6 ms·

It's insane the level of vindicativeness that government can reach. Worse than any bully and more fanatical than any terrorist. Of course the government is lik

It's insane the level of vindicativeness that government can reach. Worse than any bully and more fanatical than any terrorist. Of course the government is like this to mere peasants. If you are the wealthy elite, the government acts like a grovel servant rather than master. Expose war crimes - then you are public enemy #1. Be part of the wealthy elite who destroys the financial system and ruins the lives of millions - it's just good ol' boys being good ol' boys. And yet, everyday, we give more and more power to governments and corporations.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
> If you are the wealthy elite, the government acts like a grovel servant rather than master. Anyone who draws the ire of government and doesn't have people on the inside (in the right places) protecting them WILL get screwed. The rich just have enough money to drag out the process and make that more difficult so you don't see them getting screwed over little things.
- pvaldes 7y ago
  Shouldn't have the acts of Manning granted a little sympathy also among many people inside at this moment? I bet that not everybody is pro-war. Rich people would have much more offshore properties, business, friends or economic relationships with other countries. They would have much more to lose by wars or unstability than common people [Unless directly feeded by war promoting systems].
  - JetSpiegel 7y ago
    > Shouldn't have the acts of Manning granted a little sympathy also among many people inside at this moment? I bet that not everybody is pro-war. Yes, but not the right people it seems.
vlan0 7y ago
>And yet, everyday, we give more and more power to governments... I think we should be careful about blaming government itself. But instead focus on the _people_ that make up the government. It seems there is a serious lack of equal representation throughout our government. For the most part, it has become a matter of who has the larger bank roll. It would be interesting to see a government with forced equal representation across the entire socioeconomic spectrum.
- codq 7y ago
  Exactly. It's astounding to hear the hateful Libertarian view of government, understanding that it's exactly those kinds of people who often seek that kind of power, and make the worst kinds of politicians that create the vindictive, hateful government that Libertarians on the ground rail about. It's a self-perpetuating anti-government cycle that helps no one.
  - micmil 7y ago
    Libertarians typically don't take time to think, they just spout anti-government rhetoric. If any of them were capable of an actual thought process they'd realize what a massive self-defeating loop the concept of libertarianism is in general.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    I think libertarians simply understand incentives and human psychology. As long as a position confers wealth and power, over time it will tend to attract and get filled by the most cynical people who are willing to sacrifice the most ethics to achieve that wealth and power. What helps no one is to perpetually increase the power of government, making the target ever more enviable to the absolute worst kinds of people. This is an inescapable truth of power.
    - jandrese 7y ago
      The fundamental problem with the Libertarian ideal is that it trades the tyranny of the government for tyranny of the rich. At least with a democratic government you get 1 vote. With oligarchy you have 0 votes.
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        Private citizens and corporations can't accumulate much power without the government. Think of the most evil wealthy American citizens and corporations you can think of. How much money would they have without trademark, copyright, or patent protections?
netwanderer3 7y ago
There are three facts that are not going to change anytime soon. Number one, integrity is a trait not every human possesses, most don't so the power balance will always be tilted to the other side. Number two, money still rules this world and who has the most of it? Corporations! Number three, society is not going to adapt to each individual, only the other way around. As a result of these three facts, sometimes life can get pretty tough if you don't join the other side. Integrity was more valued in the past but it simply does not have the same weight in today society as modern competition has ramped up everywhere making everything much more difficult for the average citizen. You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself becoming a villain. In other words, we either throw integrity out of the window and survive, or we die with it.
- balabaster 7y ago
  I'm still with Robin Hood. I agree though, integrity seems to be in remarkably short supply of late. The older I get, the flakier people seem to be when it comes to showing up when they said they would.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- bumby 7y ago
  Curious, is this rosy retrospection or are there objective measures that integrity was more of a mainstay in the past?
- _emacsomancer_ 7y ago
  Also the way that politics works, there tends to be self-selection by those of little integrity. Those who desire power are frequently those least suited to it. It is unlikely that those who demur with 'nolo episcopari' attain positions of importance in a representative democracy.
- padobson 7y ago
  The math doesn't add up here. Either integrity is a virtue, or it's not. Either it's something people value, or it's not. If it's something people value, then it should be one of the attributes people weigh when they choose a spouse/job/politician/cell phone carrier. If it is, then the marketplace of spouses/jobs/politicians/cell phone providers should be incentivized to provide integrity, and also to broadcast that their competitors do not. I would argue this happens pretty regularly. Samsung using Apple's battery throttling in it's ads comes to mind. So integrity definitely factors into the marketing calculus of politicians and corporations, but maybe the market doesn't value it enough to offer it the primacy you're looking for.
GVIrish 7y ago
This has nothing to do with vindictiveness. Simply put, if you refuse to testify in court, you can be held in jail for contempt of court. Manning was offered an immunity deal but decided she didn't believe in the concept of a subpoena, so she chose jail instead. She could have walked out of jail at any time had she chosen to testify. In accordance with the law, she has been released because the grand jury has concluded. One can argue whether someone can/should be compelled to testify, but Manning was not singled out for extra punishment here.
- sloum 7y ago
  I disagree with the premise of your comment GVirish. > she didn't believe in the concept of a subpoena, so she chose jail instead That is not the case. As clearly stated bboth in the linked article and by her legal team. She is happy to testify in a public hearing (which I agree is the proper place), but not in a closed door meeting away from democratic due process monitored by the citizenry of the country.
  - GVIrish 7y ago
    Forgive me if I mischaracterized her objections but previously I saw her quoted as being against the concept of being forced to testify. And ultimately grand jury proceedings are non-public and they are a key part of our judicial process. To say it's not part of democratic due process is incorrect. There are a number of reasons for grand jury proceedings to not be public, particularly in national security cases. One can disagree with grand juries as a legal concept, which is fine, but if you refuse to show up, there are legal consequences.
    - travmatt 7y ago
      To me, arguing grand juries should work in public just signals a poor understanding of the American legal system - in the purpose of grand juries, the intent behind their design, and what they actually do. Arguing that we need to remove protection against over-zealous prosecutors to make the system safer is pretty nonsensical to me.
erentz 7y ago
Honestly when this happened my thought was Chelsea should just testify. I know it was stupid because it was all previous testimony and they didn't need it. But she's done and suffered enough, forget principals, give the vindictive bastards their testimony whenever they want it and try to enjoy your life in between.
turk73 7y ago
And every day when I say what you just said, I get downvoted on here. What is with people? You have to realize: They do this unethical crap in our names. We own this.
smoyer 7y ago
"Worse than any bully and more fanatical than any terrorist." When we elected Der Fuhrer in the last presidential election, weren't we asking for exactly this? I expected the "establishment" to become less hawkish during Obama's reign but that didn't happen either. I love my country but at this point I don't have a whole lot of hope for her (and now I'm probably on an NSA watch-list - I guess I should point out that I have no intention of harming anyone).

