18 ms·

> A mode of thought I would expect in socialist countries, not the US... The United States government has done an excellent bit of propaganda to convince the b

> A mode of thought I would expect in socialist countries, not the US... The United States government has done an excellent bit of propaganda to convince the bulk of the public that they are the most free people on earth. We salute the flag and sing the national anthem at games. We have the presidents' pictures on the walls of our classrooms. We chant "USA" at political rallies. But the government of the United States has perpetrated terrible violence and destruction of liberty against its own citizens and many more abroad. Through endless military engagement abroad to harassment, detainment, and imprisonment at home, the government serves its own interests first, and enhancing and preserving your liberty is not among them. I should be very concerned about coming to the attention of anyone within government -- at any level. Even the local code enforcement board can extract time, energy, and money from you should you come under scrutiny. But as others have said, you're already on the lists. No need to be paranoid. Go ahead and sign the Snowden petition. It's just one more data point on your dossier. The government already has enough on you to put you away for life if you become inconvenient to the state. Three Felonies a Day[1] and all that. [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473864155&sr=8-1&keywords=three+felonies+a+day https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp...

krschultz 10y ago
Which country would you suggest is the most free today? Not trolling, just wondering if I was going to move somewhere else, where would I go?
- bayesian_horse 10y ago
  Depends on what kind of freedoms you are looking for. Many European countries, Germany for example, have better protections from law enforcement and crime. On the other hand free speech is more restricted by libel or hate speech directives.
- lisper 10y ago
  If you want freedom from government interference in your life, Somalia is still a pretty good bet. And no, I am not being facetious. People like to think of freedom as a scalar, but it's actually a vector with complex interactions among its various dimensions, one of which is the government. That said, I am absolutely signing the petition. Ed Snowden put a lot more on the line by blowing the whistle than I am by signing.
  - hutzlibu 10y ago
    Erm no. In Somalia you do have a lot of government interference - you just have many smaller (wannebe) ones there, fighting against each other for power, vs. one big.
    - lisper 10y ago
      But "one big" vs "wannabe" is the defining characteristic of a government. The reason that Somalia is universally considered a failed state is precisely because it has many smaller wannabe governments fighting each other rather than one big government maintaining order. And that is precisely my point: people think of freedom as a scalar, as the absence of constraints on their personal decision-making. But this is wrong. Your decisions are always constrained, if not by "government" (however you choose to define it) then by your fellow humans. And if not by your fellow humans (e.g. if you go live in the middle of Nunavut) then by the laws of physics.
    - antisthenes 10y ago
      That's exactly the scenario that would happen in a libertopia most libertarians describe - minimal government. It's an incentive for other actors to try to imitate the role of government through other means. Actually, not just Somalia - Africa is ripe with examples of these.
      - pbarnes_1 10y ago
        Power vacuums are not left unfilled for long. Also, I've never met a "true" (in the sense that they tell you about it as soon as you talk to them) libertarian who isn't also a raging asshole. But there are assholes on all points of the spectrum, so I'm not sure what that proves. :D
  - smsm42 10y ago
    The question is not "most free from government", but "most free". It's like answering the question about which restaurant is most sanitary by suggesting to eat nothing at all - of course, you'll starve to death but at least no chance for food poisoning! And you're wrong about Somalia btw: they do have a government, which collects taxes, introduces regulations and does all good government supposed to do, including corruption. [1][2][3] > Ed Snowden put a lot more on the line by blowing the whistle than I am by signing. Well, yeah, by signing you are putting absolutely nothing on the line so that's true :) [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5176102.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5176102.stm [2] http://www.hiiraan.com/news4/2011/jan/17383/somalia_s_government_plans_regulations_taxes_for_mobile_phone_operators.aspx http://www.hiiraan.com/news4/2011/jan/17383/somalia_s_govern... [3] http://goobjoog.com/english/?p=20975 http://goobjoog.com/english/?p=20975
- clarkmoody 10y ago
