I assume you use the term "technical" in a way that exclude buying up a lot of Bitcoins and then dumping them to create a crash so people stop taking it seriously. I also assume that using enormous amounts of computing power to sabotage the network became to expensive when the ASIC miners appeared.
Again, no technical explanation of how the government will shut down Bitcoin, just a general statement that the government is very powerful.
They could ban running a Bitcoin client, ban the use of bitcoins, ban using Tor and other proxies, ban ISPs that don't monitor their users, add fake Bitcoin peers to catch Bitcoin users and try to trace transactions in the block chain to real identities. Heavy restrictions on raw materials and know how that can be used to create an ISP would help prevent underground ISPs. High rewards for tips leading to the arrest of Bitcoin users and rouge ISP operators could also be added.
This would be tyrannical. It could still be done. Disarming the population, purging from the armed branches of the government those likely to not follow the new orders and, if needed, stop having elections is one way to do it. Arranging for Bitcoin to kill at least one child each week* to convince the population that Bitcoin must be stopped is another. If they are willing to pay a price like that to stop Bitcoin and are competent enough they have a chance.
* One week the media could talk about an overdose a child took after paying for the drugs in bitcoins. The next week they could talk about how a guy used bitcoins to buy guns and ammo before shooting up a school. The week after that a girl that committed suicide after someone published the nude pictures she sold for bitcoins would be in the news.
I runz the Linux!
I runz the Coreboot! ftfy
So, being treated as an equal does not make sense in the context.
The wider context include The Law of Moses and the context it was spoken in. 'An eye for an eye...' is a statement on how the punishment should be proportionate to the crime. The Law also require other things like a fair trial and a burden of evidence before the suspect can be judged guilty. Sometimes you know the guilty won't get what he deserves. It is hard to trust God to avenge you. Ignoring the rest of The Law and taking the matter into your own hands seems like a great idea. You even have a Bible verse on your side! Jesus lived in roman occupied Israel. It is therefore reasonable to conclude He was reminding people that ignoring parts of The Law by avenging them self (and trying to justify it by quoting another part of The Law) was a sin.
It remains a sin today. Say that you are husband and someone have raped your wife. You know all he risk is a few years in a nice, comfortable Norwegian prison cell. Killing him to get justice is still a sin. Say you are the father of an aborted child and you have tracked down the guilty abortionist. Abortion is legal. Killing him to get justice is still a sin. While I assume that it must be extremely hard in cases like those I just mentioned the proper thing for a Christian to do is to leave the vengeance to God in stead of killing the guilty. As Paul said in Romans 12:19 "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."
At that point, it almost sounds like kidnapping for ransom...
Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor."
(Augustine of Hippo in "City of God" book IV Chapter 4)
Of course governments can censor speech and cut off Internet access, that's their prerogative.
Just to be 100% sure here: You are arguing that governments have a right to to censor speech and cut off Internet access (like I have a right to shoot a robber that breaks into my house during night and attacks me), not that are able to censor speech and cut off Internet access (like a gang of robbers can kill you and steal your stuff)? Your talk about sovereign governments and prerogative makes me suspect you view it as a right. If I understand you correctly: What is it, in your view, that give a government (or organization of governments like the UN for that matter) that right?
Neither is going from 6-7 children/woman to 2-3 children/woman as many countries have done in a generation or two.
There could still be genes that directly or indirectly cause someone to resist the cultural pressure to only have 2-3 children. A gene that make you want many children is an example of the first. A gene that make you more likely to become a quiverfull Christian is an example of the last. At the same time other genes may cause one to follow the trend or go beyond it. Examples may be genes that makes you conform to your surrounding culture, genes that causes you to view children as a burden (that, because of medical advances and the current legal system, can be aborted with little risk for anyone involved except the fetus) or genes that makes you not care if the children you pay for are your own or belong to someone else. The culture of having few or no children is, to the genes of the population that adopt it, like any other disaster: it selects for those that have many children (that again will have many children) in it over those that won't (/can't).
Or if you knew that when they did wrong it could be amended just by a proper re-vote instead of having to implement drastic measures like carving the right to bear arms into a constitution which will fly out of the window anyway if a government really wants to implement evil...
Democracy is no guarantee that you can trust the government. If a politician knows that the electorate can't stop him he may decide to end democracy if the electorate chose the "wrong" option. If the electorate is well armed he is forced to think twice as he may get hurt while ending democracy. If democracy remains it still won't stop the majority from following the European tradition* of voting to violate the God given rights of other people. If the minority is well armed the majority is forced to think twice as they may get hurt while implementing the new policy.
Information the government has on you won't disappear when the government changes. In the future the government, with or without the consent of the voters, may use DNA to choose their next victims. The DNA of some individual they want to get rid of can be planted as false evidence of a crime. Targeted bio weapons may also appear. When the Nazis invaded Norway during WWII they found government registers that specified if the person on the list was Jewish or not. Guess how this information was used.
* The popularity of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin among their European subjects wasn't unique. Here in Norway the Labor party government did forced sterilizations (link in Norwegian) as a part of its socialized medicine. People kept voting for them. (The law was removed in 1977. The Labor party is a part of the current ruling coalition. An award carrying the name of Karl Evang's name is still handed out. As far as I know the Labor party no longer support forced sterilization)
And you can't see how ridiculous that is and how it utterly defeats the purpose of patents?
The point of the suggestion is to utterly defeat patents when it comes to software. If the suggestion is more or less ridiculous than the idea that the government has a right to grant the artificial monopolies we call patents in the first place (and that it should do so if it has this right) is an issue I have yet to make up my mind on. Ignoring my own views a case for patents can be made like this: A small inventor creates a new device. To produce it he needs to set up a production lines and distribution. While doing this a large competitor that has factories and a distribution network hears about the new competitor and copies his invention from an early prototype found in the trash. The small inventor is now without any advantage from his invention over his competitor. As he knows this will happen the small inventor has no motivation to produce his invention in the first place. He therefore keeps his invention secret without producing anything based on it. Patents prevent this. Even if the government has a right to grant patents and this argument is a valid reason to do it it doesn't hold for patenting software as there is no cost in copying software and it can be distributed via the internet as a download. It is hard to create a law that makes it possible to patent hardware but not software as lawyers will find loop holes so their clients can patent software. Stallman's suggestion is an elegant way to avoid software patents as the patents only will apply to implementations in hardware.
Lets just imagine a simple case WRT to Stallman's suggestion. You implement an algorithm in hardware using discrete logic. You patent it. I implement the same algorithm purely in software on a general purpose computer. Is your patent applicable to my software?
No. Your implementation is software on a general purpose computer. My patent therefore won't apply. If you later implement it in hardware you are will need a license.