4 ms·

On the contrary, technical solutions trump force and law. Force and law only defeat political and military solutions. In the US, and perhaps other Western demo

On the contrary, technical solutions trump force and law. Force and law only defeat political and military solutions. In the US, and perhaps other Western democracies, governments are the people and people are the government, not separate from each other. If a government is doing something, it's because the people value it, at least enough to not change it. Edit: Downmods? Really? Refute my claims rather than attempt to bury them.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mikestew 11y ago
Your comment isn't inflammatory, nor do you seem to just be talking out your ass, so have an imaginary Internet point. I've up voted worse. However... > If a government is doing something, it's because the people value it, at least enough to not change it. I'm tempted to tell you that's bullshit, and others might feel strongly enough about it that they're clicking the down arrow. The NSA, for example, doesn't care which way I voted. So we have to sit around "knowing" they do stuff, but with no evidence. Finally, evidence comes out ala Snowden. Wait ten more years while we finally get around to passing laws to reign in the offending agencies/people. Add it all up and thirty years have gone by. Meanwhile, using the NSA example, they've found other ways to sneak around or outright flaunt laws, lather, rinse, repeat. It might look like no one cares, (rather than actually value it, as you say) but even if they do care the change doesn't come overnight.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  In the US, the people (OP's words, not mine), actually do control the government. Total take over can be accomplished in six years or less. Shut down can be accomplished in two or less. Yes, the US government has done and probably continues to do very bad stuff. NSA wiretaps are probably one of the least innocuous things it has done. IF the US people actually did want to shut it down and change the behavior of government, they could. I don't think most do (or at least, don't regularly think about it [but may agree if prompted to consider]), know how they could, or know what actual behavior/policy they would replace things with.
- x5n1 11y ago
  After 30 years even if it changes, let's say during the Clinton era much changed. It lasts a decade and then the course corrects to the trajectory it was on before. The people that affected the system are now irrelevant or soon dead. The new generation has forgotten the past.
alan_cx 11y ago
Im not sure about your first sentence, but Im kinda with you. Seems to me, at the very least, the majority of people aren't that bothered by what our governments are up to. I think it somewhat trite for people who are against these things simply just snap to a position that says these governments are essentially omnipotent and rule regardless of our concerns. If the mass public were outraged enough, it would stop. In a democracy we cannot divorce ourselves form what our governments doing in out name. Its a cheap lazy cop out.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Well, the perhaps frightening scenario is that you arrive at a point where everyone assumes that someone else is 'taking care of it', when it fact, that person may be the only one even aware of it. I'm not sure we're quite in that situation yet, but certainly there are severe inequities in how similar situations are treated (which is supposedly not allowed). You would expect to see exactly that in a degraded democracy.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mikestew 11y ago

Your comment isn't inflammatory, nor do you seem to just be talking out your ass, so have an imaginary Internet point. I've up voted worse. However... > If a government is doing something, it's because the people value it, at least enough to not change it. I'm tempted to tell you that's bullshit, and others might feel strongly enough about it that they're clicking the down arrow. The NSA, for example, doesn't care which way I voted. So we have to sit around "knowing" they do stuff, but with no evidence. Finally, evidence comes out ala Snowden. Wait ten more years while we finally get around to passing laws to reign in the offending agencies/people. Add it all up and thirty years have gone by. Meanwhile, using the NSA example, they've found other ways to sneak around or outright flaunt laws, lather, rinse, repeat. It might look like no one cares, (rather than actually value it, as you say) but even if they do care the change doesn't come overnight.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
In the US, the people (OP's words, not mine), actually do control the government. Total take over can be accomplished in six years or less. Shut down can be accomplished in two or less. Yes, the US government has done and probably continues to do very bad stuff. NSA wiretaps are probably one of the least innocuous things it has done. IF the US people actually did want to shut it down and change the behavior of government, they could. I don't think most do (or at least, don't regularly think about it [but may agree if prompted to consider]), know how they could, or know what actual behavior/policy they would replace things with.
x5n1 11y ago
After 30 years even if it changes, let's say during the Clinton era much changed. It lasts a decade and then the course corrects to the trajectory it was on before. The people that affected the system are now irrelevant or soon dead. The new generation has forgotten the past.

alan_cx 11y ago

Im not sure about your first sentence, but Im kinda with you. Seems to me, at the very least, the majority of people aren't that bothered by what our governments are up to. I think it somewhat trite for people who are against these things simply just snap to a position that says these governments are essentially omnipotent and rule regardless of our concerns. If the mass public were outraged enough, it would stop. In a democracy we cannot divorce ourselves form what our governments doing in out name. Its a cheap lazy cop out.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Well, the perhaps frightening scenario is that you arrive at a point where everyone assumes that someone else is 'taking care of it', when it fact, that person may be the only one even aware of it. I'm not sure we're quite in that situation yet, but certainly there are severe inequities in how similar situations are treated (which is supposedly not allowed). You would expect to see exactly that in a degraded democracy.