  The Heritage Foundation published its Index of Economic Freedom[1], which tracks various factors for many nations. While not a direct analog to personal liberty, economic freedom certainly is something to strive for. Take a look for yourself and see if their rankings make sense. [1]: http://www.heritage.org/index/ http://www.heritage.org/index/
  - aidenn0 10y ago
    I seriously doubt that Singapore is even in the top ten for personal liberty, much less #2. I have heard good things about their economic policies though.
  - wehadfun 10y ago
    You can't even chew gum in Singapore. Australia probably is free if you are not an Aboriginal. Hong Kong Free as long as China doesn't want you. This list is crazy. The free countries are probably all third world but then people are free to literally eat you without punishment.
    - driverdan 10y ago
      It's the economic freedom index, not personal liberties index.
      - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
        It is an economic freedom index from a conservative American organization's point of view, actually. Part of the metric is government spending: Another portion rates laws about firing folks, minimum wages, and other such things.
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    It is unfortunate that the heritage organization is one of conservative leanings and that their chart is definitely skewed in that manner. This chart is really helpful if you think high government spending or having small government is a marker of your personal freedom, economic or otherwise. I'm not: I'm all for government health care, government supported time off work for sickness or children, and other such things. These push up government spending, but yet can mean freedom from financial burden. When I consider what I paid for health care in the US, the tax rate isn't a big deal at all. For my personal economy, i'm actually more free because I don't have to plan for being sick and going broke from it - I gained some economic stability. Also interesting is the "labor freedom" metric - basically, laws making it more difficult to fire folks and things of that nature. While there are occasionally downsides to this, it also means there is a sense of job security. If your personal beliefs are such that this is a hinderance, it might be a bad thing, but I suspect most folks would find this to mean more actual economic freedom because there aren't so many surprises to plan for.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  The previous poster was correct - it depends on what sort of things will make you, personally, feel free. I wound up in Norway, and find a certain freedom here. I don't mind the taxes and such, and I rather enjoy the general equality in opportunity sort of thing. I'm no longer worried that blue hair makes me un-hireable (though it might make it harder to find work). But other Americans here simply hate it and can't wait to wind up going back to the states. The best bet is if you have some choices in the matter - and know it - join some groups with other americans living there and talk to them about their experiences there.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    > I'm no longer worried that blue hair makes me un-hireable This is also absolutely true in US. Of course, that differs whether you're trying to be a graphic designer or a banker or a trial lawyer. Blue-haired trial lawyer probably would raise more eyebrows.
    - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
      I was lucky enough to work at a pharmacy that didn't mind the bright hair in the US, but heard a good number of folks lament their employers wouldn't allow such things. I always found it somewhat sad. Don't get me wrong, there are still some quirks with it here, but it isn't the same sort of hindrance as it was in the states.
  - pbarnes_1 10y ago
    It's kind of cool that there are so many different countries with different variables and that some people are fortunate enough to be able to pick the one that suits them best. Homogeny in this case would actually be a bad thing.
- smsm42 10y ago
  They say Switzerland is not too bad. Good luck getting their citizenship though.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  The Nordic countries probably. Throw in Holland or Germany maybe. Another commenter said there's a bit less room for speech and press but you you're not constant target of police and government. Sounds accurate. It's what I was considering thinking of U.S.'s recent elections plus me being on their shitlist.
- miraj 10y ago
  Canada? "The Legatum Prosperity Index" (1), states that: "Canada is now the freest (sic) country in the world, having risen five places to 1st in the Personal Freedom sub-index." (2) see this also. "Freedom in the World 2015" (3) 1. http://www.prosperity.com/ http://www.prosperity.com/ 2. http://www.prosperity.com/#!/headline-findings http://www.prosperity.com/#!/headline-findings 3. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2015#.V9odVBkXbqB https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-...
- ionised 10y ago
  Iceland maybe? Hard to move to as a non-native speaker though.
TaylorAlexander 10y ago
Noam Chomsky talks a lot about "Manufacturing Consent" (he wrote a book with this title). He says that in a democratic society you can't use force to control people, so you have to control them by controlling attitudes an opinions instead. It works well, and the people of the United States are heavily controlled by the elite, who in this case are the corporations and the media companies they control. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG5YTEOWCpE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG5YTEOWCpE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kusAX4Th4N8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kusAX4Th4N8
- cconroy 10y ago
  David Hume came to this conclusion in OF THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT (in the 1st paragraph). people of the United States are heavily controlled by the elite is too simplistic and some "elites" make the world better.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    We also compete to rise to the elite ranks, demote persons and families who prove themselves incompetent and boast a competent (a function of competition, in contrast to Europe) and diverse (a function of not killing each other, in contrast to China or Russia) elite.
  - nzp 10y ago
    I think the meaning of “elite” is clear from context here (i.e. C. Wright Mills' economic, government, and military elites). He certainly didn't mean elite academic mathematicians, etc.
    - wooter 10y ago
      As an independent/libertarian, I find this distinction lost on most democrats. Sadly, it seems they define people by income - thus the income inequality debate - which, among other confounding variables, completely ignores things like mobility.
kordless 10y ago
I think you are mistaking the resulting meta-consciousness created from the game theory in society and government with individual's based consciousness and some internal intent to deceive. While I would agree the government may try to deceive us, it does so by formally rationalizing government individual's actions as needed to "protect" us from threats. There is likely not one or two people "plotting" out what is happening. It's more probable that something like the angry meme phenomenon[1] has taken root in our government and is now attempting to isolate itself from harm. I think this came about because we tend to become fearful about things that may happen if we don't do X, Y and Z to stop them before they happen and those X, Y and Z things are now hard coded into our government and affecting the game theory around it. As a result, you get a meta-govt-conscious thing acting irrationally and making everyone very nervous as a result. Or as Gene Belcher put it, "Everything is randomness and chaos." [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
- bogomipz 10y ago
  >"... meta-consciousness created from the game theory" Could you elaborate on what this is?
  - kordless 10y ago
    A Turing machine is a good example of a construct that is able to self reference and take action based on measurements. In a Turing machine, one can model other machines. With human consciousness, this analogy would be applied to a "higher level" of consciousness forming around/on top of the human's interaction with that particular "thing" that allows the thing to take action on given metrics and share it among other consciousnesses which are in communication with it and assist with sustaining it's existence. In a business, for example, the game theory/model would govern the way the business makes money and the processes in which the company provides product or services to a customer which best ensure the future success of the company as an entity. If the founders/influencers in the company approach building the model with the assumption the customer facing processes are mutable (which itself is dissonant in nature without customer approval), the resulting "consciousness" of the business might focus on building value by marketing means and acquisition (both viral based growth methods). This "intent" is then translated into the day to day processes required for raising additional awareness of the company's product in the market, again at the customer's cost. In extreme examples where such entities can survive long term, such as with the government, these intents may extend well beyond any intent by the individual's involved. I don't think anyone working for the government really wants to violate your privacy, but they are heavily influenced in their need to rationalize it given they wouldn't want the same thing happening to themselves, nor would they want fail at stopping a terrorist blowing up something on American soil. So, they make it "OK" to deal with personally, and the government entity is able to survive symbiotically with the host which is currently being kept in "stable" condition. Richard Dawkins calls them memes, but they are likely capable of more complexity than we realize, given the somewhat substantiated claims in the video titled This Video Will Make You Angry on YouTube. It would also make a lot of sense if they worked toward escaping attention, given the awareness of them by the host is akin to inoculation.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
