Thursday, July 23, 2009

negative reinforcement

here we have a perfect example of how to undermine a state which has decided to squeeze tightly.

the president of pakistan has banned jokes about himself, in texts, emails and on blogs.

another way of looking at this is that he has exposed his domestic army to a strategic offense on inconsequential territory. you should probably read sun tzu if you don't already understand the implications of this. i should be preaching to the choir, here.

so. the enemy will seek out the transgressors of their latest divine behavior system. that is, physically send civilian police to a particular location, expecting to deal with... a guy who told a joke.

the people, having been convinced they are not at war with their own government -- the core, orwellian belief of statism -- won't respond.

perhaps later they'll petition the government in some fashion to express displeasure, and then tell themselves they are responding. meanwhile, someone is already in prison.

now, a variety of relatively harmless spamming techniques would quickly make this new government appendage useless, either recalling it entirely or perhaps bringing about even more draconian laws against spam (see britain and knives). like any government subsidy, it could be rendered dead-letter-diktat by the outstripping available resources with a disorganized, engineered parade of false positives.

however, setting up ambushes for the enforcers down at the tip of the tendril, wholly unprepared to deal with an armed response to what they imagine is simply an errant joker in the herd, might actually send a signal to the tough guys with the mincy faggot balls, who hide behind a badge and collect a pile of tax plunder every month for it, that they ought to seek actual employment.

enforcing is nothing but turning laughable blowhard diktat into force. at that moment, that enforcer is the direct, operative injustice in the world. not some fiat "rule" they refer back to to justify their actions.

there are no fucking rules. there are only the rules that you agree to.

"better to pay them to do nothing at all," some have said. probably true, if by payment you're talking about the paper and digital collateralized debt obligations typically referred to as "currency." if you instead give someone money not to violate your rights, that's typically called robbery. if you're just handing over the debt instrument which they're supposed to make good on by only punishing evil -- the stated lie of government everywhere -- well, no harm, no foul. hahahahaha.

where politicians (who fancy they are at the top of the pile) can themselves spam everyone else with edicts all day long, and humble pranksters (who think they are at the bottom of the pile) can themselves [actually] spam in return, innocents continue to sacrifice their own money and thus their own lives for the privilege of being casualties in a slow-burning war with disillusioned enforcers. without the enforcers we'd just call this advertising.

the answer to quis custodiet ipsos custodes is easy: it's you and your rifle.

unless you want to end up like pakistan.

No comments:

Post a Comment