3 ms·

I predicted mass surveillance in 2008 and I am not known for jumping on board conspiracy theories. My reasons were that server infrastructure costs are getting

I predicted mass surveillance in 2008 and I am not known for jumping on board conspiracy theories. My reasons were that server infrastructure costs are getting lower while elites seek power to control others, and monitoring electronic things seemed like a natural conclusion to me. I was labeled a conspiracy theorist by my own family. Today, when I bring the Snowden revelations up with my family they say, "well duh, everybody knew that for many years" facepalm you just can't win. Everything at high levels is shit and corrupt and it will always be that way. Go make yourself a sandwich and be glad we aren't living in anarchy.

mirimir 11y ago
> ...be glad we aren't living in anarchy. We aren't?
- krapp 11y ago
  Haven't you been paying attention? We're living in a police state.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    Isn't that anarchy of a sort?
    - krapp 11y ago
      Maybe of a very weak sort, if you define anarchy as "lawlessness." Maybe they're two sides of the same coin. But to me, you can't have a police state without a state, or laws to enforce, or a way for the state to coerce involuntary obedience to those laws (which is what police are theoretically for.) All of these things seem fundamentally non-anarchist in principle.
      - mirimir 11y ago
        I think of police states as authoritarian. Maybe there could be a democratic police state. But that would be odd. Anyway, with anarchism there are voluntary associations. In free-market anarchism, there are private services for defense and contract enforcement. But if wealth is concentrated, such services that serve the wealthy will be far more powerful than those who serve the poor. In effect, they will be "the police". And so we would have an authoritarian police state.
    - spacemanmatt 11y ago
      The police very definitely work for a power structure. Not very anarchic in my book.
mootothemax 11y ago
Today, when I bring the Snowden revelations up with my family they say, "well duh, everybody knew that for many years" To be fair, here's a Slashdot story from '98 mentioning Echelon: http://it.slashdot.org/story/98/09/30/1429227/investigating-echelon http://it.slashdot.org/story/98/09/30/1429227/investigating-... I think the wider problem you're coming up against is that hardly anyone cares.

mirimir 11y ago

> ...be glad we aren't living in anarchy. We aren't?

krapp 11y ago
Haven't you been paying attention? We're living in a police state.
- mirimir 11y ago
  Isn't that anarchy of a sort?
  - krapp 11y ago
    Maybe of a very weak sort, if you define anarchy as "lawlessness." Maybe they're two sides of the same coin. But to me, you can't have a police state without a state, or laws to enforce, or a way for the state to coerce involuntary obedience to those laws (which is what police are theoretically for.) All of these things seem fundamentally non-anarchist in principle.
    - mirimir 11y ago
      I think of police states as authoritarian. Maybe there could be a democratic police state. But that would be odd. Anyway, with anarchism there are voluntary associations. In free-market anarchism, there are private services for defense and contract enforcement. But if wealth is concentrated, such services that serve the wealthy will be far more powerful than those who serve the poor. In effect, they will be "the police". And so we would have an authoritarian police state.
  - spacemanmatt 11y ago
    The police very definitely work for a power structure. Not very anarchic in my book.

mootothemax 11y ago

Today, when I bring the Snowden revelations up with my family they say, "well duh, everybody knew that for many years" To be fair, here's a Slashdot story from '98 mentioning Echelon: http://it.slashdot.org/story/98/09/30/1429227/investigating-echelon http://it.slashdot.org/story/98/09/30/1429227/investigating-... I think the wider problem you're coming up against is that hardly anyone cares.