3 ms·

You seem to imagine that the public overwhelmingly opposes surveillance but politicians are simply ignoring its wishes. The public is clearly capable of voicin

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.

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.