12 ms·

The former might kill a few people. The latter, if it was allowed to spread freely, might collapse an entire country and kill thousands or more in the ensuing c

by Nutmog 11y ago

The former might kill a few people. The latter, if it was allowed to spread freely, might collapse an entire country and kill thousands or more in the ensuing chaos. All countries have laws to protect their own existence. Actions that threaten that are called "treason". I personally think treason should be allowed as long as it doesn't harm individual people directly. But it can be punished with the death penalty in the US, so a lot of people probably think it's serious. "the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and ..." " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States Most people are not idiots. If you find yourself thinking that, it's a good clue that you may be judging them according to your own culture and preconceptions even though theirs may be different.

golergka 11y ago
> if it was allowed to spread freely Everything is bad when it's driven to the point of absurd. But this description: > if it was allowed to spread freely, might collapse an entire country and kill thousands or more in the ensuing chaos is something that the former can become much easier than the latter. I've seen how a country goes from a western democracy to a quasi-totalitarian state myself. When you describe US and european surveillance programs as something that leads you towards totalitarian dystopia, it's a little like a boy who likes to cry "wolf". These dangers are real indeed, but they don't come where you think they come from, and they are not the only dangers in the universe you have to be afraid of.
- selimthegrim 11y ago
  Hungary?
  - golergka 11y ago
    Unfortunately, I don't know history of Hungary well enough to understand what exactly are you referring to. Can you be more exact, what are you talking about in my comment?
    - selimthegrim 11y ago
      Meaning I was guessing that Hungary was the country turning away from democracy that you were referring to.
- Nutmog 11y ago
  > is something that the former can become much easier than the latter. It's not easy to compare. Pakistan and others have terrorism but Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and others have overthrown governments which might have been prevented with more Stasi-ism. The US is more stable than them so it can allow people more freedom to communicate - but still not complete freedom - see state secrets and the existence of wiretapping at all even on known criminals.
  - golergka 11y ago
    Late tzarist Russia had terrorism. Weimar republic didn't have terrorism per se, but it had militant groups enacting violence against their enemies in order to puruse political goals — some would name it terrorism, although I prefer a more strict definition. In other words, there were at least several instances in history where appearance of militant groups that violated state's monopoly on violence led, in the end, to these groups gaining power, and being much more violent and "bad" exactly because of their violent history. On the other hand, I don't believe I know a single instance where a democratic regimes turned into totalitarian or authoritarian government _because_of_ technological advances that allowed it more control.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >When you describe US and european surveillance programs as something that leads you towards totalitarian dystopia, it's a little like a boy who likes to cry "wolf". Not sure why you'd say that. The government in many dystopias ("1984" etc) had way less surveillance capabilities than the governments have today.
  - golergka 11y ago
    1984 is fiction. Good fiction. Convincing. But fiction. Reality is different.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      Nobody said 1894 is not fiction -- it was mentioned because someone said about dystopias. Of course reality is different. That doesn't mean it's also not worse than 1984 in some aspects. The kind of torture and killings people that got in the hands of the government suffered in Pinochet's Chile, for example, make 1984 look very tame. And in the US too, government surveillance programs have hurt real people for decades -- way beyond McCarthy, Hoover and/or the Watergate. It's mostly/only people who haven't suffered from something like this, and can't possible fathom they could be targets themselves, that dismiss concerns about state surveillance and abuses with a cavalier attitude that it's just "crying wolf". People who have seen their politicians doing all these things and more in their countries (and getting away with it a lot, with the occasional trial), are much more savvy to this kind of abuse than people who think state agencies are mostly good guys plus/minus a few "rotten apples", and that their government killing/blackmailing/spying etc on people on their soil can't (and hasn't) happened.

by Nutmog 11y ago

golergka 11y ago

> if it was allowed to spread freely Everything is bad when it's driven to the point of absurd. But this description: > if it was allowed to spread freely, might collapse an entire country and kill thousands or more in the ensuing chaos is something that the former can become much easier than the latter. I've seen how a country goes from a western democracy to a quasi-totalitarian state myself. When you describe US and european surveillance programs as something that leads you towards totalitarian dystopia, it's a little like a boy who likes to cry "wolf". These dangers are real indeed, but they don't come where you think they come from, and they are not the only dangers in the universe you have to be afraid of.

selimthegrim 11y ago
Hungary?
- golergka 11y ago
  Unfortunately, I don't know history of Hungary well enough to understand what exactly are you referring to. Can you be more exact, what are you talking about in my comment?
  - selimthegrim 11y ago
    Meaning I was guessing that Hungary was the country turning away from democracy that you were referring to.
Nutmog 11y ago
> is something that the former can become much easier than the latter. It's not easy to compare. Pakistan and others have terrorism but Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and others have overthrown governments which might have been prevented with more Stasi-ism. The US is more stable than them so it can allow people more freedom to communicate - but still not complete freedom - see state secrets and the existence of wiretapping at all even on known criminals.
- golergka 11y ago
  Late tzarist Russia had terrorism. Weimar republic didn't have terrorism per se, but it had militant groups enacting violence against their enemies in order to puruse political goals — some would name it terrorism, although I prefer a more strict definition. In other words, there were at least several instances in history where appearance of militant groups that violated state's monopoly on violence led, in the end, to these groups gaining power, and being much more violent and "bad" exactly because of their violent history. On the other hand, I don't believe I know a single instance where a democratic regimes turned into totalitarian or authoritarian government _because_of_ technological advances that allowed it more control.
coldtea 11y ago
>When you describe US and european surveillance programs as something that leads you towards totalitarian dystopia, it's a little like a boy who likes to cry "wolf". Not sure why you'd say that. The government in many dystopias ("1984" etc) had way less surveillance capabilities than the governments have today.
- golergka 11y ago
  1984 is fiction. Good fiction. Convincing. But fiction. Reality is different.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    Nobody said 1894 is not fiction -- it was mentioned because someone said about dystopias. Of course reality is different. That doesn't mean it's also not worse than 1984 in some aspects. The kind of torture and killings people that got in the hands of the government suffered in Pinochet's Chile, for example, make 1984 look very tame. And in the US too, government surveillance programs have hurt real people for decades -- way beyond McCarthy, Hoover and/or the Watergate. It's mostly/only people who haven't suffered from something like this, and can't possible fathom they could be targets themselves, that dismiss concerns about state surveillance and abuses with a cavalier attitude that it's just "crying wolf". People who have seen their politicians doing all these things and more in their countries (and getting away with it a lot, with the occasional trial), are much more savvy to this kind of abuse than people who think state agencies are mostly good guys plus/minus a few "rotten apples", and that their government killing/blackmailing/spying etc on people on their soil can't (and hasn't) happened.