foo4u 10y ago
As an US citizen, I no longer salute that piece of cloth or sing the national anthem at sports games. I don't even bother standing for it and encourage others to do the same to show our distaste for how our own government treats us. I was disgusted in the 2000's when being against the Iraq war was not only being flaunted unpatriotic but not supporting our troops. That's BS. I support our troops and would rather not have seen them deployed to conduct Cheney's bidding. I will sign the petition and if some asshole gives me trouble at the border for it, so what? I'm a US citizen and entitled to re-enter my country. F them. "If patriotism is 'the last refuge of a scoundrel,' it is not merely because evil deeds may be performed in the name of patriotism, but because patriotic fervor can obliterate moral distinctions altogether” ~ Ralph B. Perry
- shitgoose 10y ago
  "I'm a US citizen and entitled to re-enter my country" they think otherwise. they rightfully own you and can do whatever they please with you. feel free to try to prove me wrong and not to sound like minuteman.
- 1024core 10y ago
  > I will sign the petition and if some asshole gives me trouble at the border for it, so what? I'm a US citizen and entitled to re-enter my country. F them. I posted this reply earlier too, but figured I'd respond here also. The US government has, in the past, refused entry to US citizens. They do this not at the border, but at the foreign airport. Say you fly to Germany, and then try to come back. They'll tell the airline to refuse to board you, and then you're stuck there. Sure, if you managed to somehow reach a US land border, they would have to allow you in (after a lengthy interrogation, I imagine). But that's not very practical or economical.
  - exhilaration 10y ago
    That's exactly right, here's a real-world example: But the worst cases are those like Long's: when the person is suddenly barred from flying when they are outside of the US, often on the other side of the world. As a practical matter, that government act effectively exiles them from their own country. "Obviously, I can't get to Oklahoma from Qatar if I can't fly," said Long. "Trying to take a boat would take weeks away from work just for the travel alone, and it's not affordable. If I can't fly, then I can't go back home." - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/05/muslim-no-fly-qatar https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/05/muslim...
2bitencryption 10y ago
hacker news is becoming crazier every day
tormeh 10y ago
>We salute the flag and sing the national anthem at games. We have the presidents' pictures on the walls of our classrooms. We chant "USA" at political rallies. That does sound very authoritarian, honestly. Maybe that's why there are so many libertarians in the US - it's a reaction to the authoritarianism in American culture.
- daptaq 10y ago
  Except that this behavior is not indoctrinated by an "authoritarian" state, publishing you with death, but rather by a omni-present culture punishing you on social grounds. IMO libertarianism that gives corporation more freedom than people, just make it easier for them to push through any legislation and "cultural propaganda"and they want, not so much solving this problem.
- CodeMage 10y ago
  The word you're looking for is "nationalist", not "authoritarian". Authoritarianism is when you're commanded to do the stuff you quoted. Nationalism is when you do it of your free will or out of peer pressure from others who do it of their free will. Nationalism is more insidious than authoritarianism. When you have an authoritarian government, you have an enemy you can clearly identify and the resistance feels morally justified. Resisting nationalism often elicits negative reactions, such as branding you as "unpatriotic" and such.
maxerickson 10y ago
Yeah, destruction of evidence and seafood smuggling are just everyday activities. (those are both real examples from the book...whether there was a great deal of intent in the lobster tail case is disputed, but it was a pattern of shipments involving thousands and thousands of pounds of tails)
- smsm42 10y ago
  I've read the book and I agree that a lot of it concentrates on cases which are rather unusual for a common person. Not all of it though. E.g. evidence rules mean you can be committing a felony just by deleting an email that some prosecutor may consider important - even if you haven't been under investigation at the time. And you can be investigated for things as simple as depositing sums under $10000 in the bank on routing course of business - just because it looks like "structuring". And you can also be prosecuted if you make any false statement to a government employee, no matter if it relates to any crime.

