6 ms·

Show me a State-directed gold digger and I might consider accepting your false equivalence. Hint: this wasn't just a relationship between two people, one of wh

by cstross 11y ago

Show me a State-directed gold digger and I might consider accepting your false equivalence. Hint: this wasn't just a relationship between two people, one of whom was deceiving the other about their intentions: it was a relationship that existed because a government agency wanted to spy on the target and their friends.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
So what is your underlying moral principle? That the state cannot take actions perfectly legal for citizens to engage in to prevent crime? Would it also be wrong for the state to send a sexy lady cop to seduce a gay basher/abortion doctor killer/female genital mutilator/other unpopular terrorist group? Or is there no principle, but this just seems unpleasant and the lady seems like a sympathetic person with a good cause? (I too don't think it was an effective use of police resources.)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- gutnor 11y ago
  > That the state cannot take actions perfectly legal for citizens to engage in to prevent crime? Well, that's generally the case. Free speech is essentially a restriction of government power. Also you are purposefully ignoring the scale. It is ok to jail someone for a few days, even weeks until their innocence is proven. If you jail them for decades, that's another story. So pretend relationship is fine, 6 years of pretend relationship is not ok.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- akiselev 11y ago
  》So what is your underlying moral principle? That the state cannot take actions perfectly legal for citizens to engage in to prevent crime? Yes. That's the entire point of the United States Constitution. The State has an overwhelming amount of power and resources relative to any of its citizens, including the richest ones. Our entire union is based on a document that outlines limits to that power, limits that often don't apply to citizens and corporations. That's why the state can only rarely stifle speech or actively exclude minorities (at least jn theory) but private organizations like the Boy Scouts of America can discriminate against legally protected groups and corporations can fire employees at the drop of a hat if they say something publicly that the employer disapproves of. 》Would it also be wrong for the state to send a sexy lady cop to seduce a gay basher/abortion doctor killer/female genital mutilator/other unpopular terrorist group? On a sting or a short term undercover op to catch someone who is actually dangerous to the public? Sure, it would be acceptable. This isn't an issue with an absolute answer, but six years of subversion that cause immense emotional pain to an environmentalist who clearly poses no threat (assuming they were competent it should maybe take 6-12 months to figure that out)? Are we talking about US Law enforcement or the Soviet era KGB?
  - cstross 11y ago
    We're not talking about America. In case you've missed the context, the United States Constitution doesn't apply in the United Kingdom.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > That the state cannot take actions perfectly legal for citizens to engage in to prevent crime? This man changed his name with the intent to deceive. That's not legal for other citizens.
- SamReidHughes 11y ago
  I think you've jumped off the track here -- you're falling into "right and wrong" language when it's clearly wrong -- while initially you were talking about whether it should result in monetary compensation. And it is very plausible that an act done for Motive X should have a punishment, while one done for Motive Y should not -- particularly when Motive X is the real problem and restricting the scope of the law is desirable. It's also totally reasonable for laws to outlaw some kinds of deceit but not others. Some kinds of deceit are to be tolerated -- "I like your sense of humor" -- but others -- "I don't have an STD" -- are not.

by cstross 11y ago

yummyfajitas 11y ago

So what is your underlying moral principle? That the state cannot take actions perfectly legal for citizens to engage in to prevent crime? Would it also be wrong for the state to send a sexy lady cop to seduce a gay basher/abortion doctor killer/female genital mutilator/other unpopular terrorist group? Or is there no principle, but this just seems unpleasant and the lady seems like a sympathetic person with a good cause? (I too don't think it was an effective use of police resources.)

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
gutnor 11y ago
> That the state cannot take actions perfectly legal for citizens to engage in to prevent crime? Well, that's generally the case. Free speech is essentially a restriction of government power. Also you are purposefully ignoring the scale. It is ok to jail someone for a few days, even weeks until their innocence is proven. If you jail them for decades, that's another story. So pretend relationship is fine, 6 years of pretend relationship is not ok.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
akiselev 11y ago
》So what is your underlying moral principle? That the state cannot take actions perfectly legal for citizens to engage in to prevent crime? Yes. That's the entire point of the United States Constitution. The State has an overwhelming amount of power and resources relative to any of its citizens, including the richest ones. Our entire union is based on a document that outlines limits to that power, limits that often don't apply to citizens and corporations. That's why the state can only rarely stifle speech or actively exclude minorities (at least jn theory) but private organizations like the Boy Scouts of America can discriminate against legally protected groups and corporations can fire employees at the drop of a hat if they say something publicly that the employer disapproves of. 》Would it also be wrong for the state to send a sexy lady cop to seduce a gay basher/abortion doctor killer/female genital mutilator/other unpopular terrorist group? On a sting or a short term undercover op to catch someone who is actually dangerous to the public? Sure, it would be acceptable. This isn't an issue with an absolute answer, but six years of subversion that cause immense emotional pain to an environmentalist who clearly poses no threat (assuming they were competent it should maybe take 6-12 months to figure that out)? Are we talking about US Law enforcement or the Soviet era KGB?
- cstross 11y ago
  We're not talking about America. In case you've missed the context, the United States Constitution doesn't apply in the United Kingdom.
DanBC 11y ago
> That the state cannot take actions perfectly legal for citizens to engage in to prevent crime? This man changed his name with the intent to deceive. That's not legal for other citizens.
SamReidHughes 11y ago
I think you've jumped off the track here -- you're falling into "right and wrong" language when it's clearly wrong -- while initially you were talking about whether it should result in monetary compensation. And it is very plausible that an act done for Motive X should have a punishment, while one done for Motive Y should not -- particularly when Motive X is the real problem and restricting the scope of the law is desirable. It's also totally reasonable for laws to outlaw some kinds of deceit but not others. Some kinds of deceit are to be tolerated -- "I like your sense of humor" -- but others -- "I don't have an STD" -- are not.