease and speed of the Diebold AccuVote touch-screen voting system

ALLEN, Texas -- Across the country on Election Day, voters who had the opportunity to cast their vote on Diebold AccuVote touch-screen systems raved about the ease and speed of the high-tech process, and election officials received positive feedback from throughout the electorate.

Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell described Ohio's first large-scale use of modern voting systems as a great success. "It was a great day for Ohio voters. More than 15,000 new voting machines were used by nearly one million voters today and we were overwhelmed with positive reports," he said.

...you see it's happening anyway. What I'm suggesting is to have it not be a global corporate entity, but the people, who are controlling it.

Would we be allowed to nationalize Diebold, for example? Not saying we even want it, since their interpreted code doesn't meet the rules above.

Hmm... I guess it'll be all handled for us. How comforting, eh?



[edit on 13-11-2005 by smallpeeps]

Well well, don't want to say I told you so, but as I have described in this thread, there is a clear conspiracy to control technology, and therefore to control you.

Diebold makes ATMs and voting machines. They've got lots of legal defense money. You, mister or missus citizen of the USA, have little of same. Two recent threads, populated by top minds at ATS are digging into the subject.

The Diebold Factor

FallenFromTheTree said:

This is good news, but you still have to secure the tabulation servers or make the source code
available to independent inspections.

What goes in, must come out with a permanent and verifiable record. No exceptions!

As long as computers are in any way involved, this makes the system vulnerable.

FallenFromTheTree identifies one of the key issues I am trying to address above. I think interpreted code is the answer, and I think local citizens should elect their own rep's for this type of oversight. No masons, no Skullz and bones, just people.

Diebold Being Sued

Concealment of Known Flaws in Voting Machines

BenevolentHeretic in his thread above, links to this blog. Interesting reading.

Additional facets of the company's internal structural problems were revealed in a series of previous BRAD BLOG articles reporting on an anonymous company insider we dubbed "DIEB-THROAT" who alerted us to the "Cyber Alert Warning" issued by a branch of the Dept. of Homeland Security in August of 2004. That warning concerned the vulnerability to hackers of Diebold's central vote tabulating software prior to last year's Presidential Election. The election watchdog organization BlackBoxVoting.org, who had first discovered the vulnerability, had also recently arranged for a computer security expert to successfully hack into actual Diebold voting machines used in Leon County, Florida without leaving any trace of the manipulation.

It was just several days after our first report on DIEB-THROAT that stock prices plunged at the company in September. Diebold attempted to blame their troubles, at the time, on bad weather in the gulf which lead our insider source to aver: "Using Hurricane Katrina is a poor excuse for bad products - the last time this kind of deception occurred it was called Enron."

Internet news site, The RAW STORY recently ran their own interview with DIEB-THROAT revealing still more structural problems within the company and its voting division. The report explained that the company was "plagued by technical woes," even as a Diebold spokesperson claimed the 144-year old company "has a sterling reputation in the industry."

Americans should handle their own tech support. Non-corporate-style.

Politicans should not prevent us from voting. I am wondering if the ATM machine can be simplified enough to replace any need for representative government. If Americans demanded the right to collectively elect technical representatives to oversee the voting process, and the system was thereby siplified such that each American could observe and see that the ATMs were verifiably working, I wonder if politicans would have any relevancy after that?

Banking ATMs will never collect our vote, only our deposit. But what do we deposit? ANSWER: The fruit of our work. When we push our money into the ATM slot, we should demand also that the screen give us immediate and trustworthy access to control of our country through a verifiable voting system. Diebold and all companies like them must be denied, utterly, if this is to happen. Maybe the banking system also.

How else will we gain control? Technology will not let up, believe me. You will be encouraged to adapt it more and more into your lives while relying more and more upon the honesty of the corporate boards like Diebold.

We cannot move forward, as a species, until the tech-hurdle is passed, and this can only happen when humans make technology their self-realized "god", and that can't happen until technology (in its simple forms only, mind you) is placed higher than any political system.

I seem to remember reading about a movement for a true democracy back when the telephone was becoming widespread. The idea was since every house was getting a phone, they could just phone in votes every night for whatever issues were on the docket that day.

It could possibly work with the internet. The way I see it there would be daily "in session" votes that the News Hounds like us would follow and vote on, in effect becoming representatives ourselves. The more controversial or more center stage the issue, the more people take the time to vote. A rule could be set on how many votes would have to be logged in order for it to count.

It could work, but as someone earlier pointed out... there's no way the current power structure releases their grip on America. This would be a good idea for a "start-up" country like Iraq.

I seem to remember reading about a movement for a true democracy back when the telephone was becoming widespread. The idea was since every house was getting a phone, they could just phone in votes every night for whatever issues were on the docket that day.

It could possibly work with the internet. The way I see it there would be daily "in session" votes that the News Hounds like us would follow and vote on, in effect becoming representatives ourselves. The more controversial or more center stage the issue, the more people take the time to vote. A rule could be set on how many votes would have to be logged in order for it to count.

It could work, but as someone earlier pointed out... there's no way the current power structure releases their grip on America. This would be a good idea for a "start-up" country like Iraq.

Good thoughts, SKMDC1.

The problem with POTS (plain old telephone service) is that it's tied to a lot of technology which was used to breathe life into the mandated federal American telephone system. This massive telephone system had to be built by engineers who were working with stuff very new to them. Over time, this "legacy" part of the machine is where the kink of corruption would be found if voting were to use POTS.

Now that newer telephone circuits are entirely digital, we fall directly into the hands of engineers. We citizens would have no way of verifying the operation or honesty of a telephone Central Office although simple methods could easily be devised. I'm no expert on phone systems, mind you.

It's not really about technology, however. It's more than that. It's the willingness of people to accept technology into their lives without thinking about the other edge. Like a two-edged sword whose opposite side is soft and lotiony, ya know? If you only get caressed by one side, it's quite pleasurable. Technology of all kinds can be used against you. A person could harness the power of the POTS network to turn the mouthpiece of your phone on, for example, even when the phone is on the hook. Phones are always powered ya know. ...An example of something benign becoming sinister? That's why voting must be controlled at a very granular, simple level. When the tech is not simple enough for the plebes to understand, they're always going to just shrug their shoulders and go along with the plan.

If we're designing a voting/banking system that gives people true control over their world, it needs to be so simple that any human on Earth can essentially understand and explain its operation. It needs to be binary, packet-based (with checksums), somehow translated to graphical display with simple electronic Rube-Goldbergesque machinery such that a child could verify the operation of the system. I am thinking of something like Packet-Based Radio. Still, that's way too far beyond Joe Sixpack. The ATM is so simple and easy for him.

If you are interested in my thread at all, then this also must be watched: [Flash-Player required]

www.breakfastmedia.com...

Essentially, this intriguing flash movie demonstrates a theoretical future. The question is for you: What is real and when does the guesswork start? Can Google merge with Amazon? Will a judicial system exist which cares enough to defend humanity against such a merger? Would copyright law ever become issue such that the New York Times might sue Google?

Google stock is currently flying high while the company accumulates wealth and power. No entity has ever existed which could influence China or collaborate with them without the US people knowing (except for the omnipresent 'Illuminati'). No transferrence of power has ever happened like this in the history of Wall Street/Global politics and its happening right under your nose. Of course Google's robots will respect human rights... Except in China, perhaps.

I wonder if in the year 2009, ATS and any similarly provacative sites will be seen as a direct threat to Google? Hmmm.


[edit on 26-12-2005 by smallpeeps]

I don't think we could ever become a true democracy. For one, our government is just too big for the average person to be able to intelligently decide on budget issues, etc. Also, it just leaves us way to vulnerable to the day to day whims of the people -- one day we'd be declaring war against France because Jacques Chirac was overheard saying something nasty about Americans and the next day we'd tire of war and surrender etc.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I don't think we could ever become a true democracy. For one, our government is just too big for the average person to be able to intelligently decide on budget issues, etc. Also, it just leaves us way to vulnerable to the day to day whims of the people -- one day we'd be declaring war against France because Jacques Chirac was overheard saying something nasty about Americans and the next day we'd tire of war and surrender etc.

Your point is well taken, that the American people as such, have diverse and colorful needs and wants. These needs and wants are promoted by the very corporate structure which allows companies like Deibold to have this authority over your life without you having any say. They shout at you to buy a brand of beer, but whisper to you the brand of the company which provides the cash at the stadium through the ATM.

You assume human nature to be bad or otherwise stupid, dj? We need God's guidance, is that right? I have marvelled at some of your posts but I do respect you for your position. Are you saying there's minimal connection between American media (which forms American minds) and the very show of politics itself (which claims the intellectual high ground)? Isn't politics very much like entertainment these days? Isn't churchgoing similarly showy and disrespected?

Isn't technology worshipped anyway? Why not make it openly so.