krschultz 10y ago

Which country would you suggest is the most free today? Not trolling, just wondering if I was going to move somewhere else, where would I go?

bayesian_horse 10y ago
Depends on what kind of freedoms you are looking for. Many European countries, Germany for example, have better protections from law enforcement and crime. On the other hand free speech is more restricted by libel or hate speech directives.
lisper 10y ago
If you want freedom from government interference in your life, Somalia is still a pretty good bet. And no, I am not being facetious. People like to think of freedom as a scalar, but it's actually a vector with complex interactions among its various dimensions, one of which is the government. That said, I am absolutely signing the petition. Ed Snowden put a lot more on the line by blowing the whistle than I am by signing.
- hutzlibu 10y ago
  Erm no. In Somalia you do have a lot of government interference - you just have many smaller (wannebe) ones there, fighting against each other for power, vs. one big.
  - lisper 10y ago
    But "one big" vs "wannabe" is the defining characteristic of a government. The reason that Somalia is universally considered a failed state is precisely because it has many smaller wannabe governments fighting each other rather than one big government maintaining order. And that is precisely my point: people think of freedom as a scalar, as the absence of constraints on their personal decision-making. But this is wrong. Your decisions are always constrained, if not by "government" (however you choose to define it) then by your fellow humans. And if not by your fellow humans (e.g. if you go live in the middle of Nunavut) then by the laws of physics.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    That's exactly the scenario that would happen in a libertopia most libertarians describe - minimal government. It's an incentive for other actors to try to imitate the role of government through other means. Actually, not just Somalia - Africa is ripe with examples of these.
    - pbarnes_1 10y ago
      Power vacuums are not left unfilled for long. Also, I've never met a "true" (in the sense that they tell you about it as soon as you talk to them) libertarian who isn't also a raging asshole. But there are assholes on all points of the spectrum, so I'm not sure what that proves. :D
- smsm42 10y ago
  The question is not "most free from government", but "most free". It's like answering the question about which restaurant is most sanitary by suggesting to eat nothing at all - of course, you'll starve to death but at least no chance for food poisoning! And you're wrong about Somalia btw: they do have a government, which collects taxes, introduces regulations and does all good government supposed to do, including corruption. [1][2][3] > Ed Snowden put a lot more on the line by blowing the whistle than I am by signing. Well, yeah, by signing you are putting absolutely nothing on the line so that's true :) [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5176102.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5176102.stm [2] http://www.hiiraan.com/news4/2011/jan/17383/somalia_s_government_plans_regulations_taxes_for_mobile_phone_operators.aspx http://www.hiiraan.com/news4/2011/jan/17383/somalia_s_govern... [3] http://goobjoog.com/english/?p=20975 http://goobjoog.com/english/?p=20975
clarkmoody 10y ago
The Heritage Foundation published its Index of Economic Freedom[1], which tracks various factors for many nations. While not a direct analog to personal liberty, economic freedom certainly is something to strive for. Take a look for yourself and see if their rankings make sense. [1]: http://www.heritage.org/index/ http://www.heritage.org/index/
- aidenn0 10y ago
  I seriously doubt that Singapore is even in the top ten for personal liberty, much less #2. I have heard good things about their economic policies though.
- wehadfun 10y ago
  You can't even chew gum in Singapore. Australia probably is free if you are not an Aboriginal. Hong Kong Free as long as China doesn't want you. This list is crazy. The free countries are probably all third world but then people are free to literally eat you without punishment.
  - driverdan 10y ago
    It's the economic freedom index, not personal liberties index.
    - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
      It is an economic freedom index from a conservative American organization's point of view, actually. Part of the metric is government spending: Another portion rates laws about firing folks, minimum wages, and other such things.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  It is unfortunate that the heritage organization is one of conservative leanings and that their chart is definitely skewed in that manner. This chart is really helpful if you think high government spending or having small government is a marker of your personal freedom, economic or otherwise. I'm not: I'm all for government health care, government supported time off work for sickness or children, and other such things. These push up government spending, but yet can mean freedom from financial burden. When I consider what I paid for health care in the US, the tax rate isn't a big deal at all. For my personal economy, i'm actually more free because I don't have to plan for being sick and going broke from it - I gained some economic stability. Also interesting is the "labor freedom" metric - basically, laws making it more difficult to fire folks and things of that nature. While there are occasionally downsides to this, it also means there is a sense of job security. If your personal beliefs are such that this is a hinderance, it might be a bad thing, but I suspect most folks would find this to mean more actual economic freedom because there aren't so many surprises to plan for.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
The previous poster was correct - it depends on what sort of things will make you, personally, feel free. I wound up in Norway, and find a certain freedom here. I don't mind the taxes and such, and I rather enjoy the general equality in opportunity sort of thing. I'm no longer worried that blue hair makes me un-hireable (though it might make it harder to find work). But other Americans here simply hate it and can't wait to wind up going back to the states. The best bet is if you have some choices in the matter - and know it - join some groups with other americans living there and talk to them about their experiences there.
- smsm42 10y ago
  > I'm no longer worried that blue hair makes me un-hireable This is also absolutely true in US. Of course, that differs whether you're trying to be a graphic designer or a banker or a trial lawyer. Blue-haired trial lawyer probably would raise more eyebrows.
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    I was lucky enough to work at a pharmacy that didn't mind the bright hair in the US, but heard a good number of folks lament their employers wouldn't allow such things. I always found it somewhat sad. Don't get me wrong, there are still some quirks with it here, but it isn't the same sort of hindrance as it was in the states.
- pbarnes_1 10y ago
  It's kind of cool that there are so many different countries with different variables and that some people are fortunate enough to be able to pick the one that suits them best. Homogeny in this case would actually be a bad thing.
smsm42 10y ago
They say Switzerland is not too bad. Good luck getting their citizenship though.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
The Nordic countries probably. Throw in Holland or Germany maybe. Another commenter said there's a bit less room for speech and press but you you're not constant target of police and government. Sounds accurate. It's what I was considering thinking of U.S.'s recent elections plus me being on their shitlist.
miraj 10y ago
Canada? "The Legatum Prosperity Index" (1), states that: "Canada is now the freest (sic) country in the world, having risen five places to 1st in the Personal Freedom sub-index." (2) see this also. "Freedom in the World 2015" (3) 1. http://www.prosperity.com/ http://www.prosperity.com/ 2. http://www.prosperity.com/#!/headline-findings http://www.prosperity.com/#!/headline-findings 3. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2015#.V9odVBkXbqB https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-...
ionised 10y ago
Iceland maybe? Hard to move to as a non-native speaker though.

