4 ms·

How does a nation built upon the concept of natural rights in turn deny non-Americans those same innate rights? It is a crime what the NSA is doing. Against A

How does a nation built upon the concept of natural rights in turn deny non-Americans those same innate rights? It is a crime what the NSA is doing. Against Americans, the world and the first principles of governance (i.e. classical liberalism). If Jefferson's notion of an Empire of Library was alive and vibrant today, the target would not be Canada but the United States government. Jefferson on defending the concept of popular sovereignty etc all over the world- "...we should then have only to include the North [Canada] in our confederacy...and we should have such an empire for liberty as she has never surveyed since the creation: & I am persuaded no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire & self government." - Jefferson to James Madison, 27 April 1809 "where this progress will stop no-one can say. Barbarism has, in the meantime, been receding before the steady step of amelioration; and will in time, I trust, disappear from the earth" - Jefferson to William Ludlow, 6 September 1824

cookrn 11y ago
Here are more details on the Jefferson reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Liberty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Liberty
sneak 11y ago
Most Americans alive today have never read the declaration. A significant minority are extremely nationalistic in a terrifying, we-can-do-no-wrong manner.
x5n1 11y ago
The leadership does not believe in the Founding Fathers or the Constitution in the way Americans would like. At best they see it as a set of rules made by people just like themselves that they can adjust and change to meet the needs of the times. And that usually entails more control over the ever out of control masses, according to their perceptions. The NSA or analogue in the late 1700s in the time of the Founding Fathers would probably lead to a revolution. The NSA of today is common news and no one cares that someone is always listening, not might be but is (it's being recorded somewhere), to everything they type or do and might share that with people who are literally out to get you if it's convenient to do so. Ultimately this is to create a further atmosphere of fear, anxiety, and paranoia about anything you might do or say that could come back to haunt you later... to protect the government's fear, anxiety, and paranoia that the citizens are always doing something wrong and need to be found out. Nefarious plans are always being hatched that can be prevented if the right agency just knew what everyone was doing at all times. And the specter of the panopticon keeps everyone from even contemplating doing anything wrong. And maybe they are not wrong. But I hate living in a paranoid world like that, which can make people mentally ill if they think about it too much. The scene from the Simpson where Bart is on Focusyn comes to mind.
- jonnybgood 11y ago
  The FFs were a numerous bunch who didn't even agree with each other on many things. To lump them as all having the same opinion on today's matters is a mistake. Americans are exactly the same way. There are many who will differ with your opinion and who are just as knowledgable.
- arandolpha 11y ago
  Playing on the population's fear of terrorism is just a tool used to consolidate power. The will to power of the government is not evil, but it must be constrained by an educated population. The intent of the 4th amendment was to guarantee privacy in our personal lives. This protection has obviously been eroded as the the information of our lives has become digitally interconnected. I think the real question is what do we do from here? The same technology that binds us together could be used to create a true democratic system. It's time for us to evolve past the American democratic process, which was designed to protect against the "tyranny of the majority."
rdtsc 11y ago
Granted it also says "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" unless they are slaves, or women and so on. That didn't seem to be a problem, it is obvious none of the other natural unalianable right are a problem with proper interpretation.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  > That didn't seem to be a problem To some of the Founders and some of the people, slavery was a big "problem" from the start. And some of the language of the Constitution was, no doubt, aspirational. Don't assume it was written for the reality of the day.
DanielBMarkham 11y ago
How does a nation built upon the concept of natural rights in turn deny non-Americans those same innate rights? Looking back, as a history buff, I think the problem is that each generation felt that it was a special snowflake, so the rules didn't apply to them. Early on we had terrible travesties -- the Alien and Sedition Act, for instance. But people came to their senses and it was repealed. Over time, however, as each generation thought it was facing something nobody could have planned for, the boundaries got pushed. Fast-forward 240 years, and what you have is the natural result of systemic drift. With each travesty and reversal, maybe you lose 1% over a decade. Add that up over 24 decades and its amazing anything is left at all. Technically, both the Supreme court and the Senate are charged with preventing this from happening. But the Senate was gutted and turned into another House of Representatives when they went to direct elections, so the only thing those guys are good for now is pandering to the TV cameras. The courts tend to give wonderful speeches on liberty and such -- but usually end up keeping things much as they are. (They have nibbled a bit around the edges, but in general they've been more part of the problem than part of the solution. Part of the reason for this is the gradual and incremental nature of the drift.) That's what's happened internally, with a huge set of checks and balances in place. Externally? It never had a chance.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > the Senate [is] charged with preventing this from happening. But the Senate was gutted There is a gradual drift over time; most complex systems accumulate errors, imbalances, and unexpected problems over time. However, there is another problem happening right now that I've only seen mentioned[1] by Dan Geer. He suggests that technology has changed the balance of powers: The central dynamic internal to government is, and always has been, that the only way for either the Executive or the Legislature to control the many sub-units of government is by way of how much money they can hand out. ... Suppose, however, that surveillance becomes too cheap to meter, that is to say too cheap to limit through budgetary processes. Does that lessen the power of the Legislature more, or the power of the Executive more? I think that ever-cheaper surveillance substantially changes the balance of power in favor of the Executive and away from the Legislature. While President Obama was referring to something else when he said "I've Got A Pen And I've Got A Phone," he was speaking to exactly this idea -- things that need no appropriations are outside the system of checks and balances. The "power of the purse" doesn't mean much when technology drives prices towards zero. This is made much worse by the "humans need not apply"[2] shift in jobs from humans to automation. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT-TGvYOBpI#t=625 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT-TGvYOBpI#t=625 http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

cookrn 11y ago

Here are more details on the Jefferson reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Liberty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Liberty

sneak 11y ago

Most Americans alive today have never read the declaration. A significant minority are extremely nationalistic in a terrifying, we-can-do-no-wrong manner.

x5n1 11y ago

The leadership does not believe in the Founding Fathers or the Constitution in the way Americans would like. At best they see it as a set of rules made by people just like themselves that they can adjust and change to meet the needs of the times. And that usually entails more control over the ever out of control masses, according to their perceptions. The NSA or analogue in the late 1700s in the time of the Founding Fathers would probably lead to a revolution. The NSA of today is common news and no one cares that someone is always listening, not might be but is (it's being recorded somewhere), to everything they type or do and might share that with people who are literally out to get you if it's convenient to do so. Ultimately this is to create a further atmosphere of fear, anxiety, and paranoia about anything you might do or say that could come back to haunt you later... to protect the government's fear, anxiety, and paranoia that the citizens are always doing something wrong and need to be found out. Nefarious plans are always being hatched that can be prevented if the right agency just knew what everyone was doing at all times. And the specter of the panopticon keeps everyone from even contemplating doing anything wrong. And maybe they are not wrong. But I hate living in a paranoid world like that, which can make people mentally ill if they think about it too much. The scene from the Simpson where Bart is on Focusyn comes to mind.

jonnybgood 11y ago
The FFs were a numerous bunch who didn't even agree with each other on many things. To lump them as all having the same opinion on today's matters is a mistake. Americans are exactly the same way. There are many who will differ with your opinion and who are just as knowledgable.
arandolpha 11y ago
Playing on the population's fear of terrorism is just a tool used to consolidate power. The will to power of the government is not evil, but it must be constrained by an educated population. The intent of the 4th amendment was to guarantee privacy in our personal lives. This protection has obviously been eroded as the the information of our lives has become digitally interconnected. I think the real question is what do we do from here? The same technology that binds us together could be used to create a true democratic system. It's time for us to evolve past the American democratic process, which was designed to protect against the "tyranny of the majority."

rdtsc 11y ago

Granted it also says "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" unless they are slaves, or women and so on. That didn't seem to be a problem, it is obvious none of the other natural unalianable right are a problem with proper interpretation.

Zigurd 11y ago
> That didn't seem to be a problem To some of the Founders and some of the people, slavery was a big "problem" from the start. And some of the language of the Constitution was, no doubt, aspirational. Don't assume it was written for the reality of the day.

DanielBMarkham 11y ago

How does a nation built upon the concept of natural rights in turn deny non-Americans those same innate rights? Looking back, as a history buff, I think the problem is that each generation felt that it was a special snowflake, so the rules didn't apply to them. Early on we had terrible travesties -- the Alien and Sedition Act, for instance. But people came to their senses and it was repealed. Over time, however, as each generation thought it was facing something nobody could have planned for, the boundaries got pushed. Fast-forward 240 years, and what you have is the natural result of systemic drift. With each travesty and reversal, maybe you lose 1% over a decade. Add that up over 24 decades and its amazing anything is left at all. Technically, both the Supreme court and the Senate are charged with preventing this from happening. But the Senate was gutted and turned into another House of Representatives when they went to direct elections, so the only thing those guys are good for now is pandering to the TV cameras. The courts tend to give wonderful speeches on liberty and such -- but usually end up keeping things much as they are. (They have nibbled a bit around the edges, but in general they've been more part of the problem than part of the solution. Part of the reason for this is the gradual and incremental nature of the drift.) That's what's happened internally, with a huge set of checks and balances in place. Externally? It never had a chance.

pdkl95 11y ago
> the Senate [is] charged with preventing this from happening. But the Senate was gutted There is a gradual drift over time; most complex systems accumulate errors, imbalances, and unexpected problems over time. However, there is another problem happening right now that I've only seen mentioned[1] by Dan Geer. He suggests that technology has changed the balance of powers: The central dynamic internal to government is, and always has been, that the only way for either the Executive or the Legislature to control the many sub-units of government is by way of how much money they can hand out. ... Suppose, however, that surveillance becomes too cheap to meter, that is to say too cheap to limit through budgetary processes. Does that lessen the power of the Legislature more, or the power of the Executive more? I think that ever-cheaper surveillance substantially changes the balance of power in favor of the Executive and away from the Legislature. While President Obama was referring to something else when he said "I've Got A Pen And I've Got A Phone," he was speaking to exactly this idea -- things that need no appropriations are outside the system of checks and balances. The "power of the purse" doesn't mean much when technology drives prices towards zero. This is made much worse by the "humans need not apply"[2] shift in jobs from humans to automation. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT-TGvYOBpI#t=625 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT-TGvYOBpI#t=625 http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU