3 ms·

"protecting the people from the government is more important than protecting the people from the people, at least as long as it stays manageable." This is fund

by cturner 11y ago

"protecting the people from the government is more important than protecting the people from the people, at least as long as it stays manageable." This is fundamental, and this point needs more airtime than it gets. Terrorism is a real threat. It is a challenge that our institutions are struggling to deal with. But the threat that it poses is tiny compared to the threat of powerful government, a troll that goes back to the beginning of civilisation. We must not let the focus on terrorism distract us into relinquishing defenses against the greater threat of powerful government. Advances in technology make privacy more important than it has ever been. Without privacy, there is vast opportunity for government to reach deep into our lives in the name of enforcement. Government of the people has an obligation to find ways to combat terrorism that are compatible with the controls we need on government. If we don't hold the line on privacy, government will increasingly shift us towards serfdom.

danenania 11y ago
I would add that much of the supposed non-government threat we face, at least in the case of terrorism, was actually created and continues to be sustained by government policies. Government has gotten us all involved in an endless war of attrition in which the average person has almost nothing to gain and everything to lose. If the priority was really to keep the population safe, things would be handled very differently.
- mc32 11y ago
  It's not that simple. Terrorism or violence can happen anywhere and not be precipitated by any externalities. People can conspire, people can be crazy, or unhinged. Columbine, for example. And even if we accept that terrorism is a reaction, they exist in many countries and would inflict more harm if they could. Terrorism is not a thing which only threatens the US, it exists in Europe, Africa, Asia, the middle east, etc. But yes people will have to come to terms with how to deal with the issue of privacy (secrecy) vs openness (accessibility) How it's managed will change over time, surely.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    The fear is, once they have their hooks into us, there's no getting out. We could easily settle into a dystopian oligarchy or whatever and never be able to get out. This kind of surveillance is a new thing in the world.
  - cm2187 11y ago
    Terrorism is dwarfed by gang violence and drug violence in the US in term of casualties. Terrorism is like the buzz of a mosquito. The psychological impact is disproportionate to the actual impact and law enforcement agencies are exploiting this buzz. They are labeling any controversial law "anti-terrorist", presenting any controversial case as an "anti-terrorist" case, etc... We should not over-react the other way but we should simply tell them "no". In a free country, two individuals should be able to have a private conversation without the State listening and recording.
    - outlace 11y ago
      But gangs aren't trying to secure nuclear weapons.
      - lucisferre 11y ago
        And the fact that "terrorists" have been so far completely unsuccessful should maybe make you question whether they actually are.
      - cjslep 11y ago
        What proof is there that terrorists are trying to secure nuclear weapons? How would they smuggle it unnoticed across the world? Why would they want to target the city you live in? These questions must be weighted by each person for him or herself. I've chosen for some nicer car insurance. I still don't have nuclear terrorism insurance. I still sleep well at night after working in defense in this area and having friends working on these very issues.
      - iamcreasy 11y ago
        You are claiming this on what ground? Source please. Or stop spreading misinformation.
- stcredzero 11y ago
  Government has gotten us all involved in an endless war of attrition in which the average person has almost nothing to gain and everything to lose. After WWII, the US government and foreign policy got reconfigured in such a way as to assure the United States could defend itself from a nuclear superpower and to have access to the resources to re-fight World War II. The original goal in all of the above was to keep the population safe. Things have evolved a little since then, however.
javajosh 11y ago
I don't think the ultimate aim is serfdom, but it would be a form of abuse. Perfect enforcement of an enormous body of law would tend to punish creative people, as the only way to avoid triggering a large number of rules is to form strong, proven habits and keep to them. Constant vigilance is antithetical to either daydreaming or experimentation. It wouldn't be serfdom for the people who's personalities are compatible with routine and continuity and conformity; it would be incredibly painful for the rest.
- th0waway 11y ago
  it may not be the ultimate, conscious aim, but I am convinced that there is a sort of 'social emergent behaviour' that will move us more and more toward that state of serfdom unless we actively fight against it.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Umn44 11y ago
>Advances in technology make privacy more important than it has ever been. Without privacy, there is vast opportunity for government to reach deep into our lives in the name of enforcement. That was the plan for elites... you don't seem to understand our elites perspective on these matters. "The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities." 'In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities effectively exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason." "Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites ... [Whose] ties cut across national boundaries ...It is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook ... The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty... Further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position." Written in 1982 http://www.amazon.com/Between-Two-Ages-Americas-Technetronic/dp/0313234981 http://www.amazon.com/Between-Two-Ages-Americas-Technetronic... The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic...