TaylorAlexander 10y ago

Noam Chomsky talks a lot about "Manufacturing Consent" (he wrote a book with this title). He says that in a democratic society you can't use force to control people, so you have to control them by controlling attitudes an opinions instead. It works well, and the people of the United States are heavily controlled by the elite, who in this case are the corporations and the media companies they control. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG5YTEOWCpE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG5YTEOWCpE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kusAX4Th4N8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kusAX4Th4N8

cconroy 10y ago
David Hume came to this conclusion in OF THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT (in the 1st paragraph). people of the United States are heavily controlled by the elite is too simplistic and some "elites" make the world better.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  We also compete to rise to the elite ranks, demote persons and families who prove themselves incompetent and boast a competent (a function of competition, in contrast to Europe) and diverse (a function of not killing each other, in contrast to China or Russia) elite.
- nzp 10y ago
  I think the meaning of “elite” is clear from context here (i.e. C. Wright Mills' economic, government, and military elites). He certainly didn't mean elite academic mathematicians, etc.
  - wooter 10y ago
    As an independent/libertarian, I find this distinction lost on most democrats. Sadly, it seems they define people by income - thus the income inequality debate - which, among other confounding variables, completely ignores things like mobility.

kordless 10y ago

I think you are mistaking the resulting meta-consciousness created from the game theory in society and government with individual's based consciousness and some internal intent to deceive. While I would agree the government may try to deceive us, it does so by formally rationalizing government individual's actions as needed to "protect" us from threats. There is likely not one or two people "plotting" out what is happening. It's more probable that something like the angry meme phenomenon[1] has taken root in our government and is now attempting to isolate itself from harm. I think this came about because we tend to become fearful about things that may happen if we don't do X, Y and Z to stop them before they happen and those X, Y and Z things are now hard coded into our government and affecting the game theory around it. As a result, you get a meta-govt-conscious thing acting irrationally and making everyone very nervous as a result. Or as Gene Belcher put it, "Everything is randomness and chaos." [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

bogomipz 10y ago
>"... meta-consciousness created from the game theory" Could you elaborate on what this is?
- kordless 10y ago
  A Turing machine is a good example of a construct that is able to self reference and take action based on measurements. In a Turing machine, one can model other machines. With human consciousness, this analogy would be applied to a "higher level" of consciousness forming around/on top of the human's interaction with that particular "thing" that allows the thing to take action on given metrics and share it among other consciousnesses which are in communication with it and assist with sustaining it's existence. In a business, for example, the game theory/model would govern the way the business makes money and the processes in which the company provides product or services to a customer which best ensure the future success of the company as an entity. If the founders/influencers in the company approach building the model with the assumption the customer facing processes are mutable (which itself is dissonant in nature without customer approval), the resulting "consciousness" of the business might focus on building value by marketing means and acquisition (both viral based growth methods). This "intent" is then translated into the day to day processes required for raising additional awareness of the company's product in the market, again at the customer's cost. In extreme examples where such entities can survive long term, such as with the government, these intents may extend well beyond any intent by the individual's involved. I don't think anyone working for the government really wants to violate your privacy, but they are heavily influenced in their need to rationalize it given they wouldn't want the same thing happening to themselves, nor would they want fail at stopping a terrorist blowing up something on American soil. So, they make it "OK" to deal with personally, and the government entity is able to survive symbiotically with the host which is currently being kept in "stable" condition. Richard Dawkins calls them memes, but they are likely capable of more complexity than we realize, given the somewhat substantiated claims in the video titled This Video Will Make You Angry on YouTube. It would also make a lot of sense if they worked toward escaping attention, given the awareness of them by the host is akin to inoculation.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

foo4u 10y ago

As an US citizen, I no longer salute that piece of cloth or sing the national anthem at sports games. I don't even bother standing for it and encourage others to do the same to show our distaste for how our own government treats us. I was disgusted in the 2000's when being against the Iraq war was not only being flaunted unpatriotic but not supporting our troops. That's BS. I support our troops and would rather not have seen them deployed to conduct Cheney's bidding. I will sign the petition and if some asshole gives me trouble at the border for it, so what? I'm a US citizen and entitled to re-enter my country. F them. "If patriotism is 'the last refuge of a scoundrel,' it is not merely because evil deeds may be performed in the name of patriotism, but because patriotic fervor can obliterate moral distinctions altogether” ~ Ralph B. Perry

shitgoose 10y ago
"I'm a US citizen and entitled to re-enter my country" they think otherwise. they rightfully own you and can do whatever they please with you. feel free to try to prove me wrong and not to sound like minuteman.
1024core 10y ago
> I will sign the petition and if some asshole gives me trouble at the border for it, so what? I'm a US citizen and entitled to re-enter my country. F them. I posted this reply earlier too, but figured I'd respond here also. The US government has, in the past, refused entry to US citizens. They do this not at the border, but at the foreign airport. Say you fly to Germany, and then try to come back. They'll tell the airline to refuse to board you, and then you're stuck there. Sure, if you managed to somehow reach a US land border, they would have to allow you in (after a lengthy interrogation, I imagine). But that's not very practical or economical.
- exhilaration 10y ago
  That's exactly right, here's a real-world example: But the worst cases are those like Long's: when the person is suddenly barred from flying when they are outside of the US, often on the other side of the world. As a practical matter, that government act effectively exiles them from their own country. "Obviously, I can't get to Oklahoma from Qatar if I can't fly," said Long. "Trying to take a boat would take weeks away from work just for the travel alone, and it's not affordable. If I can't fly, then I can't go back home." - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/05/muslim-no-fly-qatar https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/05/muslim...

2bitencryption 10y ago

hacker news is becoming crazier every day

tormeh 10y ago

>We salute the flag and sing the national anthem at games. We have the presidents' pictures on the walls of our classrooms. We chant "USA" at political rallies. That does sound very authoritarian, honestly. Maybe that's why there are so many libertarians in the US - it's a reaction to the authoritarianism in American culture.

daptaq 10y ago
Except that this behavior is not indoctrinated by an "authoritarian" state, publishing you with death, but rather by a omni-present culture punishing you on social grounds. IMO libertarianism that gives corporation more freedom than people, just make it easier for them to push through any legislation and "cultural propaganda"and they want, not so much solving this problem.
CodeMage 10y ago
The word you're looking for is "nationalist", not "authoritarian". Authoritarianism is when you're commanded to do the stuff you quoted. Nationalism is when you do it of your free will or out of peer pressure from others who do it of their free will. Nationalism is more insidious than authoritarianism. When you have an authoritarian government, you have an enemy you can clearly identify and the resistance feels morally justified. Resisting nationalism often elicits negative reactions, such as branding you as "unpatriotic" and such.

maxerickson 10y ago

Yeah, destruction of evidence and seafood smuggling are just everyday activities. (those are both real examples from the book...whether there was a great deal of intent in the lobster tail case is disputed, but it was a pattern of shipments involving thousands and thousands of pounds of tails)

smsm42 10y ago
I've read the book and I agree that a lot of it concentrates on cases which are rather unusual for a common person. Not all of it though. E.g. evidence rules mean you can be committing a felony just by deleting an email that some prosecutor may consider important - even if you haven't been under investigation at the time. And you can be investigated for things as simple as depositing sums under $10000 in the bank on routing course of business - just because it looks like "structuring". And you can also be prosecuted if you make any false statement to a government employee, no matter if it relates to any crime.