As of late the formation of several anti-ACTA and pro "net neutrality" groups have popped up, proposing various legislation to protect what they want to become rights.  I'm not going to analyze it from the perspective of the government (although I will make a few statements about it now) but the perspective of what caused them to consider taking action this way, and what they are capable of doing in those circumstances.


	WHAT THE GOVERNMENT “SEES”:

	If we take a look at the formation of these groups unfortunately it seems along the lines of drug addicts promoting the legalization of say, heroin.  The formation was by a group of individuals (And although they might try to deny it when reading this) who... pirated things.  Now for the government to be shown that, the MANY governments to be shown that; well it puts a lot of sabot in the gears of the factory known as “politics.”
	For years, ever since the beginning of the hobbyist age of personal computing the software companies have been attempting to control what they created from duplication and distribution for free.  They wanted every cent's worth of their software, but it could so easily be copied.  In recent times we've seen a boom in not just software replication but audio and video.  Yes a TV show broadcast on the East Coast at 9pm was available at 6:30pm on the west.  Napster, watching the RIAA request armed police forces out to various people's houses for the purpose of stopping infringement.
	Everyone's gone a bit far, really.  Our law system is so complex, from basic enforcement to the Supreme Court.  What it boils down to before it goes to a higher court--politics, and these people can't pay for a Blu-ray player and rent, much less to lobby for the dissolving of the ACTA treaty.

	“The golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules” --They Live (1988)


	POSSIBILITIES TO SUCCEED:

	There are three effective actions, and then what they are doing.  Lobbying, Taking it to court, Rebellion against the government.  ...They're not doing any of these.  They merely raise awareness to their counterparts.  It is my common understanding that this is considered “Preaching to the choir”; it also cannot help that a significant number of these individuals have a tendency to think of these causes as half-hour amusement trips.  Let us take a deeper look into the current methods for 'action' as these groups call it.


 “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” --Mark Twain

	A protest can result in actual action under certain circumstances, but these are rare in our modern time.  The movements we have now don't encourage voters.  How many people saw “Code Pink” (A Berkeley/San Francisco protest group) and changed their decision on an issue such as gay marriage?  I can say almost with 100% certainty that not one anti-gay-marriage person has been convinced by Code Pink's outlandish attention-gathering.  Almost being the possibility of a crazy Republican who came out of the closet.  Protests can cause permanent political action via riot, which would hopefully lead the same way as Mao Zedong, gathering up individuals who believed the government had gone too far already, proponents of the cause that started it or not.  But we don't see this.  No protest that stayed peaceful ever truly changed the political climate in it's time, and seeing as to how drug legalization seems so far away, and the wars continue; the same people who were burning bras, smoking pot, and singing Beatles songs with long hair in the 60's now run the country.  Now look at what they've perpetuated.
	Convinced that having the majority on their side would be beneficial, the anti-ACTA groups have been continuing this cycle of informing people, planning for things.  Do they truly think that in a representative system that voters, that is the populace of our state... will have any voice in this matter?  If they did, it would be foolish (And I believe many of them do.)  The political world in the United States is one of a bipartisan system, that is that there are two sides to everything.  The congressman that voted for ACTA may lose his job come the next vote, but another person who would have voted for ACTA will be put into that empty spot (And people will think it's a completely different person.)  As an example let us look at the 2003 “Iraq War.” and even the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan that was ordered by our president-at-the-time George W. Bush.  Although we were promised a pull-out when the majority elected Barack Obama, we are still in those places eliminating threats.  Now we could argue about it, but the point of the matter is that promises were not fulfilled (And that is the only point I am trying to make.)
	Let me focus on the representative system for a moment, because some people have trouble understanding it clearly.  You elect “Representatives” who in turn make the law of the land.  They form pacts and everything, now and then allowing you, the person who elected them, to make a decision of whether or not a law should exist.  You have no active voice.  I have no active voice.  No one but our representatives has a voice.

	Let me make this extremely clear:
		If the people as a whole cannot vote on the law, thus cannot control it's passing... why would anyone want 		them on their side for any purpose other than rebellion?