by cturner 11y ago

danenania 11y ago

I would add that much of the supposed non-government threat we face, at least in the case of terrorism, was actually created and continues to be sustained by government policies. Government has gotten us all involved in an endless war of attrition in which the average person has almost nothing to gain and everything to lose. If the priority was really to keep the population safe, things would be handled very differently.

mc32 11y ago
It's not that simple. Terrorism or violence can happen anywhere and not be precipitated by any externalities. People can conspire, people can be crazy, or unhinged. Columbine, for example. And even if we accept that terrorism is a reaction, they exist in many countries and would inflict more harm if they could. Terrorism is not a thing which only threatens the US, it exists in Europe, Africa, Asia, the middle east, etc. But yes people will have to come to terms with how to deal with the issue of privacy (secrecy) vs openness (accessibility) How it's managed will change over time, surely.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  The fear is, once they have their hooks into us, there's no getting out. We could easily settle into a dystopian oligarchy or whatever and never be able to get out. This kind of surveillance is a new thing in the world.
- cm2187 11y ago
  Terrorism is dwarfed by gang violence and drug violence in the US in term of casualties. Terrorism is like the buzz of a mosquito. The psychological impact is disproportionate to the actual impact and law enforcement agencies are exploiting this buzz. They are labeling any controversial law "anti-terrorist", presenting any controversial case as an "anti-terrorist" case, etc... We should not over-react the other way but we should simply tell them "no". In a free country, two individuals should be able to have a private conversation without the State listening and recording.
  - outlace 11y ago
    But gangs aren't trying to secure nuclear weapons.
    - lucisferre 11y ago
      And the fact that "terrorists" have been so far completely unsuccessful should maybe make you question whether they actually are.
    - cjslep 11y ago
      What proof is there that terrorists are trying to secure nuclear weapons? How would they smuggle it unnoticed across the world? Why would they want to target the city you live in? These questions must be weighted by each person for him or herself. I've chosen for some nicer car insurance. I still don't have nuclear terrorism insurance. I still sleep well at night after working in defense in this area and having friends working on these very issues.
    - iamcreasy 11y ago
      You are claiming this on what ground? Source please. Or stop spreading misinformation.
stcredzero 11y ago
Government has gotten us all involved in an endless war of attrition in which the average person has almost nothing to gain and everything to lose. After WWII, the US government and foreign policy got reconfigured in such a way as to assure the United States could defend itself from a nuclear superpower and to have access to the resources to re-fight World War II. The original goal in all of the above was to keep the population safe. Things have evolved a little since then, however.

javajosh 11y ago

I don't think the ultimate aim is serfdom, but it would be a form of abuse. Perfect enforcement of an enormous body of law would tend to punish creative people, as the only way to avoid triggering a large number of rules is to form strong, proven habits and keep to them. Constant vigilance is antithetical to either daydreaming or experimentation. It wouldn't be serfdom for the people who's personalities are compatible with routine and continuity and conformity; it would be incredibly painful for the rest.

th0waway 11y ago
it may not be the ultimate, conscious aim, but I am convinced that there is a sort of 'social emergent behaviour' that will move us more and more toward that state of serfdom unless we actively fight against it.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Umn44 11y ago

>Advances in technology make privacy more important than it has ever been. Without privacy, there is vast opportunity for government to reach deep into our lives in the name of enforcement. That was the plan for elites... you don't seem to understand our elites perspective on these matters. "The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities." 'In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities effectively exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason." "Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites ... [Whose] ties cut across national boundaries ...It is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook ... The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty... Further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position." Written in 1982 http://www.amazon.com/Between-Two-Ages-Americas-Technetronic/dp/0313234981 http://www.amazon.com/Between-Two-Ages-Americas-Technetronic... The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic...