http://libertyprosperity.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/two-questions-for-our-nation/ Pointing the way to again follow the Constitution Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:57:53 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 http://libertyprosperity.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/two-questions-for-our-nation/#comment-249 Jesse O. Kurtz Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:01:09 +0000 http://libertyprosperity.wordpress.com/?p=149#comment-249 Do visit the link to the full context of my pulled-quotation. It precedes the quotation. I have read also of a censure of internet technology in China. Time will show what, if any, influence the internet has in the movement of people toward realized freedom. The internet provides the avenue for information. There is far more nonsense and garbage on the internet than quality information. The internet, like other media avenues, has garbage, quality, and all varieties in-between. In all media avenues there should be freedom, which allows ingenuity to flourish. Do visit the link to the full context of my pulled-quotation. It precedes the quotation.
I have read also of a censure of internet technology in China. Time will show what, if any, influence the internet has in the movement of people toward realized freedom. The internet provides the avenue for information. There is far more nonsense and garbage on the internet than quality information. The internet, like other media avenues, has garbage, quality, and all varieties in-between. In all media avenues there should be freedom, which allows ingenuity to flourish.

]]> http://libertyprosperity.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/two-questions-for-our-nation/#comment-248 AngryLemming Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:35:34 +0000 http://libertyprosperity.wordpress.com/?p=149#comment-248 Sorry, Jesse, but I think you missed the boat on 2. The quote is still hazy in the generalized context you've given it, but think about the massive censure of the internet and technology in a more general schema in the Middle East. Technology is, actually, a far greater threat to centralization of, and indeed even the foundations of, government. The reason being, technology allows communication. Sure, there are the null voices of mere malcontents, but more importantly and less obvious are the voices speaking for the common human. I use "human" here not as a simple avoidance of gender, mind you, but a reference to things like the independent media, the change of culture which occurs where servers are unbound by malignant ISPs. Also, to note, if Mr. Maximo is writing from the Middle East, he is surely and sorely aware of the attack of US troops upon a news building. They begged for help, on air! And how many Americans know about this? Communication of information such as this could seriously undermine the governing bodies which rule the world. In America, many of our access points to information and human action are filtered to a more pleasing air, we as Americans are debating whether or not "Net Neutrality" is for us or not. The current big ISPs want greater control, not greater freedom. While they may hand us a bag of reasons to go this way, the question is: If freedom of access and information, through technology, is achieved - would it not harm the centralized governing body? And how does that impact question 1? Conversely, 1 is less in reference, in the state you've sighted, to the use of "Big Brother's" arms to attack other countries and more to defence of a nation. Yes, a broad-reaching nation-state holds enough clout to attack and defend is it going to uphold liberty any more than its enemy? Is there a benefit in refernce to the protection of freedom? Sorry, Jesse, but I think you missed the boat on 2. The quote is still hazy in the generalized context you’ve given it, but think about the massive censure of the internet and technology in a more general schema in the Middle East. Technology is, actually, a far greater threat to centralization of, and indeed even the foundations of, government. The reason being, technology allows communication. Sure, there are the null voices of mere malcontents, but more importantly and less obvious are the voices speaking for the common human. I use “human” here not as a simple avoidance of gender, mind you, but a reference to things like the independent media, the change of culture which occurs where servers are unbound by malignant ISPs. Also, to note, if Mr. Maximo is writing from the Middle East, he is surely and sorely aware of the attack of US troops upon a news building. They begged for help, on air! And how many Americans know about this? Communication of information such as this could seriously undermine the governing bodies which rule the world. In America, many of our access points to information and human action are filtered to a more pleasing air, we as Americans are debating whether or not “Net Neutrality” is for us or not. The current big ISPs want greater control, not greater freedom. While they may hand us a bag of reasons to go this way, the question is: If freedom of access and information, through technology, is achieved – would it not harm the centralized governing body? And how does that impact question 1? Conversely, 1 is less in reference, in the state you’ve sighted, to the use of “Big Brother’s” arms to attack other countries and more to defence of a nation. Yes, a broad-reaching nation-state holds enough clout to attack and defend is it going to uphold liberty any more than its enemy? Is there a benefit in refernce to the protection of freedom?

]]>