No, I say that if people had true democracy (read: hope) they'd turn their tv's off and get busy with their own lives. That verifiable machine, if correctly designed and simple enough, would become like their god precisely due to its simplicity, which all humans ultimately desire. That is to say, all humans see simplicity in the form of efficient engineering as credible for godhood and if such a system were built it would supplant whatever bickering loyalties you attribute to humans.

People wouldn't feel so helpless and so polarized. Their views would not switch as quickly as you say. They'd grow up and take responsibility for their tech if it was actually seen as their primary value.

In their current childlike mental state, any thought of electronics on the part of the average citizen is impossible under the current educational structure anyway. We entered the age of electronics a hundred years ago and yet our children are still kept as feeble dolts in this area. Electricity is very like magic in that respect. It is not really discussed in detail with regard to circuits and logic gates which are things children could easily comprehend if suitable textbooks were written.

Banks and Bank-robot companies understand tech. Right now humanity is not tech-enabled and it's not their fault. It's conspired to be that way even as some forces scheme to make Tech somewhat more available, it's always through the approved corporate channels.

People need to demand better tech from their leaders but they cannot even make this connection between politicians and technology yet. It cannot be settled in the courts. It can only be settled by A: the people becoming more tech-enabled, and B: the forces in power being controlled and disallowed from any interference in that process.

The Individual is stupid but the whole is a genius. Just look at "Who Wants to be a Millionarre" for proof. The "Ask the Audience" option is usually right while the phone a friend is usually wrong(at least when I watched the show) Something similiar should be tried and poo-pohing it before it's even tried is well small-minded to say the least.

Same thing with Heinleins version of a future Government which I call a Veteranocracy(only those who've served at least a 4 year military term can vote it's detailed in Starship Troopers the Book) people automatically say it would never work but we just do not know. Remember America is still an experiment in progress one that people thought would never work. I think we need to try this out and see what happens on a small scale at first and gradually scale it up. Of course we need to have a good Encryption Scheme for it to be viable but once we get there I don't see any reason why we should try it(and scrap it if its horrible)

Our current forms of government are not perfect and many improvements can be made. As I see it now alot of G8 nations are stagnating, this could be a great kick in the pants.

[edit on 26-12-2005 by sardion2000]

sardion2000 said:
The Individual is stupid but the whole is a genius. Just look at "Who Wants to be a Millionarre" for proof. The "Ask the Audience" option is usually right while the phone a friend is usually wrong(at least when I watched the show) Something similiar should be tried and poo-pohing it before it's even tried is well small-minded to say the least.

sardion2000, bravo for identifying the most obvious example of what I'm talking about:

Millionare's "ask the audience" is a cross section of the group (usually the best choice) whereas phone a friend is asking just one person (often wrong).

This is also the difference between a blog (which you and two friends may be the only readers of), and a place like ATS, where all ideas are open to public dissection and analysis. It encourages discernment when the forum is large and the issues are discussed.

Same thing with Heinleins version of a future Government which I call a Veteranocracy(only those who've served at least a 4 year military term can vote it's detailed in Starship Troopers the Book)

I am not sure about Heinlen's view of never-ending war. Why does he see warfare and defense as things that are irreducable components of our future? I think peace is simpler. Since few people post to my threads, I'll be happy to go off topic for a bit if anybody thinks war is a necessary component of human life. My goal in having a national voting system like I describe would be to create more satisfaction (read: peaceful lives) for the electorate.

I love Heinlen tho'. His best book is "Friday". The description of group-families-as-corporations has always stuck in my head as the best way for people to survive in the future. RH was killer-smart and he knew people would evolve, no matter what. Families as coporations which accept outsiders to buy "stock" in them is probably what would happen if Earth becomes a corporatocracy.

He also wrote a great text about how to save your government and it's the best introduction to politics I ever read. I had to search to find it though. Another indication that the PTB do not want us to intellectually arm ourselves or determine our fates.

people automatically say it would never work but we just do not know. Remember America is still an experiment in progress one that people thought would never work. I think we need to try this out and see what happens on a small scale at first and gradually scale it up. Of course we need to have a good Encryption Scheme for it to be viable but once we get there I don't see any reason why we should try it(and scrap it if its horrible)

Great points, but is America an experiment? I'd say it's already been experimented, verified, marketed and sold to the highest bidder. The American experiment proved to be a smashing success when it fetched a massive price from the Federal Reserve, and they bought our country and us "tax"-payers or interest-on-the-national-debt-payers, if you prefer.

Think about it. The banksters spend their own money (actually its their depositor's wealth they are spending) to fund a giant company (Diebold) that builds its money-dispensing-ATMs, which they knew would become the central point for the world's citizens. BUT, will they enable these machines to create a better world? No, they will not.

