Now Citizens United is a Supreme Court decision well worth protesting about. One of the worst things to happen legislatively in the U.S. in my lifetime.

Corporations are not people too. They are specially privileged. And now the Supreme Court has said that they deserve privileges that are not just useful in commerce but which give them an enormous political advantage, the for all intents and purposes limitless ability to saturate the political process with money no other entities can come close to matching.

That's the real revolution that happened within my lifetime. And it has only just begun as America continues to divide into a two-economy system that leaves the majority of its citizens every more economically and politically inconsequential.

If only we lived in a country with the rule of law.

Without it though, you get.... anonymous, and more shit like it.

So, in that sense, these corporations (who are NOT people) brought this on themselves when they purchased every level of government and ended the US being a country living by the "rule of law."

The framework for dissent is defined within the law, can be exercised under the law, and is even protected by the law itself.

Consider the body public as a very large family for a moment, with many competing interests and agendas, each wanting to be heard. Some members will try to push in front of others, in an unfair manner, to advance their interests, while others will feel left out when they perceive that authority/government isn't hearing them.

To accept or allow one sibling to attack another would give way to mob rule, and truly only the strongest would survive, whereas exercising challenge under the law gives each more of an equal footing.

Corruption exists, to be sure, but I do not believe that it is the rule. Perfection does not exist in man, or his constructs, and the best we can hope for is a system that tries, and corrects itself, as necessary. Just as the weather does not change magically with the arrival of the equinoxes, neither does the construct of law evolve on pace with that of society itself.

Representative government has a tall oder to fill, especially in a complex society, and it is easy to appear that everything is about money. To be sure, much is, but given the volume of interests seeking to be heard, it necessarily follows that those that are best organized will likely be heard first, and unfortunately those are often those in command of the most capital, in both human and monetary terms.

The solution I don't know, but as an individual I am satisfied that I am afforded the right to organize and be heard, and should my perception agree with enough others within society, that I will be.

No one said anything about perfection, but we're living in a country with a government that has been corrupted, at almost every level.

When the only person that gets sentenced to prison for torture is the whistleblower who revealed the illegal acts to the American public, that's a corrupt government.

When the entire economy is brought to it's knee due to the corrupt activities of a few Wall Street entities and NO ONE is held accountable, and in fact, receive government dollars in a bailout, that's a corrupt government.

When an entire industry engages in fraud in almost every courtroom accross the country, fraud of the kind that some have called the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of man, where people who had homes completely paid off had them foreclosed on, and NOT A SINGLE MORTAGE SERVICER is held accountable, that's a corrupt government.

When an entire government sets it's sights on a journalist for publishing content that he received showing a murder on film while allowing the perpetrators who committed the murder to run free, that's a corrupt government.

And when every single policy prescription taken up by every single level of government is ALWAYS done in a way that benefites the few and hurts the many, that's a corrupt government.

When a government has tools it can use to increase employment but refuses to do so while unemployment rages that's a corrupt government.

I could go on but I won't. When people live in such a system and can't find recourse through the legal means (which have been thoroughly corrupted) they have no choice but to attempt to get recourse through illegal means. And that's exactly what's happening in this country, as well as many others which have also been completely corrupted.

And when Anonymous took down PayPal, everyone heard how much money it cost PayPayl, but no one ever heard how much it cost Wikiweaks, which did nothing illegal to deserve the losses.

All of this leads to shit like Anonymous and Occupy and there will be others, you can be sure. I hope they succeed, but fear for their lives. Yet I fear for the lives of everyone on the planet if they don't succeed, because I don't doubt for a moment that left unchecked, these assholes will destroy the very planet we're living on, if they haven't already.

A government that can be corrupted at every level implies that there can be a protest movement corrupted at every level. Surely the same opportunities are there? Whether or not it's happened, it seems odd to trust one and not the other without any more evidence of the honorable intentions of the other side.

Guys, let's all just agree that doing anything against any of the powers that be is absolutely and totally morally wrong, and should be punished to the highest and most creative degree.

If someone has the might, that makes them right.

This is true, but I am aware of the intentions of both Occupy and Anonymous, and they are both honorable. Thus I trust them as much as one can trust something.

