There is a common notion on the internet about the existence of Guardian Angel-styled intelligence agents that have a tailored archive of all the search engine searches and posts a certain person has made. This notion is usually expressed, typically in a joking manner, when someone is talking about something they deemed risque or edgy. It is probably accurate to think that wide reaching surveillance is taking place, certainly in most of the Anglosphere, but the entirety of the process and major motivations, past and present, involved are not really known to me. 'Power for power's sake' is a commonly posited motivation, but this is much less useful than 'Pride' or even 'Avarice', parts of the eternal answer to all man's failings (They are cardinal sins after all!). I don't know much about the resources and techniques that all the intelligence agencies of the world have, but it is probably not the case that they are cumulatively keeping track of every single electronic signal sent and received by their citizens. This much has been revealed by certain whistle-blowers, but it still seems pretty common to speak of these agencies as if they ascended to Heaven and were somehow granted omniscience and a perfect memory too.

Labels such as 'Alphabet soup agencies' or 'Elites' and so on, do not actually help identify who is doing what. It is especially unfortunate when these abstractions become the dummies that people perform optimized full meter rhetorical combos on, though these do have aesthetic value in their own right. But maybe it is not rare to find someone who sees no difference between Muay Thai and Tai chi. The aesthetic, therapeutic and comedic value in engaging in such actions delight all participants. The person spitting 'facts' into the microphone, the cheering audience him on. Even the subjects of these 24 hour to week long pseudo-trials experience these pleasures. The same way that a fugitive glees when he sees the authorities imprisoning an innocent who just so happened to look like him, except that in this case the innocent isn't even usually an actual person so the scapegoat won't even bleed from the sick \#optimized 200 hit infinite combo that only gets dropped because the person or audience finally gets bored from hearing the same complaint of length one hour forty eight minutes daily for three to nine years(Probably closer to weeks and months now).

"So what?"

The point is that there are generally accepted ambiguities when people of this age speak about such matters, which inevitably lead to not only ineffective #action®, but also ineffective #dialogue™. There is a tactical distinction that is exposed or veiled situationally. Namely that between 'Government' and 'People'. The 'Will of the People' and 'Consent of the Goverened' are less real on my newly invented post-hoc Reality measurement scale and probably yours too. Meaning to say that 'People' are what exactly? The, severely under-read, religious document that 'people' implicitly reference when talking about things such as 'rights' and probably even 'human dignity' is the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. It is fairly short and this won't be the place to see a totally awesome critical non-jurist #debunking of the document. All that will be said is that it looks like a Universal claim of political dominion of the Earth Universe and that 'Human being' or 'Person' was not even explicitly defined before its usage in the Preamble or Article 1. There would be a great humour in seeing the D.P.R.K agitate Japan with a breach of Article 29 section 1 as the justification. Article 28 and 29 section 3 are the better ones because they are the only easily understandable ones, to me, because they are more explicitly self-referential. How are non-member states to be treated? Are there even non-member "states"? I will have to read more history to understand this.

"Well, I would obviously know a man ... if I saw one!"

A lonely woman desperately, but fruitlessly, searching for a husband? Or each member of the United Nations? The point of this joyful escapade is simply to say that if 'Person' isn't something external of the speaker, the Namer, then 'People' surely isn't. And so 'Of the People, By the People, For the People' and son definitely aren't. Any silly example like the D.P.R.K. one above(or any nice ones you have made and will be sending me c;) is basically just of the family of aesthetic rhetorical combos mentioned earlier. Why? Because you are not a Namer. You ask someone what an atom or a particle is, then they tell you all kinds of interpretations, but then ask them what a man or human being is and you will hear the blood circulating around your mandible. Who is positively(legally) using a fixed and formalized phylogenetic #biologoical #factual™ definition of 'human' or 'woman' or 'race' and though I'm not a lawyer, I suspect that a legal definition of 'property' is probably more in line with common usage than 'person'. #FirmsArePeopleToo! #EndCorpism! We should bring to mind the difference between solving arithmetic questions by rolling an N-sided die and not doing that. Political extremists of all five dimensions basically just want to be the Namer. Either 'personally' or 'impersonally'(Non-extremists actually do it these ways, and #voters20XX aren't being referenced here). They are the ones who will name 'Citizen' and 'Worker' and 'Person' the same way Adam named all creatures and God named Adam. They will Rectify the Names like none have ever rectified before! In any case it seems like categories are vitally important, greatly pertaining to life. The bulk of 'The Public Conversation' is essentially just about what the bubbles on a scantron say. #So #Roman!

"So it's basically just 'Rulers rule' and 'People that want to rule, want to rule'?"

Yes! No! All that is being said is that no one in any of the member states of the United Nations treats the murder of a citizen in a comparable way to the manner in which regicide was treated in some ages. Actually they don't even treat presidenticide the way regicide was treated in some ages. Actually a mistake was made. 'People' is a plural noun, so two people is precisely the minimum number of 'people' to be called 'people'. Wait maybe #'People'™® is implying every single citizen would have to be killed. This is some high level autismo vro and to save space and time, #neodefinitions of genocide or democide or anything like that will not be attempted here. All that should be noted is that the 'Person' or #'People'™ doing the killing would also be rulers as well. There isn't any accepted formal distinction the supposed rulers, #'People'™® , and the supposed subjects, also #'People'™® by the way.

Leaving the story in one place. The last sentence of the last section is not true, there is a formal distinction between the two. The 'thing' you pay taxes to, the entity that puts the speed limit signs everywhere. Maybe it's a huge stretch to see a contractor or a single government organization as the 'Government'. I think that if you asked the people who are always in that fancy looking building I see on the coins they would say that they are just representatives of 'The #'People'™® '. I'd love to meet her some day, she sounds tragically beautiful. I might marry her if I'm allowed. You aren't the 'Government'. You are the 'Government'. Surely you aren't paying taxes to ... 'yourself'. It is paid to and for 'someone' else or 'some other People'! It's for the greedy one percent, the lustful Military Industrial Complex, leeches on welfare! The insane revolutionaries, backwards bumpkins, literal terrorists 'we' will(are) be(currently) fighting in scary parts of the world, The Periphery! The Center! The Coast! The Heartland! The Capital! It's for everyone, but not for me!

"Incredibly silly and tryhard. How can I be part of the government? My will is not even being expressed!"

Doesn't sound too rare eh?

"Okay with all that said and done, Who is actually running the show? Who rules the rulers? Who names the namers? Is it a principle? Some emergent distributed 'spontaneous order' similar to that of a theorized market system? An ideal? A shady ethnic group? Media? A philosophy? Money? You? Me? Pigs? Reptiles? Secret Society created near the end of the Middle Ages that withstood the various changes and transformations that have occurred over the centuries? Or ..."

Good question.

"It's a pretty tough question but you aren't really knowledgeable enough to take a decent crack at it frankly. Try again next time. But tell me, what does any of this have to do with Confucius?"

Every single saying in the Analects has a Person's name or title in it.