InfoWorld on Everyday Encryption
-
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” Benjamin Franklin
We are very nearly there now.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
I'm waiting for a smart world leader to stand up and say "Encrypt everything, because it benefits us far more and seriously hurts dictators / fascists and anyone seeking to block free speech"
A smart leader is not enough. You need both a smart and an altruistic leader.
My only point is you don't see any 60 IQ knuckle draggers getting elected to lead countries.
I sure do. Are you not looking?
Take my hand and show me what thou hast seen
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@RojoLoco said:
@MattSpeller even if they have smarts, they get there by influence and dirty trickery. Peter Tosh said it best when he called them "politricksters". GW Bush is precisely why I quit watching the news...
I don't know, it would only be trickery if the public didn't want it. They very clearly do. So it is just good customer service at this point.
I don't consider this entirely fair. There are plenty of laws that if the public was fully aware of the laws said and meant, they wouldn't get passed.
It's like ObamaCare where Pelosi said, "We have to pass the Bill so that you can find out what's in it"
Come on, really?
To some degree. But then, someone voted every one of the people that made that situation into office.
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
I'm waiting for a smart world leader to stand up and say "Encrypt everything, because it benefits us far more and seriously hurts dictators / fascists and anyone seeking to block free speech"
A smart leader is not enough. You need both a smart and an altruistic leader.
My only point is you don't see any 60 IQ knuckle draggers getting elected to lead countries.
I sure do. Are you not looking?
Never underestimate the power of stupid politicians in large numbers.
-
Yeah, you go article!
SED and encrypted USB sticks.
I love it!
-
In the hereditary world, it takes zero mental capacity to be a world leader. Dead people have even pulled it off. In the democratic world, being smart almost certainly bars you from office as the average person is put off by smart people. Democracies naturally promote the worst, not the best.
I don't really agree with that. I think that, for office, you have to have some smarts. It's problematic to come off as intellectual, yes, that is certainly true. But actual stupidity doesn't pay. I think it pays to be good at looking stupid while playing 'the game' very well.
Not saying that office attracts the SMARTEST people, though, nor the kindest or best. And about the puppets, Frank Herbert said: Power does not corrupt, but power attracts the corruptible. If he is right, we should elect people for office who aren't interested
-
@jospoortvliet said:
Not saying that office attracts the SMARTEST people, though, nor the kindest or best. And about the puppets, Frank Herbert said: Power does not corrupt, but power attracts the corruptible. If he is right, we should elect people for office who aren't interested
This is why there has often been suggestions of Write-Ins for Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
I'm waiting for a smart world leader to stand up and say "Encrypt everything, because it benefits us far more and seriously hurts dictators / fascists and anyone seeking to block free speech"
A smart leader is not enough. You need both a smart and an altruistic leader.
My only point is you don't see any 60 IQ knuckle draggers getting elected to lead countries.
Come on, give Donald a chance
-
@jospoortvliet said:
And about the puppets, Frank Herbert said: Power does not corrupt, but power attracts the corruptible. If he is right, we should elect people for office who aren't interested
Which is why hereditary monarchies work as well as they do. The people in power never tried to get there, they just ended up there. Showing that random chance often works better than the public deciding!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@RojoLoco said:
@MattSpeller even if they have smarts, they get there by influence and dirty trickery. Peter Tosh said it best when he called them "politricksters". GW Bush is precisely why I quit watching the news...
I don't know, it would only be trickery if the public didn't want it. They very clearly do. So it is just good customer service at this point.
I don't consider this entirely fair. There are plenty of laws that if the public was fully aware of the laws said and meant, they wouldn't get passed.
It's like ObamaCare where Pelosi said, "We have to pass the Bill so that you can find out what's in it"
Come on, really?
To some degree. But then, someone voted every one of the people that made that situation into office.
If you discount rigged elections. And don't tell me you think they're all legit.
-
That's true, corruption and election rigging can sometimes bypass the idiocy of the populace and let a smart person, rather than a popular one, make it to the office
-
The highest possible percentage of a favorable outcome of any democratic election, ascension to a monarchy, coup d'état, communist revolution, etc. is 50%. Either they are good or they are not. The purest option is with a leader that the public has nothing to do with choosing, and who did not arrive of their own doing. Anyone who works to gain power is most likely tainted. Anyone forcibly put into power by another is likely tainted. And anyone who has to conjure up enough popularity to get into power is either a liar, a puppet, or an anomaly. Ergo, whether we in the West like it or not, your best shot at getting a smart, altruistic leader is by pure chance in a monarchy... and that's even pretty risky.
-
Yup, monarchies are surprisingly decent.
