Lets burn the lawyers offices down

can't. don't know how.

they canceled arson shop, too.

The genius of org mode is that the only key you need to know is TAB.
Whether it requires too much emacs affinity to be useful to the non-nerd is a point well-taken.

Lets burn the lawyers offices down.

The lawyers are powerless without the courts. It's the Court orders, backed by ... wait for it ... men with guns that make this environment possible.

Do you know why everybody is so jumpy and the cops are doing summary executions now? Because everybody is a criminal, everybody is a suspect, and the cops and the courts enforce these absurd laws rather than than defend the Constitution as a co-equal branch.

Hell, the Constitution didn't even make it past 1803 intact in design, and FDR accepted the Supreme Court's final surrender in 1937 from Chief Justice Hughes as a settlement to his plan to expand the Court with its cronies. Overnight, SCOTUS began finding all of Roosevelt's programs suddenly Constitutional even concluding that growing wheat for your family farm is part of "Interstate Commerce" and suddenly of Federal providence.

The problem now is that it's impossible for the People to know what the Constitution says because (supposedly) it doesn't mean anything until SCOTUS tells us what it means, which might well be the opposite of what we "think" it means (that is, the plain English meaning). The catch is that the Constitution is what authorizes the government in the first place. If the People aren't competent to understand their agreement with that government, then they weren't competent to create it in the first place and the grant of power is void.

This is not about science, it is about tje progressive anti-gun stance.

Seriously - stop spreading their propaganda. They explicitly want those in power to have all the guns they need. They just want the People to be disarmed and figure their friends will be in power.

This is not at all an anti-gun stance, it's a central-control stance. This gives them a sense of security, like those living under Mao or Pol Pot.

Somebody tell the Georgists that there's lots of land on Mars to not own and let's see them beat Musk to the stars. The more the merrier!

http://orgmode.org/

Passively accepting all this guarantees more of same.

Ah, you claim lack of difference, and dismiss everything thereafter. Fair enough: I'm not reading Joan Walsh, for example. Or the NYT, or that Senate Benghazi report.
So the challenge moves to restoring information exchange.

yep. This may be a case of "medicine that tastes awful".

That would be a fun exercise. I think that capitalism is like Windows 3.1, a cooperative multitasking system. It works, as long as all applications play nice all the time and are neither nefariously nor inadvertently cheating.
John Adams was getting at this:

That is, to pluck some numbers at random, we really ought to have an 80/20 rule: 80% of our code gets things done; 20% handles exceptions, which should mostly be inadvertent. Which is why the Constitution takes >380k. If you're honest, you can be simple. If you're a river of lies, you need density to ward off the honest.
Overall, I blame Progress.

The sleep of a labouring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much: but the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep.

That was not, however, written by the laboring man.

I'm waiting for you to resolve the contradiction between the impossibility of change within the system and the need to change the system.
How is it that we're clamoring for something different, then crushing every attempt to vote in anyone different? Walker (so far) hasn't sold out. I favor increasing the number of non-sellouts in DC until a tipping point is reached. Not saying it's going to be easy. However, saying it's "impossible" seems tantamount to BEING a sellout, for all practical purposes. Discuss.

Oh, they would be, would they not? But why would the peasantry be allowed to see such?

Your familiarity with hillbillies may exceed mine.