The legislators would need to feed us a bone on the said issue, but in the case of the ACTA I assure you they will not.  Their job is perpetuated by donations from corporations for campaigning.  It's a money marvel that the masses cannot control.


                “Judicial abuse occurs when judges substitute their own political views for the law.” --Lamar S. Smith
		Go do.
	The one best hope that the people have when it comes to this being enacted without things getting a bit violent is judicial review.  The quote stated above expresses the singular threat to success that they might have, given that they can adequately prove that ACTA or Net-Non-neutrality violates the Constitution in whatever means, and have the whole thing dissolved, or in the case of Net-Neutrality have the internet a form of 'free speech.'  The probability against success comes from the flaws of the final human beings in the Supreme Court who have, as of late... done some pretty questionable things.  For example: Case No. 03-5554 in Nevada, a man named Hiibel not providing identification to a police officer was upheld.  So while the anti-ACTA folk can sally forth and take the case to court, however there are no assurances.

	But what then?

          "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously."  --Hubert Humphrey

	This second strange circumstance is that of one or more of these dissidents finding someone with quite a lot of money, perhaps even acquiring money themselves to pay for getting someone they can trust into office before the vote goes through.  This of course is the least likely of all circumstances, but an important one to consider for future leaders of the country.  Let me first ask you... Have you ever mailed a Congressman?  A Senator? ...The President?  If so you'll notice that they don't care about what you say unless they already supported your ideals, oh, and you're lucky if you ever actually get to talk to them (Apparently they can all afford many secretaries and people who take calls... and in one case that I remember, pretend to be them... ...for them.)  While it all seems weird it's a quite hard job.  They go back and forth DC to their district awaiting their next campaign trail, hoping that they don't lose their jobs.  It is a serious battle to talk for us and suck up taxpayer money, and the leaders of the anti-ACTA movement cannot trust them to make decisions because of these biases.  They'd need to elect their own, ahead of the vote for the ACTA treaty... a near impossibility.

	“If there's a chance, you might as well take it.”  Someone once told me something along those lines.  Coming from a much more conservative background in terms of my economic ideals I never liked to take chances with my money.  I always have things with the firmest, most assured gains that follow inflation so that while I might not be making the “Big Bucks” I am still earning a modest amount without any risk.  I love things without risk when it comes to decision making.  If I can get what I want in the end, assured... I will take it.  I don't like the chance idea when it comes to moral matters such as the one that the people in these arguments are stating.

	         “I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that
 	         men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master.”   --Thomas Jefferson

	It has been done again and again, each time evolving another way.  The idealists always hope that it will end up for the betterment of humanity.  We've had over a hundred years of peace between our residents.  No words have been flung along with bullets screaming out against control.  We have not seen the word “Occupying force” speaking of the current government.  We have seen in our lifetimes what a rebellion can do, after all we live in a world where things like the ACTA are allowed because of a rebellion occurring and then being quelled (the “Civil War” and the United State's resulting ability to put the rights of the federal government over that of the state.)  Sadly it was one of those mixed opinions, who would stand idly by while their fellow man was in irons?  This demonized those in the south.  While their heart was in the wrong place, their brain was at least functioning.
	Now why would I comment on how I hate chance, and then show a failure of rebellion?  Did they really fail?  Look at how far it has gone, where the federal government has organizations for every corner of human desire.  FBI, NSA, DEA, BATF... the list goes on.  Things once controlled by the state are now controlled from the federal government first, and then the state.  The federal government can even breach certain amendments to the constitution by changing modern interpretation.  The fact that these people are angry about legislation is good, and there are possibly peaceful ways to quell the forces at bay.  What assurances do they have that something else won't come by that is just like it? None in the peaceful resolutions.  The judges will die, the lobbyists will run out of money.  But you know... angry people are almost limitless.  Nobody wants pain and suffering for themselves, nor should they want it for other people.  If your will is as firm as you say and act like it is there is only one form of assurance you can have when it comes to succeeding in this battle for your morals and that is via rebellion.

		All other options are short term solutions to a problem that underlies every society.