This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Edward Snowden's Libertarian Moment: We "Will Remove From Governments The Ability To Interfere With [Our] Rights"
Submitted by Nick Gillespie via Reason.com's Hit&Run blog,
Via Mark Sletten comes this thread from yesterday's Ask Me Anything session at Reddit that featured Edward Snowden, Oscar-winning documentarian Laura Poitras, and journalist Glenn Greenwald.
The question posed to Snowden:
What's the best way to make NSA spying an issue in the 2016 Presidential Election? It seems like while it was a big deal in 2013, ISIS and other events have put it on the back burner for now in the media and general public. What are your ideas for how to bring it back to the forefront?
His answer is well worth reading in full (below), but its essence is a full-throated defense of classical liberal and libertarian theorizing not just about the consent of the governed but the right to work around the government when it focuses on social order over legitimacy. And, as important, a recognition that this is what we at Reason and others call "the Libertarian Moment," or a technologically empowered drive toward greater and greater control over more and more aspects of our lives. While the Libertarian Moment is enabled by technological innovations and generally increasing levels of wealth and education, it's ultimately proceeds from a mind-set as much as anything else: We have the right to live peacefully any way we choose as long as we are not infringing on other people's rights to do the same. Our politics and our laws should reflect this emphasis on pluralism, tolerance, and persuasion (as opposed to coercion) across social, economic, and intellectual spheres of activity.
As Snowden emphasizes, it's not simply that governments (thankfully) fail at attempts for perfect surveillance and law enforcement. It's that technologically empowered people are actively worked to route around government attempts to fence us in.
"We the people will implement systems that provide for a means of not just enforcing our rights, but removing from governments the ability to interfere with those rights," he writes (emphasis in original). "we can find ways to reduce or remove their powers on a new—and permanent—basis."
Reading throught the Reddit exchange, it's easy to see why Snowden recently brought the 1,000-plus attendees of the International Students for Liberty Conference to their feet multiple times. He isn't some kind of pie-eyed nihilist, hell-bent on destroying the red, white, and blue for personal fame or out of ideological fervor. At 31 years old, he is an exceptionally well-spoken, thoughtful critic of the abuse of power that has become endemic to modern American governance. At the ISFLC, he said his one regret is that he didn't expose systemic infringement on citizens' constitutional rights sooner than he did.
If people lose their willingness to recognize that there are times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we aren't just ceding control of our rights to government, but our agency in determing our futures.
How does this relate to politics? Well, I suspect that governments today are more concerned with the loss of their ability to control and regulate the behavior of their citizens than they are with their citizens' discontent.
How do we make that work for us? We can devise means, through the application and sophistication of science, to remind governments that if they will not be responsible stewards of our rights, we the people will implement systems that provide for a means of not just enforcing our rights, but removing from governments the ability to interfere with those rights.
You can see the beginnings of this dynamic today in the statements of government officials complaining about the adoption of encryption by major technology providers. The idea here isn't to fling ourselves into anarchy and do away with government, but to remind the government that there must always be a balance of power between the governing and the governed, and that as the progress of science increasingly empowers communities and individuals, there will be more and more areas of our lives where—if government insists on behaving poorly and with a callous disregard for the citizen—we can find ways to reduce or remove their powers on a new—and permanent—basis.
Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy.
Snowden ends by noting that "when [the law] becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends."
Here's his full answer:
This is a good question, and there are some good traditional answers here. Organizing is important. Activism is important.
At the same time, we should remember that governments don't often reform themselves. One of the arguments in a book I read recently (Bruce Schneier, "Data and Goliath"), is that perfect enforcement of the law sounds like a good thing, but that may not always be the case. The end of crime sounds pretty compelling, right, so how can that be?
Well, when we look back on history, the progress of Western civilization and human rights is actually founded on the violation of law. America was of course born out of a violent revolution that was an outrageous treason against the crown and established order of the day. History shows that the righting of historical wrongs is often born from acts of unrepentant criminality. Slavery. The protection of persecuted Jews.
But even on less extremist topics, we can find similar examples. How about the prohibition of alcohol? Gay marriage? Marijuana?
Where would we be today if the government, enjoying powers of perfect surveillance and enforcement, had -- entirely within the law -- rounded up, imprisoned, and shamed all of these lawbreakers?
Ultimately, if people lose their willingness to recognize that there are times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we aren't just ceding control of our rights to government, but our agency in determing thour futures.
How does this relate to politics? Well, I suspect that governments today are more concerned with the loss of their ability to control and regulate the behavior of their citizens than they are with their citizens' discontent.
How do we make that work for us? We can devise means, through the application and sophistication of science, to remind governments that if they will not be responsible stewards of our rights, we the people will implement systems that provide for a means of not just enforcing our rights, but removing from governments the ability to interfere with those rights.
You can see the beginnings of this dynamic today in the statements of government officials complaining about the adoption of encryption by major technology providers. The idea here isn't to fling ourselves into anarchy and do away with government, but to remind the government that there must always be a balance of power between the governing and the governed, and that as the progress of science increasingly empowers communities and individuals, there will be more and more areas of our lives where -- if government insists on behaving poorly and with a callous disregard for the citizen -- we can find ways to reduce or remove their powers on a new -- and permanent -- basis.
Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy.
We haven't had to think about that much in the last few decades because quality of life has been increasing across almost all measures in a significant way, and that has led to a comfortable complacency. But here and there throughout history, we'll occasionally come across these periods where governments think more about what they "can" do rather than what they "should" do, and what is lawful will become increasingly distinct from what is moral.
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends.
* * *
»
- 24505 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Nice to see Citizenfour get best documentary. Maybe that will bring more attention to this issue
The biggest problem for the old system is the free exchange of information. They MUST control the Web with legislation like Net Neutrality, the sheep are becoming restless.
Power to the people! Firepower! Crush the Nazi Fascist in control of nations.
only one side is doing the killing. and they have been at total war for centuries. they will have their day. all the bullets in all the closets are just for your neighbor, there is no point in getting folks riled up, they just want some to rise up to employ the death squads that are twiddling their thumbs.
I hate to break it to Mr. Snowden but a government which did not have "the ability to interfere with [our] rights" would not be a governmnet would it? Sort of like daydreaming about water that would never drown anybody since it would not be wet.
Splitting hairs aren't we?
Its all a matter of degrees isn't it?
The fathers of the constition had a clear answer to this: If in doubt, then less government.
did they? my understanding of the Fathers of the US Constitution is that their tenet was: "If in doubt, balance"
balance of powers, balance of State Gov versus Federal Gov, balance between individual and collective needs, balance between the citizen and the state
.....
but anyway, why is there never a discussion on how much state? you'd think it would be easies, if you quantify how much. how about a percentage of GDP?
in the eurozone, we came to a different conclusion: whatever, as long as you balance your budget. That's hard enough, and puts pressure to no end
No, that was not the tenet. Google for
"Jefferson’s Arguments for Nullification and Limited Government"hope hat helps.
don't want to push it, but in my understanding Nullification is about balance because it is a State nullifying a Federal law
Thank you. That makes it easy. The way you use "balance" shows how unprecise and misuse-prone it is. It can be used for everything, usually is used by central-power-apologists.
That's why you can find it, e.g., all over the documents in which the EU bureaucrats jusitfy their grab of power.
giovanni, I have to disagree, here. I used "balance" in a context with several phrases, and you picked out only the word
further, you are barking, as in the last time, up the wrong tree. I couldn't be further from any "central-power-apologism"
and your example of the EU bureaucrats is a faulty one, particularly in the context of balance and this article about Snowden
all the power the "EU Bureacrats" have is given to them by the treaties, and watched over by the governments of the EU countries, the source of this power and the "keepers of the treaties". again, a question of balance, in this case that of sovereign countries versus an org/nexus of shared regulations
-------
in order to put this "balance" thing in the context of Snowden's words, here a quote from above: "At the same time, we should remember that governments don't often reform themselves....Well, when we look back on history, the progress of Western civilization and human rights is actually founded on the violation of law "
and this is why I argue for balance. in the US context, between States and Federation, in the EU context between the member sovereign and the common body of regs/institutions
IMHO the worst kind of any state setup is the monolithic nation state. It becomes One Justice Only, Love It Or Flee It, You Are Either With Us Or Against Us
the best way to counter and so violate an unjust law... is with a just law, and have a legal and political fight among peers. in short, balance
Bullshit. Balance implies equilibrium and under no circumstances is a government entity the equal in any context of the individual and his liberty.
Gordo, you're an unabashed statist apologist and to be blunt, a socialist fuck. You can mince words, split hairs, blow smoke and be a semantics whore all you want, but in the end it's useless talkings.
I'm not interested in equality, I'm interested in being left the fuck alone, which I will gladly reciprocate. Persistence to the contrary is likely to make my day.
like UR said...
fight club.
"...you're an unabashed statist apologist and to be blunt, a socialist fuck... I'm not interested in equality, I'm interested in being left the fuck alone, which I will gladly reciprocate."
at which point I can only hope you don't pay taxes to a government that has lots of military bases abroad, because if you do...
lots of shouting because I used "balance" in a context. now you come with "equality". which one, "equality before the law"?
show me this place without government of which you "non-statist-apologists" are constantly talking about. where is it?
Again with the bullshit. Fuck you Gordo. Your "this place without government" bullshit is no different than the assfucks that go on about roads and fireman because we are sick and fucking tired of being taxed to motherfucking death.
Less government and most certainly a non-nanny state government is not the same thing as no government and we both know it. Yes, I am forced to pay taxes through threat of force to fund apartheid governments, military bases all over the fucking place, dictators and 7th century throw-backs, support generations of people I don't know, don't want to know and sure as fuck aren't from around here and now, now some cocksuckers nightfuckingmare of healthcare.
I don't want your fucking socialist u-motherfucking-topia Gordo, hence I don't fucking live in Europe. And I'm goddamn sick and fucking tired of the leftist fucknuts trotting out your bullshit system as something to emulate. It's not - it's a goddamn tax-rape, lowest common denominator de-humanizing nightmare Gordo.
I am not looking for place without government, I want a place where government knows it's place and it sure as fuck isn't in my home, my wallet, my place of worship (or lack thereof), my goddamn business, or how to raise or educate my children and last but not least, to decide how and when I cash in my chips. I want a place where the government has enough funds to fulfill it's mandate, nothing more, nothing less. I want a place where it is impossible for an attorney to make a living. If you want to be in the social welfare business, fine, join the church; it is NOT a governments place. It's not the governments place to pick winner and losers in the market place.
Tell you what Gordo, get your people to grow the balls to throw the fucking occupiers (bankers and military) out of your neck of the woods, pick up the tab for your own defense and keep your socialist bullshit to yourselves and I suspect you'll find folks on this side of the pond will know an opportunity to redecorate when they see it.
Generally agree; I'm of the camp that thinks the fed gov't is necessary for a few tasks ... the fewer the better. I'm not sure that being a fan of a federally-sponsored interstate highway system (a "road") automatically makes me an "assfuck", but hey you're entitled to your opinion. And so am I.
Ghordius, read the tenth amendment, this disproves your "balance" argument there is not supposed to be a balance of power between the states and the federal governments. Everything else is afforded the states and the people....NO BALANCE. :P
Ghordius - I view the 'checks and balances' of the US government as system brakes, like in a car. Eventually, the brakes fail the car crashes and it requires a new car with improved brakes. Eventually, that system will get corrupted and fail.
I commend you for being thick skinned and I enjoy your commentary about Europe. I don't comment about it much because I have never been there. What I do think is the EU is doomed to fail because the political union needed to be strengthened for common consensus prior to the monetary union which happened first.
If I don't get a say in how my tax money is appropriated but must pay taxes, that is taxation without representation what the revolution was about. All governments eventually turn into a giant, monolithic pyramids but better system brakes could make a Republic last longer.
We're in a 3D universe with basic binary decision-making but we are evolving toward 4D systems even as science has begun understanding of the literal 4th dimension. That evolution is also reflected in architecture as well.
Agree as to the multifarious meanings of the word "balance". In the case of the British Empire, for instance, the phrase "balance of power" was used to justify the persistent pernicious meddling in Continental affairs that resulted in the World Wars. Not at all helped by usury and Tribal control in latter centuries. This is ancestor to present US (or "Anglo-Zionist" to quote Saker) "total dominance" posture.
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.”
George Washington
I don't think he is. GOVERNment.
ANarchy
I often ask certain persons what it feels like to be ignorant and confused, but they never have a coherent answer.
Cruel and unusual punishment - asking the ignorant and confused what it feels like to be ignorant and confused. Nary a spare clock tick to be found.
Been waterboarded recently at Homan Square?
As soon as there is a pro-Snowden piece the character-assassination trolls come creeping out of their holes like rats. A selection:
1. It is a MSM-spectacle (and therefore has no credibility)
2. We knew it all along (and therefore I don't understand all the fuss about it)
3. He is a Highschool drop-out and his girlfried is a dancer (and therefore not integer)
4. He is controlled opposition (and therefore not the real deal, ignore him)
5. He is a traitor (because he is a threat to an (Orwell-flavored) America as the Neocons would like to produce)
6. How come a Highschool dropout manages to become a consultant at BAH and gets one of the highest clearance levels of the NSA (Putin must be behind it)
1. It is a MSM-spectacle (and therefore has no credibility)
correct it is and it has.
2. We knew it all along (and therefore I don't understand all the fuss about it)
we did and i was just as upset about it when i found out many years before this limited hangout as i am now.
3. He is a Highschool drop-out and his girlfried is a dancer (and therefore not integer)
who cares about any of that.
4. He is controlled opposition (and therefore not the real deal, ignore him)
you can learn the message this controlled opposition is spewing from any limited government conservative with mild libertarian leanings, and eventually when he has enough people licking his ass, and showing him reverence like you can see by his trillion post reddit ama's where they all lick his ball like the messiah he will lead them down the garden path and gatekeep them, just like glen greenwald does and the rest of the gang.
5. He is a traitor (because he is a threat to an (Orwell-flavored) America as the Neocons would like to produce)
again abolish the state who cares about this.
6. How come a Highschool dropout manages to become a consultant at BAH and gets one of the highest clearance levels of the NSA (Putin must be behind it)
CIA loves to hire people without credentials but good skills, they percieve themselves to be dependent and compromise their morals easier and are easily controlled by the bureaucracy.
i think you are spewing bs without looking into it enough, whether snowden is legit or not.
i think you missed the /s.
understandable - given that snowden is the gift that keeps giving and nobody with a brain ignores this.
i think i did.
