3 ms·

Unfortunately, most people upset about this issue right now will still obediently walk into the voting booth next November and vote to re-elect public officials

Unfortunately, most people upset about this issue right now will still obediently walk into the voting booth next November and vote to re-elect public officials (or at least the next candidate from the same party) who supported this. Unless you're willing to put your vote where your mouth is and thus make it clear that actions have consequences, nothing will change.

superuser2 11y ago
What election outcome do you imagine is going to make this better?
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  Any election outcome where politicians who fail to oppose this, whether Democratic or Republican, are out of office and replaced with those of a different party, is the path to making this better. If you keep throwing the bums out -- and don't tell me that's impossible, no matter how many ads they buy they can't directly control what vote gets cast -- eventually you'll have bums in office who have a better sense of self-preservation. There's a very smart epigram along the lines of, the way to get good policy is not to elect good politicians, because such beasts hardly exist or get corrupted fast: it's to give bad politicians an incentive to act good. Let's give our bad politicians a nice strong incentive to oppose the surveillance state, hey?
  - superuser2 11y ago
    You seem to imagine that the public overwhelmingly opposes surveillance but politicians are simply ignoring its wishes. The public is clearly capable of voicing moral outrage: see gay marriage, abortion, and the Black Lives Matter movement. Where are the protests about surveillance? Why haven't the data-driven, opportunistic people who run campaigns identified this opportunity and seized it? Where are the people who care outside of HN and the rest of the internet libertarian community? If you could find the votes to enact such a strategy in a way that politicians would understand they were being punished for surveillance and not just subject to the irrationality of the American people like they always are, wouldn't it be much simpler to rally those people around support for a candidate that will actually dismantle the national security apparatus?
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      > You seem to imagine that the public overwhelmingly opposes surveillance but politicians are simply ignoring its wishes. Not so! I think that the number of people who care about surveillance is small, and the number willing to change their vote because of it is microscopic. But, you know what? Nobody said lobbying for political change is easy. > If you could find the votes to enact such a strategy in a way that politicians would understand they were being punished for surveillance and not just subject to the irrationality of the American people like they always are, wouldn't it be much simpler to rally those people around support for a candidate that will actually dismantle the national security apparatus? It would be simpler, but it would be less likely to succeed. Even if you find such a candidate, and even if they were sincere in their promises, they're still likely to end up steamrollered by all the other politicians who don't meet those standards. If you change the incentives, though, you've changed the entire system and now all the insincere politicians -- which is 95% of them -- are on your side. Victory will inevitably follow.
- aagha 11y ago
  The one where a candidate like Sanders, who has stood up against government surveillance, takes steps to put a stop to it.
  - untog 11y ago
    What primary outcome are you expecting that results in Sanders being a candidate you can vote for in the election? In any case, this issue is so far down the list of things the average American is concerned about that it's impossible to imagine meaningful change happening because of it.

superuser2 11y ago

What election outcome do you imagine is going to make this better?

13thLetter 11y ago
Any election outcome where politicians who fail to oppose this, whether Democratic or Republican, are out of office and replaced with those of a different party, is the path to making this better. If you keep throwing the bums out -- and don't tell me that's impossible, no matter how many ads they buy they can't directly control what vote gets cast -- eventually you'll have bums in office who have a better sense of self-preservation. There's a very smart epigram along the lines of, the way to get good policy is not to elect good politicians, because such beasts hardly exist or get corrupted fast: it's to give bad politicians an incentive to act good. Let's give our bad politicians a nice strong incentive to oppose the surveillance state, hey?
- superuser2 11y ago
  You seem to imagine that the public overwhelmingly opposes surveillance but politicians are simply ignoring its wishes. The public is clearly capable of voicing moral outrage: see gay marriage, abortion, and the Black Lives Matter movement. Where are the protests about surveillance? Why haven't the data-driven, opportunistic people who run campaigns identified this opportunity and seized it? Where are the people who care outside of HN and the rest of the internet libertarian community? If you could find the votes to enact such a strategy in a way that politicians would understand they were being punished for surveillance and not just subject to the irrationality of the American people like they always are, wouldn't it be much simpler to rally those people around support for a candidate that will actually dismantle the national security apparatus?
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    > You seem to imagine that the public overwhelmingly opposes surveillance but politicians are simply ignoring its wishes. Not so! I think that the number of people who care about surveillance is small, and the number willing to change their vote because of it is microscopic. But, you know what? Nobody said lobbying for political change is easy. > If you could find the votes to enact such a strategy in a way that politicians would understand they were being punished for surveillance and not just subject to the irrationality of the American people like they always are, wouldn't it be much simpler to rally those people around support for a candidate that will actually dismantle the national security apparatus? It would be simpler, but it would be less likely to succeed. Even if you find such a candidate, and even if they were sincere in their promises, they're still likely to end up steamrollered by all the other politicians who don't meet those standards. If you change the incentives, though, you've changed the entire system and now all the insincere politicians -- which is 95% of them -- are on your side. Victory will inevitably follow.
aagha 11y ago
The one where a candidate like Sanders, who has stood up against government surveillance, takes steps to put a stop to it.
- untog 11y ago
  What primary outcome are you expecting that results in Sanders being a candidate you can vote for in the election? In any case, this issue is so far down the list of things the average American is concerned about that it's impossible to imagine meaningful change happening because of it.