Anomymous criminality, extortion, supporting mobocracy such as "Occupy,"
etc. do NOT serve the principles embodied in our Constitution. This is nothing less than a megamaniacal form of electronic terrorism. Julian Assange narcicissism on steroids.
Is our system of justice perfect? Of course not. Does it sometimes dispense injustices? Of course it does. Has there EVER been a system invented by humans that is less susceptible to, and with greater safegards against, abuse than ours? If so NAME it. The answer is NONE -- not EVER in human civilization.
It's impossible to design a perfect system. Only narcicissistic utopians can indulge the conceit that they can do so and then advance the wholly spurious claim that they could (or that they would even if they could). The Anonymous mindset is no better than the Stalinist mindset. Whatever means may serve their ends is their test-- not whether particular circumstances may warrant particular means consistent with an
objective standard of right versus wrong.
The designers of our system purposely stacked the burden-of-proof/procedural-requirements deck against the government's power to take someone's life or liberty because they (and, I think we) prefer that "ten guilty people go free" rather than "one innocent person" be convicted. Some people would describe such ratio as 100 to 1; others might say 1000 to 1, but no sane person would say 1,000,000 to 1. Thus, the sane people accept the fact that our system cannot guarantee perfection --
i.e., we know that innocent people will go to jail just as we know that a much larger number of guilty people will go free for each innocent person who goes to jail. Thus, each of us necessarily not only runs the risk of being the next victim of the larger number of guilty criminals left free to commit predatory acts on others, but each of us also necessarily runs the risk of being the innocent person sent to jail.
Our system also provides constitutional and procedural mechanisms to undo unjust convictions of innocents, which mechanisms are, of course imperfect, but such imperfections are vastly more tolerable than the consequences of seeking to force the system to respond to mobocracy and/or terroristic threats.
To achieve zero risk of our system of justice failing to prevent an innocent person from being convicted would require our elimination of our system of justice, in which case the form of mobocracy that would evolve in its place would VASTLY increase the risks of people guilty of nothing being killed or incarcerated by others with nothing more than the power to do so (as was the case under Stalinism, Nazism,
etc.)
Utopian thinking is a dangerous intoxicant. It already infects the thinking of environentalists, whom I describe as Pantheopians (those who worship nature with utopian zeal). It already infects the thinking of leftists (latter-day Stalinists). It already infect Shariahists. The world is full of fanatics, most of whom pose (as do the Anonymous/Occupy fanatics) as being anti-fanatics.
These people pay lip service and lip service only to the principles they claim to support. It reminds me of the hogwash spewed by the Occupy people in the streets. It's mobocacy. It's the French Revolution. It's a form of self-indulgent fanaticism.
To equate Anonymous/Occupy philosophy with the pro-liberty/anti-totalitarian/anti-mobocracy philosophy exemplified by the Cube's parody of utopian thought is to insult the Cube.
Just my opinion.
--KOOK
But wait-- how can there ever be a "prog on" by a KOOK Kommenting Out of Karacter? Isn't that like a double negative? Don't ask such questions, because a KOOK, originally created soley for Kommenting Out of Karacter has often spouted statist propaganda in hopes that someone will undo the sraight jacket and/or allow KOOK outside the Gulag. So, absent a "prog off" one can't be certain what KOOK really thinks and quite often KOOk isn't certain what KOOK thinks -- that's why he's KOOK.