"1. It is a MSM-spectacle (and therefore has no credibility)"
This is a place where my gut feels wrong. I can't help but think of Emmanuel Goldstein every time I see Snowden.
The sophistication of the media in creating distractions is impressive in its breadth and scope. I feel that we here on zh are as prone to reacting as they want us to as any (I include myself in this). Here is Snowden, telling us just what we want to hear. There is something soothing about that, no? We can then come on here and write our comments, and there is that cathartic release... all very controlled.
The game they are playing is subtle, and the only advice I try to remind myself of daily is that I am being manipulated always. They are damned good at playing this game, and we as individuals are at a disadvantage. Whether I agree or disagree with what is shown, I am being allowed to see it. I am suspicious of absolutely everything. Unfortunately, this becomes self-defeating, because to be suspicious of everything is as directionless as being suspicious of nothing.
The one thing I am confident of is that power can be maintained through one of two means: trust or fear. Using fear (the current model) is inherently unstable. A system that has lost the trust of its population (which this one undeniably has) is by its nature temporary. It's just a matter of time. Hard to watch in the meantime, though.
>I am suspicious of absolutely everything. Unfortunately, this becomes self-defeating, because to be suspicious of everything is as directionless as being suspicious of nothing.
thats insinuating that there is not objective truth, there is the truth which is absolute and there is your perception of it, those with closer perceptions of the truth have higher consciousness. if you start thinking its impossible to find the truth in things by being sceptical that is a slippery slope to moral relativism, which is one of the main tenants of satanism, just sayin....
Excellent response, thank you.
I prefer to think of this in terms of actions and consequences. When people behave according to certain codes (as our current leadership is doing), there are logical consequences to that, because the vast majority of people in a population are going to react to such treatment in a similar fashion. Whether or not that popular reaction is "moral" is irrelevant. You treat people like shit for long enough, eventually they are going to come find you. That "come find you" moment, however, has historically been defined around access to food and shelter. Because until the past 50 years or so, the US system was remarkably strong at allowing people to have access to resources, this was not an issue. The system is now breaking down, however, and it's a matter of time before people have more to bitch about than "their rights". Those perceived to be with power at that time will not be happy to be perceived that way anymore...
An Oscar for a documentary and some reporting on it does not qualify as MSM-spectacle. Watch the film and you will understand that it merits the award.
"a government which did not have "the ability to interfere with [our] rights" would not be a governmnet would it?"
one of the least successful ways to face governmental issues is to somehow imply that all governments are alike, or that they can be put away
some governments cut your head off for reasons which lead other governments to give you an award
there are great differences in quality. but those qualities don't come from daydreaming of getting rid of government, or just saying that they are all alike
"rights"? without redress to a tribunal you don't have rights. if you talk about "rights", you are already talking about justice, hence some kind of government
government starts with conflict among humans, and the question who is to arbitrate and judge among them, and how, and based on which system
government starts with a group of peers making an intervention in the squabble between two neighbours because they are driving it too far, and getting on everybody's nerves
government is other people. if you don't want government, you have to find your island or desert of loneliness, and hope you aren't sitting on valuable resources
in this country, the 2nd was intended and is still having the effect of keeping the infringement of those rights damn risky. fuck the tribunal, those can be bought.
like mao (murderous monster) said: "political power comes out of the barrel of a gun" - and then promptly disarmed the chinese.
help me here, how's it go... molo labbe? something like that. government is a necessary evil that turns 'other' people into monsters, to the degree it permits them power. lord acton and all...
Net Neutrality will be dicey...
If electronic payments, benefit transfers, & PORN [yes 'Miffed'... P-O-R-N] start getting interrupted, .GOV will have chaos on their hands.
I predict ZERO chaos if 'kissing orgasms' are interrupted.
When did I inply such interruptions? ;-)
Haven't you heard of steganography? Kissing organisms maybe embedded anywhere and in anything. Images, audio. You are so unimaginative. I'd like to see them find such things when pressed. Freedom will reign always no matter how oppressive at some point. Let's how no blood is shed.
Miffed;-)
@Harbanger, ad "control of the free web". Yes. The free web is indeed a gigantic thorn in their eyes. The controlled media in the west is almost running amok against the likes of ZH and RT. They have a real problem here: On the ne hand, they are aware of the fact that completely forestalling the until now free publication would entirely ruin their narrative of a free western press - but not damming the "flood of truth" is likewise fully unacceptable. I am looking forward to the double speak that awaits us in this matter.
http://www.cryptome.org/
Nice!
my neighbor's mother makes $86 /hr on the computer . She has been laid off for 10 months but last month her pay was $21128 just working on the computer for a few hours. go to the website... www.globe-report.com
You getting lazy one_hundred.
Your post content used to be so diverse.
http://www.zerohedge.com/search/user_comments?page=1&name=one_hundred
Yousa fired.
What? A government plant... NSA does not let informers crawl away...Ever! Oh, exceptions are Pollard and their elk/kind.
Edward Snowjob.
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/01/31/the-entire-snowden-nsa-cache-...
disinformation likely- who knows for absolute certainty.
I don't know why Sibel Edmonds has taken that approach with Edward. She confirms everything he has said with a "I told you so" attitude (WHEN?) and at the same tries to smear him as a charlatan. She can't have it both ways. If he is confirming the truth of the situation, he can hardly be a charlatan can he?
She also has some issues with Glenn Greenwald for not dumping the 50,000 pages of the NSA documents into the public domain (& having some vague commercial relationship with Payal's Pierre Omidyar). I have to agree with her on this point since Snowden entrusted Greenwald to expose the extent of the blanket NSA surveillance around the globe with the proviso that it did not harm those who are not criminally involved - an impossible task since the whole NSA enterprise is criminal. Perhaps it would have been better all round to dump the lot on the net for everyone to see and judge for themselves instead of trying to squeeze every ounce of publicity (and money) out of it.
It's a pity because she has exposed some valuable information about Gladio B among other things, but the tenor of her posts regarding the Snowden revelations appear to be driven by spite for Edward's fame and nothing else. It's like watching two seasoned ZHers arguing about something they both agree on, but arguing just the same because they can't stand each other. What a waste.
"Perhaps it would have been better all round to dump the lot on the net for everyone to see and judge for themselves instead of trying to squeeze every ounce of publicity (and money) out of it."
Yeah, right. When that happens, maybe things will change. I can speculate, because it won't ever happen.
The fact that this didn't occur and was instead made into an MSM spectacle should've been the discerning eye's barometer for Deep State involvement, but it seems folks still like their media-produced "Heroes" (Snowden, Paul, Vlad, et. al.) more than they like self-responsibility and Truth.
Troll. Shut up.
You're on the wrong site for that sort of attitude princess.
Pussy - 10 guys beg to differ. As one enlighted ZH commentator said recently, this is the fight club, not the agree club.
Correct. Even whistleblowers gotta eat!
Interesting tone in her writing. My take away from her opinion was: Big deal. Spying. They do it to everyone. that makes up a large portion of what Snowden revealed.
But that isnt the point right? Many people were aware of it. Just like many were aware of arms sales until fast and furious proved it as fact.
And that, to my mind is the point. We now know it as fact. And it should be troubling.
Your mind needs broadening, then.
Anyone paying attention knew this to be "fact" decades ago, as you concede, yet there is an inherent distinction to be made between open secrets and public disclosure. Edward Snowden is public disclosure for a dragnet surveillance program whose target is domestic in nature. A surveillance state has two primary objectives: To categorize and dragnet everyone and everything, and to scare the living shit out of the malleable public into instilling a sense of SELF-censorship.
Objective #2 is only possible post-public disclosure, or in this case, post-Snowjob.
The Panopticon, as Jeremy Bentham originally prototyped, was not powerful because it was actually capable of monitoring all prisoners at once. It was powerful because it seeded the idea into the consciousness of prisoners that they COULD be surveilled at any given time, from any position. The Internet is a digital Panopticon, and Edward Snowden is the conveniently-positioned mirror by which the guards can reflect their murderous intent upon the prisoners, i.e., ourselves.
Troubling, doubtless, but all part of the program.
Spying is one thing. Collection is another. Processing that information to provide a profile of an individual based on who they speak with, where they go, their job, church, politics, filthy habits is exactly what IBM did to the jews. What is wrong with you people? Are ou not Americans? Do you not see you are about to get a free train ride called Tax Debt Train to Hell? Your nation was strategically bankrupted for a reason. TO OVER THROW IT. just fing christ, some of you deserve to be slaves. you act as if this is a movie that has an ending and that you will return to life as normal when it does. Can you not see the BIG FUCKING PICTURE?
spying openly or collection alone is enought. look at the ideas behind jeremy bentham's panopticon.
http://cartome.org/panopticon1.htm
How's your cubicle at Homan Square?
Now look at who is really trolling...
Your friend - or another avatar you use - confuses conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact. His long tomes make simple things complicated and are a clear tactic to dilute the outrage.
That is why he qualifies as a troll.
P.S: Why not watch the documentary and then come back?
See that was better. More compelling.
You're not very bright, are you?
I read Legacy of Ashes and thought, "This can't possibly be true. No agency could be this bad." But now after witnessing American intelligence over the last decade it most certainly is true.
American intelligence is good at pulling finger nails, bombing wedding parties, smuggling drugs, giving weapons to terrorists, murdering the innocent, and setting up limp puppets. It is not good at much else. They wanted Edward but due to their incompetence with most things, failed. Remember the plane being downed over Europe? That was American intelligence trying to play spy.
An American citizen, holed-up in Russia, writing this...
Awesome
"Knock, knock.
Who's there?
Are you Sarah Conner?....
(Long pause)
Are you Alex Trebec?
Sarah can see him from Alaska.
+1 for wittiness and originality.
Thank you. Its not like I'm a Termina...I mean a "robot."
Of course there is a problem with creative types too...
Too many Palin lovers.Cannot forget her winking.
I have it on good authority -- the source of which I am not able to disclose at this time -- that Edward and Vlad have dinner together several times a week to plot and plan the downfall of western civilization. -- some neocon think-stank
If you cannot disclose the authority, it is not good.
We are all just names on the internet, no more valuable than some bravado in a bar from some guy looking for a way into some girls pants....
/sarc
"Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy."
I don't care who wrote it - I believe it to be true
"..we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends."
This responsibility is my bond
There is a hope, just a hope, that future generations will come to understand that the fallacy of government is as false as the flat earth or rain gods. We humans do not need other humans, exalted by the illusion of elections, to control us for our own good. If humans are too evil to self control then why do we think that a group of humans would be good enough to pick a smaller group of humans to rule us?
Past generations were ruled by Kings and Queens who were not elected. They would literally kill to be able to post on a public forum about the oppression of their unelected leaders. Can we stop with the useless ideological bullshit?
The full libertarian logic forms a circle so perfect and alluring that, who knows, 250,000 or a million years from now human nature might evolve enough to actually make it work. In the meantime....
I agree with your comment in spirit but the logical endpoint to libertarian thought is in the absence of government. That is where it reaches logical consistency.
That is something that blocked by a certain level of emotional thinking in most libertarians.
Emotional thinking is indoctrination.
Dear stupid person,
I am ruled by those I do not elect. I am ruled by by those modern day Kings and Queens elected by low level control freaks like you. I am ruled by you and your ilk, who think that other people are their property.
I am ruled by rulers and their dumb-ass supporters who are no different than those were driven to rule over others in the past.
Thanks for continuing the savagery of death, destruction, slavery, and theft of the last ten thousand years. The lords and masters couldn't do it without your help.
P.S. Freedom is not ideological bullshit. Your dysfunctional brain spewing out its control freak ideology is what is bullshit.
"I am ruled by those I do not elect. I am ruled by by those modern day Kings and Queens elected by low level control freaks like you. I am ruled by you and your ilk, who think that other people are their property.
I am ruled by rulers and their dumb-ass supporters who are no different than those were driven to rule over others in the past.
Thanks for continuing the savagery of death, destruction, slavery, and theft of the last ten thousand years. The lords and masters couldn't do it without your help. "
I agree with everything you have written above.
You forgot to let the idiot know that we also reserve the right to attain/defend our liberty by whatever means are necessary.
Yes, past generations were ruled by kings and queens. The 'American Experiment' was about doing something much different than that. Yet, despite a group of talented founders energized by the Enlightenment, in the space of a little more than a couple hundred years - the people would find themselves in a high tech police state. How and why did that happen ?
'America' was founded on philosophical ideas, yet something went wrong. These are very practical questions. If you don't get to the heart of the matter, you just run around in circles. Lots of motion, without real movement seems to be part of the American character, unfortunately.
The only obstacle that stood between America becoming the country the Founding Fathers desires was murder of the some of the greatest leaders on earth. The House of Mirrors and Hall of Horror is designed to enrich the same people who assassinated our heroes. That is all. What a great land? Stay out of a man's bedroom, Keep your secrets to yourself. Protect your leaders as you do your prisoners, the effort to keep them alive has failed. Which is why Mexico is a lawless land filled with widows and mothers who buried their sons. PROTECT THE GOOD MEN, A man who can organize a community can organize a country. The religious right, by the millions, ,are praying for the end of times, and their demigods are preparing accordingly. Sore losers never give up.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToP82VUjrNU and if you do not know who the enemy is, anyone in the house is suspect.
who needs principles right?
"Past generations were ruled by Kings and Queens who were not elected. "
The idea that "the King" or "the Queen" exercised power in a vacuum is a misconception. Even in a monarchy, there is a court surrounding the monarch, and the monarch needs to maintain peace in the court, lest a knife or poison find its way into that leader's life.
All societal systems depend on enforcement at a whole series of different scales. The current western model is brilliant, because those exercising power have managed to hide themselves so perfectly that finding them becomes a major first hurdle, identifying them definitively becomes a second, and only then (by which time the average citizen is tired of the process) can people begin to question what to do about them.
This new brand of tyranny is so subtle...
It's easy, just look at who benefits from all of the turmoil. It's obviously the Zionists.
When there is a large enough percentage of a population sophisticated enough to follow what you have just written, then we may get there. Unfortunately, we're not even close. One group is following the Kardashians, and the other is entertained by the seeming friction of red/blue, liberal/conservative, us/them noise that is the constant background of human existence. Way way too few people just want to be left the fuck alone. Apparently, that's a lot to ask. Too much of a "power hoarding" genetic tendency remains in the population.
Sounds like one of those sovereign citizen terrorists to me.........
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/13/david-carr-edward-snowden-death...
He speaks very well. Too well.
There are thousands and thousands like him. Some of them are here in ZH. They were all born smart to begin with, and then developed their minds and thinking independent of the university system, and many have read the sames works the founders of the US did when formulating the constitution. Time will tell the authenticity of Snowden, but I would say the US government's unflagging efforts to get him, and the subversive statements he makes (as above) is making the scale tip in favor of him being legit.
In any case, speaking well isn't a red flag. He clearly has massive depth of thought about these topics, and the one thing I've noticed in my years is that very few people in general do, and virtually none of the government proxies can speak past talking points without external support, and will just revert back to the talking points when forcefully challenged instead of developing the line of thought as we see Snowden do here.
Edward Snowden is a genius, not a musical or math genius, but a genius none the less, I'm not sure... perhaps a social genius, perhaps one could say he gets the saying "no man is an island" He is a true leader in the sense he has put humanity before himself, he has really in a sense laid down his own life for what he believes in and what he believes in is us. Edward Snowden is in exile because he dared to stand up for what he believed in. Some principals like basic human rights to privacy and freedom of speech, things that countries should be prepared to go to war to defend. Principals like those laid out in the constitution are what are worth defending. Unlike the corporations and goverments of the west who have yet to meet a principal they didn't want to brutally violate, Snowden has done everything in his power to fight a battle we all should have the guts to raise a flag above and fight for.
Probably gifted like some ZHers. He has the ability to step aside the madness and accurately describe it for what it is.
And I believe he has the room to grow.
It must be amazing to collect ridiculous salary helping the system out and then turn on it to be come a famous household figure with even more income guaranteed. Meanwhile, many totally broke and poor people simply refuse to engage with the system and have nothing at all and no one considers them heroes. Such is life.
Red Pill and weep for everyone that believed in America, USA our country. Thank you JREV for sharing.
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/01/31/the-entire-snowden-nsa-cache-...
Every time I read something that Edward Snowden puts out In a speech or article, I want to jump up and yell "that's my guy, we're gonna bring down this sytem together". Then my critical thinking kicks in and my brain screams TRAP, IT'S A FUCKING TRAP. If he was a legitimate threat to this paradigm, he would already have nail gunned himself to a couch.
I'm guesing if Snowden was in Texas, he would indeed, be another mysterious "unexplainable" death.
Snowden is legit. Anyone who argues that the information he released helped america is a fool. It takes ten contortions to do so.
Ok, I posted this on the black ops bath house article, but I'm gonna post it again. You'll laff ur ass off!
Boston massakree, but keep in mind when speaking of legit or not...
Remember Pooty saying he'd "warned the US about the Tsarnev brothers being a security risk"?????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN9xf0gmCHI " target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN9xf0gmCHI
Snowden didn't help the America of of the Dulles, Bushes, Cheneys, Obamas, NSA-apologists.
But Snowden helped the America of the values of true freedom and liberty - and those behind these values as e.g. Ron Paul.
there are still those of us who think edward snowden is not who he says he is and that he is some sort of counterintelligence operation because 1) he's not accessible and kept outside the u.s. and 2) he's now EVERYONE' S HERO.
it's hard to believe a high school dropout got so high so quickly in the nsa and was able to abscond with SO MUCH INFORMATION . this is indeed hard to believe he accomplished this with no ones help.
the reports say that there is a suspected second leaker that helped edward snowden and this why I and MANY OTHERS who applaud the message he is spewing also believe that he is not who he says he is.
he may be legitmiately protecting someone from the inside that is a PARTNER IN WHISTLEBLOWING. could this be? could it be that such an improbably person like edward snowden found another similarly improbably anonymous patriot both working in the cia and able to connect and then hatch a plan to accomplish this massive information operation to the public?
many speculate that snowden is a CIA operation to get the NSA off the CIA's back, because the NSA may well have some beauracratic differences in control from the nsa. that is indeed hard to believe but for the fact that we know actual nazi groups have infiltrated and been in the cia and have private interests in controlling the government to their own ends. the nsa may also have such groups. but that doesnt' mean ALL of the leadership in these big beauracracies are in the same interested league with one another. there could be oversteppign and there could well be a fight between the cia and the nsa.
i don't know of other real possibilities for explaining the incentives behind snowden other than to say, it was OBVIOUS from binney and others that the NSA programs were illegal and sweeping and that one day inevitably people would find out. maybe the snowden affair is a far more complex game.
especially considering that a former lawyer----and associate of the former owner of ebay pierre omidyar------glenn greenwald had helped him.
glenn himself might be impeachable. his association with omidyar , a persian american who helped elect modi , a pro american president for india. perhaps these associations are incidental but they have the hallmarks of government economic/deep-statecraft and it is all too convenient for me to see that the normally cia controlled MSM , the same MSM that runs propoganda to incite warfare----is suddently lining up to broadcast the snowden affair all at once where binney and a couple other whistleblowers were almost entirely controlled.
when the spinmasters are all over something like flies on shit-----you know it's time to raise your warning alarm bells of skepticism, even with something , especially with something-----proclaiming to be apparently dissident.