Of course, just about anything is better than our current situation. I realize it could also get worse, but doing nothing is probably going to result in things getting worse anyway.

For examle, 40 years ago the US torturing prisoners was a no-no, if it happened it most certainly was never discussed, and as a veteran and former employee of DoD, I believe it didn't happen. Now it's discussed, with pros and cons being discussed as though it were like any other decision when it is simply wrong, even if it did work.

Ten years ago the idea that our government would spy on US, it's own citizens without the proper warrants, would have been with cries of "conspiracy theory" and today it's a known fact that they have, and continue to conduct warrantless wiretaps.

Five years ago that a President could, through his signature alone, declare that he can murder anyone, anywhere, without any due process, would've been laughed at. Today we know the President has a meeting every Tuesday where names are added to the "kill list."

Three years ago the idea that American citizens could be detained and held indefinitely, without habeas corpus, much less the right to counsel, would've been met with shock and disbelief. Today, there is legislation passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by this President say just that.

The direction we're moving is what's known. While attempting to change that direction may end up worse is true, doing nothing seems completely out of the question considering how far we've moved from a Constitutional democracy to a almost "King" like police state.

Going back a page or so, has anyone considered the actual difference between strikes costing a company money and, say, ddos attacks? In the case of strikes the people involved are withdrawing a service, or rather a trade, which they were providing to the company (ie their time working in exchange for their wages). It may cost the company (and that is indeed the point), but only in the same way that, say, going to a shop and finding the item you wanted is sold out 'costs' you.

An equivalent action on the consumer side would be, again, the refusal to trade. Not buying things using paypal, and generally avoiding using it for anything, in other words. If a significant portion of the population feels the same way, then paypal would/will see profits fall, and would be forced to change its practices (or accept that they'll make less money). Now, a ddos attack isn't simply terminating an agreement, even temporarily. Instead they're destroying something they had no part in in the first place. If you want to think about it like this, they're stealing and destroying something which paypal had paid for (ie the bandwidth on their site), and just because they're not using it (and couldn't possibly use it, given the nature of the attack) doesn't mean it isn't stolen. The key difference, though, is that they're taking away something which they didn't have in the first place.

Again though, Wikileaks didn't do anything to deserve having PayPal take something away from them. It's a corrupt, corporation/government duo and when corruption makes legal recourse impossible, people will turn to illegal ones. Had PayPal not "stolen" (that's at least as fair a term to use for PayPal as it is for Anonymous) then neither Anonymous, nor anyone else, would've felt compelled to do anything. When corruption is rampant, it invites anarchy. It always has, and always will. Most humans strive for justice, and know a wrong when they see one. And when constantly see wrong after wrong after wrong and nothing being done about it, they tend to take things upon themselves.

If those union members you mentioned feel like they're making a just salary, fair pay for fair work, they're not going to strike. If PayPal hadn't damaged Wikileaks financially when they did nothing illegal, Anonymous wouldn't have DDos'ed them.

It seems funny to me how so many want to put all the blame on Anonymous while letting the real culprit (corruption) get a pass. (Not necessarily saying you)

First, thanks for saying your opinions calmly rather than getting angry.

There is, however, a key difference still. Now, I admit, I haven't exactly kept my eye on what's been happening with this, but it sounds to me like Paypal refused to offer its services to Wikileaks. Leaving aside equal opportunity legislation, etc, which I don't think is the focus of your argument (correct me if I'm wrong here, of course), there's no reason why paypal should be forced to offer its services to Wikileaks, any more than GOG is forced to accept any game that wants to be sold on this site.

Now, I don't know what the situation was between paypal and Wikileaks (or rather, the organisation which wanted to use paypal to help Wikileaks). If it had previously accepted them, and they'd built their site and systems around it, then I'd have to agree with you to some extent (though not with anonymous's methods). If, on the other hand, they simply said 'no' from the start, then I don't really feel that their not being forced to provide the service is the sign of a corrupt government. In fact, the reverse (forcing paypal to offer its services where - effectively - the state directs) strikes me as more likely to be a sign of corruption!

PayPal (and others) were accepting donations to Wikileaks for years until the US Government asked them to stop after the realease of the cables.

So yes, they were in an ongoing relationship, and then PayPal ended it, at the behest of a US Government embarrased over a leak.

