Here is another interesting expression by someone choosing to kill others. Sad but nonetheless interesting to be fair because this person choose to put himself or herself at extreme risk and likely death or self-harm for a cause.
http://www.news.com.au/world/north-...t/news-story/71c015f1082dbadaf16aa8f96c94b092
In time will history say someone felt compelled to kill nine people and critically injure 16 others because, otherwise, fiat currency cannot express how this person wanted to interact with the world and so fiat currency had no currency but guns did in this instance?
It would be interesting if this person if possible could purchase a internet disruption opportunity where his or message could get across the internet unabated would he or she choose to accept it or were they seeking another compensation in a market of opportunities. For example, if this person could pay 1 million dollars to get a 1 minute disruption message across all computers over the world would they pay it?? Or would that mean billionaires would dominate through separate million dollar disruption purchases so the message would not get through because if the price went up the individual could not afford it and have an outlet to express themselves?
If others could express themselves and return fire would that be fairer?