Who are Citizens 1,2 and 3?
"Are you Citizen 4?"
After a while it goes from being funny to actually being...
I didn't know it is so easy to detect a character-assassination op. These bastards at Homan square are proof that evilness often comes along with plain stupidity.
Snowden is one of those materially above average IQ guys who are more than underwhelmed by what high schools challenge them. For Joe Average, however, who has got nothing tangible that distinguishes him from the masses, it is essential to produce a solid track record of government certificates. That at least gives proof of his compliance with the system.
"it's hard to believe a high school dropout got so high so quickly in the nsa and was able to abscond with SO MUCH INFORMATION . this is indeed hard to believe he accomplished this with no ones help. "
possibly. but part of the Snowdon "Revelations" is that there are 800'000 people with the same security clearance as he had
now, either they have little information... at which point the mind balks at why so many
or the amount of information is so staggering that it makes you wonder in several directions at once
Goverments are increasingly becoming problematic for the citizens of the west but so too are the huge corporations, the banking system, the military industrial complex. It seems this is an age of the growth and abuse of power over the good of humanity. Power in all it's incarnations, excessive concentrated wealth, run amuck military and civilian agencies, power mad politicians. This is less an age of reason and one of excess power worship. The danger is that there may be a time coming soon when a combination of high tech surveilance and huge goverment spy agencies make it impossible for the citizens to ever regain their freedom. The future will be a goverment boot stomping on humanities face over and over forever.
I think that's his Match.com photo.
oh man, just shut the fuck up already!
"Slavery. The protection of persecuted Jews." <<< WTF is this?
like there hasn't been any precedent...
1001 Quotes By and About Jews
https://www.stormfront.org/posterity/13texan/q751-800.htm
CICERO (Marcus Tullius Cicero). First century B.C. Roman stateman, writer. "Softly! Softly! I want none but the judges to hear me. The Jews have already gotten me into a fine mess, as they have many other gentleman. I have no desire to furnish further grist for their mills." (Oration in Defense of Flaccus)
Cicero was serving as defense counsel at the trial of Flaccus, a Roman official who interfered with Jewish gold shipments to their international headquarters (then, as now) in Jerusalem. Cicero himself certainly was not a nobody, and for one of this stature to have to "speak softly" shows that he was in the presence of a dangerously powerful sphere of influence, and on another occasion Cicero wrote: "The Jews belong to a dark and repulsive force. One knows how numerous this clique is, how they stick together and what power they exercise through their unions. They are a nation of rascals and deceivers."
ain't gonna happen
hammer breaks fantasy
Russia is no bastion of freedom
US is turning darker
."US is turning darker"
Yes it is, but it's clear you're not of a mindset to be of any help.
Bitch.
I like your pony tails uncle.
Libertarian?
Irish.
STFU ASSHOLE!
Within 6 years, 9 out of 10 people in ZH Posting will be government agents.
CIA just announced that they want more power to monitor the Internet... like they haven't already taken on more than they have authority for, right?
If they want some more power or authority it just means they want either more funding or they want permission for what they already are doing.
Probably they need more server power to do things that NSA is already doing. Anyway, DHS also has the same power and is probably already has all the computing power they need except for a fusion center/switching center in each US County. I would guess port operations, water port & air ports would have to be integrated into County Fusion/Switching Centers incorporating license plate readers, cell phone readers, cell phone locators, car locators/car tracker, facial recognition, audio sound locator towers, emergency vehicle Dispatch Radios, national databases to summarize individual/perp data, medical data, banking & credit card data, passport data/visa data, work permit data, etc.
Within 6 years, 9 out of 10 people in ZH Posting will be government agents.
Good, then the Tyler's can make their money from the gov't lackies looking at their ads.
I can't stand people that think Big Government will solve all their problems. They make me sick.
Edward Snowden, as stated in another thread, I was bored with the movie. Perhaps it was designed for the the slower IQ minds. Remove my opinion as a hiccup in how society absorbs information. Did give producers a 10/10 rating for slow information process.
Might of missed your lovely new leaks. Still have a suspicion about you. What is the latest thought about FCC on Thursday. You do present damaging information, yet you fail to address current laws being passed. This is a honest question.
Edward's Snowjob!
I being of sound and albeit a slow mind, expect geniuses to master basic sentence srructure and grammar. I suppose if English is only one of the 7 languages you use frequently- perhaps you have an excuse for that fragmented post.
Suiting name, lunaticfringe. Your're excused for the fragmented post. I still don't trust Edward Snowden. My gut feeling is that he's a operatative. Aiding to expand control. What language shall I translate that into? Anyone can dump data in a past tense form. As I asked, what is his viewpoint on the FCC/internet? If the fucker was so smart, the information would already have been leaked. Think about that.
Hope he unloads the rest of his dirty laundry during 2016 elections. Embrace the chaos!
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
I think we get the message...
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson
"...Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy...
In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends..."
Edward Snowden