That's not how countries living under a rule of law handles things.

And it wasn't just PayPal btw, IIRC it was Visa (might be wrong on that one) and some others. Sorry, memory is flaky and I'm losing it more every day, but it wasn't just PayPal that stopped taking payments for Wikileaks. Why Anonymous targeted PayPal I have no idea. Easiest to make a statement with maybe??? I dunno.

This all but entirely discounts the influence of money and power and how they really work. Which is so glib as to derail any serious consideration of the issues.

It's good that you're satisfied, but that's no great barometer. The reasonably secure, privileged, and well-off are always satisfied, and the most secure, privileged, and well-off are most satisfied of all.

But wait ... would we expect them to be anything other than satisfied in the first place? Especially with the limited opportunity of others to rock their boats and give them perhaps a little less to be satisfied about?

If what I had written "all but entirely discounts the influence of money and power and how they work", that is a good thing, because that was not the intent or subject on which I had written. Perhaps you could enlighten the world on this matter, if you know, as it is not something I am very familiar with, or care much about.

That I am satisfied with the right I have to express myself, under the law, has absolutely nothing to do with my socioeconomic status either, as I most assuredly do not fall within the group you seem to hold in such low esteem above (at least not as compared to the norm in this country.)

To go outside of the law for dissent, when more than adequate structures exist to ensure your right to do so, does worse than 'rock someone's boat', it puts holes in your own. People are common to every institution we have, as well as to society in general, and if it becomes commonplace and acceptable for people to skirt the law to advance their positions, what is to stop the police or government from doing the same? In other words, what makes you think it is fine for one group to do it, and not another? You could find yourself wishing for the rights to dissent that you have now, as ditches do not make very good podiums for the eternally silent.

If you have an issue, make it public within the law. If it has merit, others will climb on board, and you'll have political capital. If no-one climbs on, refine or clarify the message and try it again. If it still fails, accept that it just is not an issue that many, or enough, care about and move on.

I am not saying things are perfect, that it is easy to get things done, or that you will find an audience for your ideas, but what I am saying is that things are best done within the law, and to move outside of it can have ramifications far greater than the perceived evil that you are trying to fight.

Police already do the same and have historically done the same when it comes to abusing power and operating outside the law. So does government in general. As for ordinary citizenry, the question "What would happen if people started doing it?" fails to be relevant in that particular as well. Do you speed, or jaywalk? Have you ever known anyone to fudge their taxes? Do people start fights, drive drunk, take illegal drugs? Cheat on spouses, abuse children? All these things happen regularly, and citizens need nothing to goad them into doing them. That such things are so much a part of what people naturally and daily do is the reason we need laws in the first place. People are NOT self-regulating to the extent of perfect compliance with either law or morality. Nor are institutions of any stripe, be they private or governmental.

Your "What if?" scenario lacks gravity. You wonder what would happen if people and institutions did what they are already doing all the time, always have been, and always will do. It's overreaching on the part of institutions that inspires people to protest and rebel in the first place.

The question then becomes not whether laws (or morals) hold perfect sway over individuals or society, but whether they are worthy of blind allegiance, in whole or in part, and which ones, and what should be done about it, by who and at what cost, when they are not.

My point that those who most benefit by the status quo are the least likely to object to it is an obvious one and not really up for contention. It is far from being dismissable with offhand snark or reference to how much any one of us might benefit from it at the moment. That's not the point. I'm just saying there is nothing particularly exalted about the status quo. If one must accept as a first principle that the status quo is inherently inviolable and worthwhile, no honest conversation can even be begun.

I'm suggesting instead that the status quo is merely an artifact of its time and quite open to judgment, and that it should be open to change. That idea is inherent in democracy itself. The status quo getting upset and reconfigured once in a while is necessary so our institutions and the inherent injustices institutions attempt to justify in their pursuit of power have a chance to be readjusted and their powers rationalized and curtailed. Protest is serious business inherent to the proper functioning of democracy, not trivial, and if it sometimes causes inconvenience and social disruption -- well, few good things and accomplishments in the political arena do not. Martin Luther King was socially disruptive, and so were abolitionists. Thank goodness they didn't decide to just stay home and pen letters to the editor out of fear of being disruptive and causing inconvenience.

This is a good book: