New Anniversary Edition

He who can destroy a thing has the real control of it.
Paul-Maud'Dib DUNE

Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is a blueprint for destroying capitalism.
Did she know she was advocating the destruction of that which she asserted as the highest economic ideal system?
NO!
This is a Zizekian case of the unknown/known

John Galt knew how to destroy the bureaucracy completely;
That is, he had the real control of it.
By THE STRIKE! The EXIT!

A can destroy B so A has the real control of B. A knows that they can destroy B. (known/known) B can destroy A so B has the real control of A. B does not know that they can destroy A. (unknown/known). C can destroy A so C has real control of A. C knows that they can destroy A. (known/known) C can destroy B so C has real control of B. C knows that they can destroy B (known/known).

How can C destroy B? By refusing to destroy A? Does C wish to destroy A? does C wish to destroy B? Or does C wish to liberate B? Gets dicey eh. A can physically destroy C. The poison pill is that if A does so, A is violating legal precedent. A violation of legal precedent is worse than just destroying C without violating legal precedent (the State) so punishment, imprisonment, death will be additional because the state will have been violated which is much worse than violating a person. This is part of the genealogy of crime and what is a crime.

This takes us into Foucault's Discipline and Punish. Crime was first defined as a "crime against the Sovereign." If someone stole your money, it was not a crime against you, but a crime against the King, the Sovereign. You lost your money but the crime was against the Sovereign so the punishment was severe.

Sometimes death for an insignificant crime

BECAUSE

it was a crime against the Sovereign!

A Genealogy of Crime

By the way this is how the Boston Marathon Bombing became a terrorist event. It became labeled as a crime against the state because the Boston Marathon is an annual event held in Boston. Twist that illogical thinking around in your reasoning will ya.

This thinking is an extension of Ratliff and Hartline's experimental work on Limulus.The eye of Limulus is composed of ommatidium each one separate from all the others but affecting others dependent upon how contingent they are to another. So ommatidium A can affect ommatidium B by suppressing the response of B. If within a certain distance measurable in the experiments. But C can suppress A thus lessening the strength of the stimulus from ommatidium A and therefore suppressing A's suppression of B. In which case B's response is enhanced.

This is called disinhibition.

Can we also liken it to disinformation. Or to distraction, thus lessening the strength / import of news, facts, occurrences, and other stimuli the Government wishes to weaken as it circulates among the citizens

And I can extend it to parental behavior that lessens the will of the child for good or bad. Or to the behavior of any one person in a dyad with another person which has been described as dependent or co-dependent behavior. Does one parent disinhibit the stimuli of the other parent thus increasing the responses of the child that exhibit the will of the child and the actualization of the child, or partner, or or or or........