The precedent set in the Mackey case eschews any limiting principle on how the law can be applied. Any βdisinformationβ β that is, any untrue statement, even crude jokes, like jesting that Michelle Obama is a man, or that [insert politician] is really an alien lizard in a human skinsuit β so long as it might deter someone from voting, is a potential crime. Even the mild suggestion that voting is irrational, a belief long held by many mainstream political scientists, could count as a criminal act under this reading of Section 241. This broadening of scope is precisely the point.I've told multiple people in my life why I consider voting to be not only irrational but immoral. I have likely posted as much multiple times upon this very site. Ever since the PATRIOT act, I knew this day would come. It's just a matter of time until libertarians and anarchists will not be tolerated by the state any longer. The edifice of lies the regime rests upon demands it.
Iβm not really sure what to do here. How do you review a book that has a glaring omission, but also its author has written an essay called Hereβs Why I Like Glaring Omissions And Think Everyone Should Have Them? Is it dishonest? Some sort of special super-meta-honesty? How many stars do you take off? Nothing in my previous history of book-reviewing has prepared me for this question.Of course he's unprepared for reality, being a "rationalist/bayesian". They deny the implications of the Frame problem, which is their core error. I should write a blog post about this; it's why racism and all the concerns discussed are straight-up spooks. You might be able to walk a mile in another mans shoes, but you can't walk with his feet.