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

> If you are the wealthy elite, the government acts like a grovel servant rather than master. Anyone who draws the ire of government and doesn't have people on the inside (in the right places) protecting them WILL get screwed. The rich just have enough money to drag out the process and make that more difficult so you don't see them getting screwed over little things.

pvaldes 7y ago
Shouldn't have the acts of Manning granted a little sympathy also among many people inside at this moment? I bet that not everybody is pro-war. Rich people would have much more offshore properties, business, friends or economic relationships with other countries. They would have much more to lose by wars or unstability than common people [Unless directly feeded by war promoting systems].
- JetSpiegel 7y ago
  > Shouldn't have the acts of Manning granted a little sympathy also among many people inside at this moment? I bet that not everybody is pro-war. Yes, but not the right people it seems.

vlan0 7y ago

>And yet, everyday, we give more and more power to governments... I think we should be careful about blaming government itself. But instead focus on the _people_ that make up the government. It seems there is a serious lack of equal representation throughout our government. For the most part, it has become a matter of who has the larger bank roll. It would be interesting to see a government with forced equal representation across the entire socioeconomic spectrum.

codq 7y ago
Exactly. It's astounding to hear the hateful Libertarian view of government, understanding that it's exactly those kinds of people who often seek that kind of power, and make the worst kinds of politicians that create the vindictive, hateful government that Libertarians on the ground rail about. It's a self-perpetuating anti-government cycle that helps no one.
- micmil 7y ago
  Libertarians typically don't take time to think, they just spout anti-government rhetoric. If any of them were capable of an actual thought process they'd realize what a massive self-defeating loop the concept of libertarianism is in general.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  I think libertarians simply understand incentives and human psychology. As long as a position confers wealth and power, over time it will tend to attract and get filled by the most cynical people who are willing to sacrifice the most ethics to achieve that wealth and power. What helps no one is to perpetually increase the power of government, making the target ever more enviable to the absolute worst kinds of people. This is an inescapable truth of power.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    The fundamental problem with the Libertarian ideal is that it trades the tyranny of the government for tyranny of the rich. At least with a democratic government you get 1 vote. With oligarchy you have 0 votes.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      Private citizens and corporations can't accumulate much power without the government. Think of the most evil wealthy American citizens and corporations you can think of. How much money would they have without trademark, copyright, or patent protections?

netwanderer3 7y ago

There are three facts that are not going to change anytime soon. Number one, integrity is a trait not every human possesses, most don't so the power balance will always be tilted to the other side. Number two, money still rules this world and who has the most of it? Corporations! Number three, society is not going to adapt to each individual, only the other way around. As a result of these three facts, sometimes life can get pretty tough if you don't join the other side. Integrity was more valued in the past but it simply does not have the same weight in today society as modern competition has ramped up everywhere making everything much more difficult for the average citizen. You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself becoming a villain. In other words, we either throw integrity out of the window and survive, or we die with it.

balabaster 7y ago
I'm still with Robin Hood. I agree though, integrity seems to be in remarkably short supply of late. The older I get, the flakier people seem to be when it comes to showing up when they said they would.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
bumby 7y ago
Curious, is this rosy retrospection or are there objective measures that integrity was more of a mainstay in the past?
_emacsomancer_ 7y ago
Also the way that politics works, there tends to be self-selection by those of little integrity. Those who desire power are frequently those least suited to it. It is unlikely that those who demur with 'nolo episcopari' attain positions of importance in a representative democracy.
padobson 7y ago
The math doesn't add up here. Either integrity is a virtue, or it's not. Either it's something people value, or it's not. If it's something people value, then it should be one of the attributes people weigh when they choose a spouse/job/politician/cell phone carrier. If it is, then the marketplace of spouses/jobs/politicians/cell phone providers should be incentivized to provide integrity, and also to broadcast that their competitors do not. I would argue this happens pretty regularly. Samsung using Apple's battery throttling in it's ads comes to mind. So integrity definitely factors into the marketing calculus of politicians and corporations, but maybe the market doesn't value it enough to offer it the primacy you're looking for.

GVIrish 7y ago

This has nothing to do with vindictiveness. Simply put, if you refuse to testify in court, you can be held in jail for contempt of court. Manning was offered an immunity deal but decided she didn't believe in the concept of a subpoena, so she chose jail instead. She could have walked out of jail at any time had she chosen to testify. In accordance with the law, she has been released because the grand jury has concluded. One can argue whether someone can/should be compelled to testify, but Manning was not singled out for extra punishment here.

sloum 7y ago
I disagree with the premise of your comment GVirish. > she didn't believe in the concept of a subpoena, so she chose jail instead That is not the case. As clearly stated bboth in the linked article and by her legal team. She is happy to testify in a public hearing (which I agree is the proper place), but not in a closed door meeting away from democratic due process monitored by the citizenry of the country.
- GVIrish 7y ago
  Forgive me if I mischaracterized her objections but previously I saw her quoted as being against the concept of being forced to testify. And ultimately grand jury proceedings are non-public and they are a key part of our judicial process. To say it's not part of democratic due process is incorrect. There are a number of reasons for grand jury proceedings to not be public, particularly in national security cases. One can disagree with grand juries as a legal concept, which is fine, but if you refuse to show up, there are legal consequences.
  - travmatt 7y ago
    To me, arguing grand juries should work in public just signals a poor understanding of the American legal system - in the purpose of grand juries, the intent behind their design, and what they actually do. Arguing that we need to remove protection against over-zealous prosecutors to make the system safer is pretty nonsensical to me.

erentz 7y ago

Honestly when this happened my thought was Chelsea should just testify. I know it was stupid because it was all previous testimony and they didn't need it. But she's done and suffered enough, forget principals, give the vindictive bastards their testimony whenever they want it and try to enjoy your life in between.

turk73 7y ago

And every day when I say what you just said, I get downvoted on here. What is with people? You have to realize: They do this unethical crap in our names. We own this.

smoyer 7y ago

"Worse than any bully and more fanatical than any terrorist." When we elected Der Fuhrer in the last presidential election, weren't we asking for exactly this? I expected the "establishment" to become less hawkish during Obama's reign but that didn't happen either. I love my country but at this point I don't have a whole lot of hope for her (and now I'm probably on an NSA watch-list - I guess I should point out that I have no intention of harming anyone).