9 ms·

> with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States There are two versions of the United States. 1. The People of. The

> with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States There are two versions of the United States. 1. The People of. The ones that benefit from whistleblowers. They are not injured when classified information is distributed - they get valuable insight they don't normally get into the doings of their employees (government officials that take their salary from taxes). The ones upon whose whims the government has power, and allegedly upon whose whims that power can be revoked. 2. The Government of. This is the actual entity of power in the USA, and probably has been forever (though the way the Executive branch reacted to union riots makes me wonder - it was genuinely concerned it was about to be deposed, I wonder if that was a valid fear?) This is injured when word gets out about it breaking its own laws - it makes the USA look bad, it destroys trust and thus the ability for the government to maintain control of the people, etc. This is a living creature and that's what many 2nd amendmenters don't seem to realize, that the government of the USA isn't The People of, it's an organism that will maintain its form by any means necessary. Legal ones are the safest, illegal and immoral ones if needs must. Anybody challenging this power is an enemy of #2, even if they aren't an enemy of #1. Great examples are some of our industry's favorite persons of interest, namely Snowden, Manning. Back in the day it was Civil Rights activists (note I'm not drawing a comparison between current leaks and that era, just saying it's another example of enemies of #2 but not #1). As per the article, the line "be used to the injury of the USA" is obviously being interpreted by the current administration to mean "to the injury of #2" above.

Arubis 7y ago
This is an excellent breakdown of something that feels obvious but was hard to express. Thank you.
Clubber 7y ago
>This is a living creature and that's what many 2nd amendmenters don't seem to realize, that the government of the USA isn't The People of, it's an organism that will maintain its form by any means necessary. Legal ones are the safest, illegal and immoral ones if needs must. Second amendment-ers are keenly aware of this.
- nyolfen 7y ago
  seriously, this is probably the least intuitive group to single out over this
- komali2 7y ago
  Speaking from experience with them, they seem to think the 2nd amendment must necessarily be respected by the very government they think is allowing them the guns to threaten said government with in the first place. That's the cognitive hole I'm pointing to - if they stockpile weapons to eventually potentially overthrow the US government, they must do so knowing that it will be illegal to do so regardless - the 2nd amendment won't protect them in that case, and is thus practically useless for what they think it's useful for. AKA, the life of a militiaman that intends to use weapons to overthrow the USA is, to the USA, the life of a terrorist/rebel/enemy of the state. It's not a constitutionally protected state of existence.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    The 2A doesn’t protect the use of arms against the government, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard a 2A advocate suggest that. The point is to prevent the government from disarming the populace before such action might be required.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      Actually, no, the point is to prevent the government from deciding it needs to rely on professional police and military forces for day-to-day defense against domestic and international security threats, instead relying on ad hoc levies from the general population for those purposes, making it unthinkable both in terms of capacity and inclination that the “government security services” could suppress the general civilian population, since the former as a separate group by profession, class, etc.—but for very small standing cadres providing institutional knowledge and continuity—would not exist. But that ship has rather sailed, and the 2A failed in its purpose, but it still hangs around, and even it's defenders have forgotten what it was there for.
    - 7y ago
drak0n1c 7y ago
There is a dichotomy in the government between elected representatives and unelected bureaucrats. The "deep state" exists but it is not nearly as malicious as popularly portrayed. At worst, those who make their careers as unelected bureaucrats and federal officers may occasionally be self-protecting and rationalize their decisions in terms of the trolley problem as for the greater national good, and are overly confident in their ability to discern what that is.
- vkou 7y ago
  Most unelected bureaucrats only have a job at the whims of elected representatives. Your vote for the bureaucrats, via proxy of your representative. I'm not sure why people have a hard time grasping this concept, when they grasp the concept of representative democracy (Where you vote for new legislature, or for supreme court appointments, or for executive actions, via proxy of voting for a representative of congress, or a president.) I can only assume that it's a defense mechanism, where you can blame the boogieman of the deep state when the candidate you voted for does not deliver us to a land of milk and honey, and turns out to be an all-around shitty human being.
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    This has been on a trend of less and less true as Congress continues to abdicate its responsibilities to bureaucrats in the Executive office. It doesn't matter which party they vote for as much of the day to day lives of citizens is determined by people who never stood for election, and barely answer to someone who did.
    - vkou 7y ago
      Those bureaucrats are appointed at the whim of the President, and occasionally through a senate confirmation, both of which are elected offices. > and barely answer to someone who did. Their hiring is done by elected officials. Their employment and power, aside from a few positions, which are fixed-term, is contingent on the whims of those elected officials. Just because Congress has been very busy with abdicating all responsibility for governing the country to the executive (Works great when Obama's in charge, because you can blame him for the milk going sour, works great when Trump's in charge, because he can take all the bad PR), doesn't mean that the bureaucrats don't answer to anyone.
rayiner 7y ago
Isn’t it up to the people to decide how much daylight they think there is between #1 and #2? When the US topples foreign dictators, is that justified by saying we’re doing it for the good of their people, as distinguished from their government? It’s notable that in weeks of democratic debates hitting all sorts of issues, I don’t think I’ve heard anyone get traction by talking about surveillance.
jrieo02n 7y ago
There are two versions of people in the United States: statists who manipulate public opinion to empower centralized authority (#2, commonly using “failure in much debated framework will be end of nation!” These days its neoliberal economics, used to be religion) and those who want more freedom from such manipulations of our agency. Not saying either is right or wrong, but I def align personally with the “more freedom from pls” camp. The governments policing authority should be pointed at itself alone, and let the results of that trickle down. But we prefer to conflate stable society needs with a goal of paramount importance (currently “free market trade”) that will implode indeed our mental model of reality if the literal world should have to change. But it won’t implode humanity itself unless we do it to ourselves. We need to have a sober debate about enabling more people to escape this daily grind. We’re actively instigating anxiety, mindless resource exhaustion (while pretending financial measures of efficiency alone are achieved literally), living some socialized Stockholm syndrome, sympathizing with the aristocratic captors who are plainly indifferent, because they’re subjected to the same struggle too (but not really)!
- coding123 7y ago
  > We’re actively instigating anxiety, mindless resource exhaustion Not replying to all you said, but definitely agree - I don't see people as being excited about the limits of our abilities. It's more like people are excited about getting a new Mustang or whichever Ghettoblaster vehicle and annoying others because they are bored and have nothing existential to think about during the day. I don't know how often I just think about humanity or the mind's limits or exploring other times and places growing up - just utter fascination. Now it's just when is the next GTA coming out.
jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
How are whistleblowers a threat? People like Donald Rumsfeld ought to be tried for war crimes. The "annexation" of Hawaii was both a war crime and a violation of the constitution (read: crime). All of these are common knowledge, well documented, yet there are very few people who are actually doing anything about it.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
  A bit strange to be focused on an event from 126 years ago.
  - jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
    An event which laid the foundation for many of the economic issues facing Hawaii today. Resolving this issue would enrich the lives of many people currently living in Hawaii.
    - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
      That's impossible to tell and the US is the richest nation on Earth, the Federal government provides financial assistance to states.
      - jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
        Hawaii is one of the most unstable unsecure countries on earth and it has been made that way under U.S. occupation. It is so heavily dependent on outside resources that if the giant robots that unload cargo in Honolulu ever shut down, a massive humanitarian crisis will ensue in hours. Once upon a time, the land supported a population of 2 million people with no outside help. Money is worthless in a place like Hawaii where proper land and marine management are the sole requirements for ensuring the well-being of the community. Food production is crippled as the land is destroyed to make way for suburbs and shopping malls. The "state" government routinely approves projects which divert water away from prime farmlands to fill swimming pools and irrigate massive golf courses covered in invasive grass. In Kihei they're teaching school kids that their land is a dry wasteland when everyone's grandparents remember that it was wetlands before the water was diverted. Hosting the U.S. military has made many places in Hawaii incapable of sustaining life as they heavily pollute any area they occupy. They broke the water table on Kahoolawe and now no one can live there for thousands of years. They are currently allowing jet fuel to leak into the aquifer under red hill.

Arubis 7y ago

This is an excellent breakdown of something that feels obvious but was hard to express. Thank you.

Clubber 7y ago

>This is a living creature and that's what many 2nd amendmenters don't seem to realize, that the government of the USA isn't The People of, it's an organism that will maintain its form by any means necessary. Legal ones are the safest, illegal and immoral ones if needs must. Second amendment-ers are keenly aware of this.

nyolfen 7y ago
seriously, this is probably the least intuitive group to single out over this
komali2 7y ago
Speaking from experience with them, they seem to think the 2nd amendment must necessarily be respected by the very government they think is allowing them the guns to threaten said government with in the first place. That's the cognitive hole I'm pointing to - if they stockpile weapons to eventually potentially overthrow the US government, they must do so knowing that it will be illegal to do so regardless - the 2nd amendment won't protect them in that case, and is thus practically useless for what they think it's useful for. AKA, the life of a militiaman that intends to use weapons to overthrow the USA is, to the USA, the life of a terrorist/rebel/enemy of the state. It's not a constitutionally protected state of existence.
- rayiner 7y ago
  The 2A doesn’t protect the use of arms against the government, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard a 2A advocate suggest that. The point is to prevent the government from disarming the populace before such action might be required.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    Actually, no, the point is to prevent the government from deciding it needs to rely on professional police and military forces for day-to-day defense against domestic and international security threats, instead relying on ad hoc levies from the general population for those purposes, making it unthinkable both in terms of capacity and inclination that the “government security services” could suppress the general civilian population, since the former as a separate group by profession, class, etc.—but for very small standing cadres providing institutional knowledge and continuity—would not exist. But that ship has rather sailed, and the 2A failed in its purpose, but it still hangs around, and even it's defenders have forgotten what it was there for.
  - 7y ago

drak0n1c 7y ago

There is a dichotomy in the government between elected representatives and unelected bureaucrats. The "deep state" exists but it is not nearly as malicious as popularly portrayed. At worst, those who make their careers as unelected bureaucrats and federal officers may occasionally be self-protecting and rationalize their decisions in terms of the trolley problem as for the greater national good, and are overly confident in their ability to discern what that is.

vkou 7y ago
Most unelected bureaucrats only have a job at the whims of elected representatives. Your vote for the bureaucrats, via proxy of your representative. I'm not sure why people have a hard time grasping this concept, when they grasp the concept of representative democracy (Where you vote for new legislature, or for supreme court appointments, or for executive actions, via proxy of voting for a representative of congress, or a president.) I can only assume that it's a defense mechanism, where you can blame the boogieman of the deep state when the candidate you voted for does not deliver us to a land of milk and honey, and turns out to be an all-around shitty human being.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  This has been on a trend of less and less true as Congress continues to abdicate its responsibilities to bureaucrats in the Executive office. It doesn't matter which party they vote for as much of the day to day lives of citizens is determined by people who never stood for election, and barely answer to someone who did.
  - vkou 7y ago
    Those bureaucrats are appointed at the whim of the President, and occasionally through a senate confirmation, both of which are elected offices. > and barely answer to someone who did. Their hiring is done by elected officials. Their employment and power, aside from a few positions, which are fixed-term, is contingent on the whims of those elected officials. Just because Congress has been very busy with abdicating all responsibility for governing the country to the executive (Works great when Obama's in charge, because you can blame him for the milk going sour, works great when Trump's in charge, because he can take all the bad PR), doesn't mean that the bureaucrats don't answer to anyone.

rayiner 7y ago

Isn’t it up to the people to decide how much daylight they think there is between #1 and #2? When the US topples foreign dictators, is that justified by saying we’re doing it for the good of their people, as distinguished from their government? It’s notable that in weeks of democratic debates hitting all sorts of issues, I don’t think I’ve heard anyone get traction by talking about surveillance.

jrieo02n 7y ago

There are two versions of people in the United States: statists who manipulate public opinion to empower centralized authority (#2, commonly using “failure in much debated framework will be end of nation!” These days its neoliberal economics, used to be religion) and those who want more freedom from such manipulations of our agency. Not saying either is right or wrong, but I def align personally with the “more freedom from pls” camp. The governments policing authority should be pointed at itself alone, and let the results of that trickle down. But we prefer to conflate stable society needs with a goal of paramount importance (currently “free market trade”) that will implode indeed our mental model of reality if the literal world should have to change. But it won’t implode humanity itself unless we do it to ourselves. We need to have a sober debate about enabling more people to escape this daily grind. We’re actively instigating anxiety, mindless resource exhaustion (while pretending financial measures of efficiency alone are achieved literally), living some socialized Stockholm syndrome, sympathizing with the aristocratic captors who are plainly indifferent, because they’re subjected to the same struggle too (but not really)!

coding123 7y ago
> We’re actively instigating anxiety, mindless resource exhaustion Not replying to all you said, but definitely agree - I don't see people as being excited about the limits of our abilities. It's more like people are excited about getting a new Mustang or whichever Ghettoblaster vehicle and annoying others because they are bored and have nothing existential to think about during the day. I don't know how often I just think about humanity or the mind's limits or exploring other times and places growing up - just utter fascination. Now it's just when is the next GTA coming out.

jacobwilliamroy 7y ago

How are whistleblowers a threat? People like Donald Rumsfeld ought to be tried for war crimes. The "annexation" of Hawaii was both a war crime and a violation of the constitution (read: crime). All of these are common knowledge, well documented, yet there are very few people who are actually doing anything about it.

s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
A bit strange to be focused on an event from 126 years ago.
- jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
  An event which laid the foundation for many of the economic issues facing Hawaii today. Resolving this issue would enrich the lives of many people currently living in Hawaii.
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
    That's impossible to tell and the US is the richest nation on Earth, the Federal government provides financial assistance to states.
    - jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
      Hawaii is one of the most unstable unsecure countries on earth and it has been made that way under U.S. occupation. It is so heavily dependent on outside resources that if the giant robots that unload cargo in Honolulu ever shut down, a massive humanitarian crisis will ensue in hours. Once upon a time, the land supported a population of 2 million people with no outside help. Money is worthless in a place like Hawaii where proper land and marine management are the sole requirements for ensuring the well-being of the community. Food production is crippled as the land is destroyed to make way for suburbs and shopping malls. The "state" government routinely approves projects which divert water away from prime farmlands to fill swimming pools and irrigate massive golf courses covered in invasive grass. In Kihei they're teaching school kids that their land is a dry wasteland when everyone's grandparents remember that it was wetlands before the water was diverted. Hosting the U.S. military has made many places in Hawaii incapable of sustaining life as they heavily pollute any area they occupy. They broke the water table on Kahoolawe and now no one can live there for thousands of years. They are currently allowing jet fuel to leak into the aquifer under red hill.