6 ms·

This all makes a lot more sense if you just accept that the government isn't 'working for you' or however people think of it these days. They're working for the

This all makes a lot more sense if you just accept that the government isn't 'working for you' or however people think of it these days. They're working for them. They're playing a shell game to work around you. Not exactly breaking news when we have long-standing political families and parties. It's not a new thing. There is a political ruling class. We're not in it and the people who are like this ability so they're going to hoodwink us to keep it. It's just that simple.

cryoshon 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite#Power_.C3.A9lites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite#Power_.C3.A9lites It's been a lot longer than just recent days that surveillance agencies have had their top members inside of the power elite. J. Edgar Hoover ran the country for quite some time without any real democratic process to stop him.
- jxm262 11y ago
  Thanks, this wiki article is actually pretty interesting. I'm looking through their numbers, and while I don't doubt them, I wonder if there's any more reference information (books, etc.) that corroborate this data.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
This is why I believe that the democratic mindset is harmful, though not democracy in of itself. The democratic mindset is one convinced that the citizenry have absolute control because of the mere presence of some form of electoral system. The democratic mindset then proceeds to blame all failures on the agent and routinely excuses all wrongdoings of the principal. If a democratically elected leader is repressive, the blame is put on those who voted for them and on those who did not (for "failing" to vote for someone else who may have been just as repressive anyway). Democracy encourages this kind of victim blaming through and through, and it reduces any political problem to Just A Simple Matter of Voting. (It's even worse in FPTP systems because of the spoilt vote effect. There, if you actually do take the advice of the democratic mindset and vote for the candidate you see as just, you will again be blamed for depriving the more mainstream "lesser evil" candidate and therefore being responsible for the deeds of the ultimate winner. You voted for Ralph Nader, which means you stole Al Gore's victory, which means you started the Iraq War!)
- cloakandswagger 11y ago
  It's a classic statist tactic: make voting a civil duty and shame people who don't vote, then when that person expresses dissatisfaction you can respond "You had your say when you voted, so stop complaining!" You can't win either way. If you don't participate then you're not allowed to be discontent and vice versa.
  - meric 11y ago
    People voted for hope and change when they voted for Obama. They got more debt, more wars, more Guantanamo Bay, more electronic surveillance. Obama is more Bush than Bush can hope to be. The people had their say. They got the candidate they wanted. And the candidate broke every promise...
    - sanderjd 11y ago
      It's possible that Obama cynically said one thing to get elected while planning to do another thing once in charge, but it's also possible that he did his utmost to bring change to politics and make good on peoples' hope, and simply failed; that he tried to do the job people wanted him to do, but the job was impossible. I think it's probably a lot of both.
    - cloakandswagger 11y ago
      Although I didn't support him, I think Obama had good intentions and wasn't lying to get elected. His failure to accomplish what he promised is an indicator of just how strong the "shadow government" (comprised of the military, our surveillance agencies, corporate interests) is in the US.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Although I didn't support him, I think Obama had good intentions and wasn't lying to get elected. His failure to accomplish what he promised is an indicator of just how strong the "shadow government" (comprised of the military, our surveillance agencies, corporate interests) is in the US. Actually, most of it is an indicator of just how strong the other, coequal branches of the overt, Constitutional government are (particularly Congress, but the Supreme Court has a role, too.) The President is not (even before considering the influence of any "shadow government") a dictator, and most significant policy changes require Congressional action, or at least acquiescence.
rayiner 11y ago
Almost everyone I know outside the HN echo-chamber is more worried about terrorism (and dozens of other things) than they are about surveillance. In a nutshell, they saw "V for Vendetta" as a fun movie, but not any more of a plausible future outcome than any of those movies set in a post-nuclear winter. I don't have any evidence that the government is doing anything other than what people want with regard to surveillance. Keep in mind that the composite median voter is basically my mother: thinks the world would be chaos without authority; thinks drugs make people morally bankrupt; wants a big SUV; wants to ban guns; is nearing eligibility for Social Security and Medicare, etc. She loves Hilary Clinton. And of course, she's going to vote. I'm not.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  Consider the media diet most people have. Movies made by Hollywood, popular shows, the evening news, and discussions with with people who are similar to them. All of these media are going to inform them about recently past, near future, historical, or hypothetical terrorist attacks, and how bad they are. There are no popular pieces currently which emphasize the dangers of totalitarian surveillance or dystopian government, and if there were a few, they'd still be drowned out by the above. As far as believing that the government isn't working for the people... it's much too long for a single comment to capture, which is also part of the problem. "Terrorists are bad and terrorist attacks are bad" fits in Twitter, but even a simple understanding of how the government prioritizes its own enrichment and power over that of the citizens is quite complicated and has many details, most of which require a historical complex and understanding of the underlying social and political theory.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- delecti 11y ago
  >she's going to vote. I'm not And thus you admit to being part of the problem.
  - dublinben 11y ago
forgetsusername 11y ago
>It's just that simple. No, it really isn't. There is no "them", there is no "us", there is no "you", there is no "we". Believing it's "us" versus "them" is an extremely lazy way to way to describe an incredibly complex social system. Of course, those who describe the system this way are always on the "us" side, never with the "them".
- DickingAround 11y ago
  Let's get very specific and logical. There's also the 'we' in the form of people who don't work in politics. I don't. Many others don't. 'We' all have functionally zero say in what happens politically unless we do something drastic like leave work and cause a commotion. There is a 'them' which is people who made a full-time career in politics or revolving-door in and out of it. That 'them' seem to think they can control how 'we' life our lives. Just because an outsider can become an insider by join a party and working hard to climb the ladder doesn't prevent them from being a special cadre. Just because there's complex forms of 'them' such as defense-sector, intelligence-sector, etc. doesn't mean I can't group all such political powers as 'them'. And though sometimes they do, they don't have to share a bloodline to be a 'them'. Their profession depends not on their own inventions (like ours does) but on controlling us. That makes them a them and us an us. It is that simple. If you don't think these groups or patterns exist, I'd encourage you to meet some CIA agents. Or Washington defense contractors. Go get a job with them. Try joining them for a whole. You can practically smell the power-lust on them. The love of secrecy. The need to feel special. It's a profession where you don't have to make a profit or provide value for value. It's totally different at a glance. I haven't met many politicians outside of a handshake but I'd guess they're about the same.
Frondo 11y ago
I'm OK with this, if you stop thinking of "the government" as a monolithic entity, where everyone who enters into government work becomes "one of them". Groups within agencies, maybe even entire (small) agencies, sure. But "the government" as a whole is far, far, far too large and diverse for this to make sense. You've got so many different levels and units of government you're lumping in together that it just doesn't make any sense. Is the city councilperson no longer "working for you" when they change garbage service from every week to every two weeks, and add a recycling program? Weekly garbage service is my right as an American! It's too shallow an analysis, it's like a conspiracy theory--like the way medical conspiracies try to get you to think that your run-of-the-mill doctor is conspiring to keep REAL medicine out of your hands, etc etc. But small groups of, or a handful of shell-game power players, even in high up positions? Sure, I can buy that.
samstave 11y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5dBZDSSky0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5dBZDSSky0

cryoshon 11y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite#Power_.C3.A9lites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite#Power_.C3.A9lites It's been a lot longer than just recent days that surveillance agencies have had their top members inside of the power elite. J. Edgar Hoover ran the country for quite some time without any real democratic process to stop him.

jxm262 11y ago
Thanks, this wiki article is actually pretty interesting. I'm looking through their numbers, and while I don't doubt them, I wonder if there's any more reference information (books, etc.) that corroborate this data.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

This is why I believe that the democratic mindset is harmful, though not democracy in of itself. The democratic mindset is one convinced that the citizenry have absolute control because of the mere presence of some form of electoral system. The democratic mindset then proceeds to blame all failures on the agent and routinely excuses all wrongdoings of the principal. If a democratically elected leader is repressive, the blame is put on those who voted for them and on those who did not (for "failing" to vote for someone else who may have been just as repressive anyway). Democracy encourages this kind of victim blaming through and through, and it reduces any political problem to Just A Simple Matter of Voting. (It's even worse in FPTP systems because of the spoilt vote effect. There, if you actually do take the advice of the democratic mindset and vote for the candidate you see as just, you will again be blamed for depriving the more mainstream "lesser evil" candidate and therefore being responsible for the deeds of the ultimate winner. You voted for Ralph Nader, which means you stole Al Gore's victory, which means you started the Iraq War!)