The mass of humans, is what the elites fear most. Believe it. If we all got organized and peacefully asked the bankers to eliminate politicians and place us direct control of the government, they would have no choice but to comply. I don't think they'd mind, either. Like Rothchild said, "If I control a nation's money supply, I care not who makes its laws."

This also could be very good for us if we look at it in a different, self-deterministic light. It means we may as well deal with the bankers directly, as slaves of the world bank. It's been made so simple for us now, we could just cut all politics out of the middle, and negotiate directly with the banks, who actually control the economy (the country), not the president or any of the so-called "lawmakers".

I am wondering if anybody else gets what I'm saying here?


[edit on 18-1-2006 by smallpeeps]

Hey, I think maybe people might listen to my brilliant idea, that tech can replace politicians? Oh, and can I use my ATS body of work for my eventual thesis on this subject?

Essentially as I have said, then and now; Internet Protocol has made all politicians, not just obsolete, but dangerously obsolete.

Politicians result in backroom deals, horrible espionage compromises, and what they call "the way the game is played." This means: Virus factories for warfare, TSA +1, etc, etc...Every bad thing about the government comes from the human part called "politicians" and the bottom feeders called "lobbyists". We can simply create a system that ignores them, and they will dry up and blow away like dust bunnies. Mmm, true freedom, for a change! All via the I.P. plebiscite, as I have explained, here and on other domains in the gamespace.

Well guess what? The game is over and I think you are seeing that. Internet Protocol makes all politicians obsolete. I'd appreciate any replies on the subject, since its rushing forward quite quickly, you should prepare by reading the above, and discussing it in family settings or small groups. Post here if you have questions. Thanks.

So people watch the markets eh?

But, you know Goldman Suck frontruns the market. They will always be the growing great white shark until the remoras turn into piranhas. Again: It is factually true that Goldman Suck has software that micro-manipulates trading way way faster than any human can do.

So why would you participate? If both TV and the markets are known fraud, then why buy into it?

Tech means: Peer to Peer IP based communication. This makes all centuries prior to this, obsolete.

All tech from earlier decades, all methods of "court" and "due process" and "entitlement" are as of this IP enabled time in history, dead as dog doo.

But people will still try to lurch this Rothschildian zombie legal-talmudic crap into the future, trying to ignore the astounding tsunami of truth and facts which Internet Protocol has made available to the billions of passengers on planet Earth. They will have their gavel-banging anf their cries of "order in the court!" but it means nothing. Internet Protocol and HTML and Peer-to-Peer human-commo has achieved escape velocity and the fuel tanks are looking robust. Truth-vector is locked in, and this rising tide will panic and drown, thos who are not aligned with the utter truth of peer-to-peer communication.

For example, the COTUS describes "grand juries" of "The People". Well, I believe the founding fathers knew that in the future, we would have peer-to-peer commo and so they built this idea of a grand jury of the people, into the COTUS. But I ask you: How much blood and warfare would it take for the people to seize the COTUS in the name of a true grand jury, to indict those who have kept the Lincoln US Corporation running even after 1865?

Would the US people ever have the nuts, to rise up and seize the provisions provided them in the COTUS, to assemble grand juries, using the peer-to-peer modern highways of Internet Protocol?

Income Tax was supposed to end in 1865, but with Lincoln's death they kept the whole thing and used it as a zombie corporation called United States Inc. I suspect Lincoln was a good man and would have ended the corporation, but he wasn't given the chance, having been martyred by agents of the Pope.

Question is, in all this modern noise, are we able to use true Internet Protocol person-to-person gifts of this modern age, to resolve the problems left to us by the assassins of 1865 and the Rothschild agents who have waged war against the continent for decades prior to that?

Will we see P2P as an evil to be stomped out, like all the MPAA lawyers and the Fed lawyers and the ATF lawyers and the blah-blah lawyers and so forth?

Court, is by its very nature, the antithesis of Peer-to-peer communication. Having peers, seems to be a key concept in this place called "court". Yet if we have peers, then how to we use these peers, to strengthen us and them, such that court has no power? How can we use P2P to remove power from the Bar Association of the UK? Since we invented IP here in the US, then it would be a shame not to use it to remove the London succubus from our national body. It's been hundreds of years feeding on us, and prior to this, we weren't expected to realize that. I think the founders knew we would have some great struggle in the future, but they probably didn't realize how potentially easy it would be for the peers (meaning the people) to take hold of each other's arms, and thereby encircle the enemy. But who is the enemy, and how to gently encircle them so that they don't get scared/defensives and start shooting at or isolating the peers?