  effective > suppose people angry at goldman sachs were truly angry: so angry that they went beyond posturing and beyond acting against goldman sachs only if action were guaranteed to cost them nothing (like writing a blog post). if they ceased to care about whether legal proceedings might be filed against them; if they become obsessed with destroying goldman sachs, if they devoted their lives to it and could ignore all bodily urges and creature comforts. if they could be, in a word, like nivens protectors or vinges focused. > could they do it? could they destroy a 3 century old corporation with close to $1 trillion in assets, with sympathizers and former employees throughout the upper echelons of the united states federal government (itself the single most powerful entity in the world)? > absolutely. it would be easy. > as i said, the destructive power of a human is great; lets assume we have 100 fanaticsa vanishingly small fraction of those who have hated on gs over the yearswilling to engage even in assassination, a historically effective tactic and perhaps the single most effective tactic available to an individual or small group. > julian assange explains the basic theory of wikileaks in a 2006 essay, state and terrorist conspiracies / conspiracy as governance: corporations and conspiracies form a graph network; the more efficiently communication flows, the more powerful a graph is; partition the graph, or impede communication (through leaks which cause self-inflicted wounds of secrecy & paranoia), and its power goes down. carry this to its logical extreme
United States