cloakandswagger 11y ago
It's a classic statist tactic: make voting a civil duty and shame people who don't vote, then when that person expresses dissatisfaction you can respond "You had your say when you voted, so stop complaining!" You can't win either way. If you don't participate then you're not allowed to be discontent and vice versa.
- meric 11y ago
  People voted for hope and change when they voted for Obama. They got more debt, more wars, more Guantanamo Bay, more electronic surveillance. Obama is more Bush than Bush can hope to be. The people had their say. They got the candidate they wanted. And the candidate broke every promise...
  - sanderjd 11y ago
    It's possible that Obama cynically said one thing to get elected while planning to do another thing once in charge, but it's also possible that he did his utmost to bring change to politics and make good on peoples' hope, and simply failed; that he tried to do the job people wanted him to do, but the job was impossible. I think it's probably a lot of both.
  - cloakandswagger 11y ago
    Although I didn't support him, I think Obama had good intentions and wasn't lying to get elected. His failure to accomplish what he promised is an indicator of just how strong the "shadow government" (comprised of the military, our surveillance agencies, corporate interests) is in the US.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Although I didn't support him, I think Obama had good intentions and wasn't lying to get elected. His failure to accomplish what he promised is an indicator of just how strong the "shadow government" (comprised of the military, our surveillance agencies, corporate interests) is in the US. Actually, most of it is an indicator of just how strong the other, coequal branches of the overt, Constitutional government are (particularly Congress, but the Supreme Court has a role, too.) The President is not (even before considering the influence of any "shadow government") a dictator, and most significant policy changes require Congressional action, or at least acquiescence.

rayiner 11y ago

Almost everyone I know outside the HN echo-chamber is more worried about terrorism (and dozens of other things) than they are about surveillance. In a nutshell, they saw "V for Vendetta" as a fun movie, but not any more of a plausible future outcome than any of those movies set in a post-nuclear winter. I don't have any evidence that the government is doing anything other than what people want with regard to surveillance. Keep in mind that the composite median voter is basically my mother: thinks the world would be chaos without authority; thinks drugs make people morally bankrupt; wants a big SUV; wants to ban guns; is nearing eligibility for Social Security and Medicare, etc. She loves Hilary Clinton. And of course, she's going to vote. I'm not.

cryoshon 11y ago
Consider the media diet most people have. Movies made by Hollywood, popular shows, the evening news, and discussions with with people who are similar to them. All of these media are going to inform them about recently past, near future, historical, or hypothetical terrorist attacks, and how bad they are. There are no popular pieces currently which emphasize the dangers of totalitarian surveillance or dystopian government, and if there were a few, they'd still be drowned out by the above. As far as believing that the government isn't working for the people... it's much too long for a single comment to capture, which is also part of the problem. "Terrorists are bad and terrorist attacks are bad" fits in Twitter, but even a simple understanding of how the government prioritizes its own enrichment and power over that of the citizens is quite complicated and has many details, most of which require a historical complex and understanding of the underlying social and political theory.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
delecti 11y ago
>she's going to vote. I'm not And thus you admit to being part of the problem.
- dublinben 11y ago

forgetsusername 11y ago

>It's just that simple. No, it really isn't. There is no "them", there is no "us", there is no "you", there is no "we". Believing it's "us" versus "them" is an extremely lazy way to way to describe an incredibly complex social system. Of course, those who describe the system this way are always on the "us" side, never with the "them".

DickingAround 11y ago
Let's get very specific and logical. There's also the 'we' in the form of people who don't work in politics. I don't. Many others don't. 'We' all have functionally zero say in what happens politically unless we do something drastic like leave work and cause a commotion. There is a 'them' which is people who made a full-time career in politics or revolving-door in and out of it. That 'them' seem to think they can control how 'we' life our lives. Just because an outsider can become an insider by join a party and working hard to climb the ladder doesn't prevent them from being a special cadre. Just because there's complex forms of 'them' such as defense-sector, intelligence-sector, etc. doesn't mean I can't group all such political powers as 'them'. And though sometimes they do, they don't have to share a bloodline to be a 'them'. Their profession depends not on their own inventions (like ours does) but on controlling us. That makes them a them and us an us. It is that simple. If you don't think these groups or patterns exist, I'd encourage you to meet some CIA agents. Or Washington defense contractors. Go get a job with them. Try joining them for a whole. You can practically smell the power-lust on them. The love of secrecy. The need to feel special. It's a profession where you don't have to make a profit or provide value for value. It's totally different at a glance. I haven't met many politicians outside of a handshake but I'd guess they're about the same.

Frondo 11y ago

I'm OK with this, if you stop thinking of "the government" as a monolithic entity, where everyone who enters into government work becomes "one of them". Groups within agencies, maybe even entire (small) agencies, sure. But "the government" as a whole is far, far, far too large and diverse for this to make sense. You've got so many different levels and units of government you're lumping in together that it just doesn't make any sense. Is the city councilperson no longer "working for you" when they change garbage service from every week to every two weeks, and add a recycling program? Weekly garbage service is my right as an American! It's too shallow an analysis, it's like a conspiracy theory--like the way medical conspiracies try to get you to think that your run-of-the-mill doctor is conspiring to keep REAL medicine out of your hands, etc etc. But small groups of, or a handful of shell-game power players, even in high up positions? Sure, I can buy that.

samstave 11y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5dBZDSSky0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5dBZDSSky0