I mean it's an interesting question, insofar as there are actually law-enforcement procedures that rob people of their freedom and make them work.
However, what happens if that "slavery" suddenly isn't applied to convicted people, but against anybody, or even everybody?
This is a very similar situation as we have with surveillance. not only that it robs people of their freedom, but it's also one of those things that only law-enforcement used to be allowed to do, and only on probably cause with a judge signing off, but now, apparently, some people think it's a somehow ok to enslave the whole world. Pardon, put the whole world under surveillance; as if there is a difference...
As far as I can see, the strategy is to have one candidate that the majority considers totally un-electable, so they will instead elect the other jerk, which has basically the same views but hides them better. Within the republican party of course, but not really limited to it:
If it turns out to be Trump vs. Clinton; Clinton will win, and the end-result is just what was intended: The authoritarians win.
Same as happened with Obama vs. Romney. Or Obama vs. McCain (although this one was a bit different: Whereas McCain clearly was a decoy, Obama not only presented the saner choice, but also pretended to be the opposite of what he was or became).
The only remotely interesting situation (which might, just might, lead the USA again away from their path towards fascism) would be something like Sanders vs Stein vs. Rand. Anything else, and the bigger authoritarian (prohibitionist, slave-holder, war-monger, spook, ... ) will win.
A Free Trade agreement? Gosh, that would be a novelty.
It could contain things like - outlawing geoblocking - outlawing price-fixing on a country basis - outlawing the outlawing of parallel imports - mandating maximum inter-bank transfer fees - mandating maximum mobile interconnect fees - mandating maximum limits in duration and scope of artificial government-granted monopolies (like copyright or patents). - mandating minimum standards on privacy protection (like not allowing an entity to collect more data than needed for a business transaction; or like not allowing any government entity to access personal data from other entities without a warrant) - outlawing special treatment of internet traffic on the basis of one of the endpoints.
What a nice idea. Why didn't any of these so-called "free-market" types get that idea yet?
I'm always wondering. Isn't there some law such as "Sachzusammenhang" (the law must only pertain to a certain matter) when making laws?
Because here in most European countries (apparently not the EU), it's usually mandatory that a law only pertains to a certain matter. You can't put a gun control law into an act aimed at guaranteeing pensions.
Armed rebellions and insurrections are quite pointless, unless you get the majority of people on your side. That doesn't mean they have to agree or even participate in your insurrection; but they have to agree with your goal.
And if the majority would agree with you, Obama would not have gotten a second term, and congress would look quite different. Which would completely alleviate the need for any insurrection in the first place.
Of course, this is assuming you want to achieve any goal that can be classified as something involving more freedom.
If you just want to enact some totalitarian state, you don't need the support of a majority. You only need enough forces to overthrow the governments forces. See ISIS.
So the only option really is to get people to think, and to value freedom more than they're getting made fearful by government propaganda.
How can we say that there is no god? We can't. But considering the evidence, it's safe to assume there is none.
I mean I could enact some other theories, like that the universe was created by a great spaghetti monster, or that it was born out of a great snake or whatever. And I can invent as many of those as I wish. None of these can be proven or disproven. So why should I give credence to any other peoples figments of imagination?
So the evidence for any god is about the same as for the existence of Harry Potter, except that the books about Harry Potter are better written.
Governments will exempt themselves from using compromised encryption.
They won't. Because the NSA or the CIA will sure as hell not provide somebody else with it, surely not the DOT, not the DOL, and probably not even the DEA.
And besides, all the millions of people within these departments will still use their Galaxy or MacBook for work, and thus create the necessary proliferation of backdoors for the CIA, the FSB, the MSS and maybe some terrorists to exploit.
Re: Sad about Dark Helment's lack of understanding of political views
It's wholly unrelated.
"left" as in "socialist" and "right" as in "capitalist" are not related to the spectrum of "authoritarian" to "liberal".
And with "liberal", I do mean "liberal", as in "opposed to censorship and surveillance, pro gay marriage, and against prohibition of drugs, guns, etc." It's about liberty, for everyone.
Of the extremes, fascists and stalinists are both authoritarian, one capitalist, the other socialist; the other extreme is social anarchists and anarcho-capitalists which are both liberal, with the first one socialist and the second one capitalist, obviously.
And trying to lump these together, just because they're extreme positions is totally bogus.
Nope, it's not an act of terror. Not regarding the public, not regarding Elsevier. They didn't threaten people working at Elsevier, they didn't bomb their offices. Just because economical factors and actors threaten your bottomline, it's not "terrorism".
So it's totally Ok to leave the public, administration, military, water treatment, electric grid, power plants, public transport, telcos, ISPs, and other critical infrastructure vulnerable, just so you can snoop on some alleged criminals?
This is, from a security point of view, utter madness.