4 ms·

>We live in societies with rules, with laws that we have agreed upon, and are, for the most part, fair. Societies have gradually grown more unfair as the polit

>We live in societies with rules, with laws that we have agreed upon, and are, for the most part, fair. Societies have gradually grown more unfair as the political system has strained under their growing complexity. According to political scientists, the average voter has an extremely limited understanding of what their government is doing. The typical person's understanding of economics is similarly extremely limited. This opens the door to manipulation by demagogues and special interests. The growing control that government exerts over society, seen in everything from the emergence of a mass-surveillance system of unprecedented scope, to the number of regulations on the books, to the percentage of GDP made up of government spending, is not healthy, and needs a counter balance in privacy technology that empowers the individual and limits the Kafkaesque tendencies of collective society. >And you're advocating for not holding up your end of the bargain, and removing one big part of the punishment for not holding it up. This is not a bargain one voluntary agrees to. It's not a contract. It's an imposition. It's, ostensibly, majority rule, and nothing more. >To people advocating that, then I can only hope that since your money cannot be taken away, then more of your freedom will. For the good of all of us. Your comment genuinely horrifies me. I presume you're saying you want people who don't comply to be put behind bars, for extended lengths of time. And their crime, that you insist is harming the rest us, is to not comply with a plan that the majority imposed on them. You've justified it in your mind by arguing that these people accepted a bargain, and are now not holding up their end of it. When seemingly intelligent and articulate people so easily rationalize imprisoning their fellow man and woman, it's horrifying to witness.

ameister14 9y ago
The average voter has always had an extremely limited understanding of what their government is doing, and demagogues? How old do you think that word is? This is not something new. I agree that the mass surveillance systems are a problem, but that's mostly because it enables greater control in the future, not because that control is in place today. It's also not unprecedented - the Stasi had a more comprehensive surveillance network than anything in place today. All that said, I completely agree with the necessity of greater privacy protections. I don't think you are completely grasping the concept of the 'bargain' you were responding to, though. We voluntarily exchange some individual rights for collective security and prosperity all the time. Basically, you have the right to leave the protection of the State. When you do that, you get all your rights back, but the State has the right to declare war on you. It usually doesn't work out, because you're back in the state of being able to keep and hold whatever you yourself can protect from all comers.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  The stasi was a totalitarian state. And in some respects, the mass surveillance system is more extensive now than under the stasi. Being better than the stasi is a pretty low bar to beat. >We voluntarily exchange some individual rights for collective security and prosperity all the time. We don't voluntarily exchange it. You have a right to leave the protection of the state if you don't want to have any of your rights violated. That doesn't imply that we voluntarily submit to laws infringing on our rights. We have an inherent right to be in our own country without having our rights violated.
rensgspzn 9y ago
Wish I could upvote this comment 1000x. pikzen said: > We live in societies with rules, with laws that we have agreed upon, and are, for the most part, fair. Please review the highlights of the last ~150 years of American history. If you need a very long list of examples that contradict your statement, I'd be happy to oblige.
- pikzen 9y ago
  Yet those laws are mostly not there anymore. And we are pushing forward. We _are_ making a fairer society for everyone. And yes, the US is late on that. Look to Europe for better examples. You're advocating for throwing down all that's on the table and burning everything, because you want your money. I'm trying to make society go forward and improve life for everyone. Please review the highlights of what an organised society has brought us. If you need a very long list of examples of how selfish, greedy people has damaged our world, just look outside your window.
  - Sone7 9y ago
    >You're advocating for throwing down all that's on the table and burning everything, because you want your money. I'm trying to make society go forward and improve life for everyone. Er, you really need to look back o'er this thread...
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    Loads of new laws have been created that go backwards. For example, laws in the banking and finance sector that violate privacy rights and create a mass surveillance situation in the name of fighting terrorism have been increasing since the 1970s, with the passing of the Banking Secrecy Act, and especially since 2001. These same laws are excluding an ever greater percentage of the population from the most lucrative areas of the financial sector, thus exacerbating income inequality. Laws against drug use have increased significantly since 150 years ago, resulting in the criminalisation of large numbers of people and industries. Laws on occupations and food production have multiplied, resulting in millions being disenfranchised, and the economy being increasingly dominated by large professional outfits and agribusiness, respectively. I would argue we have not moved forward in several major areas, and on the contrary have been regressing. It is in spite of the increasing burden of the state that society has progressed, no because of it.
pikzen 9y ago
>Your comment genuinely horrifies me. I presume you're saying you want people who don't comply to be put behind bars, for extended lengths of time. And their crime, that you insist is harming the rest us, is to not comply with a plan that the majority imposed on them. You've justified it in your mind by arguing that these people accepted a bargain, and are now not holding up their end of it. If your desire is to go live in Libertopia, please do so. Renounce your citizenship. There's no justification in my mind, you have the choice. Unhappy with paying your taxes, or having to give away some of your money for the good of society? Then leave behind _everything_ this society has brought you. Let's see how you do. The amount of selfishness behind those comments is astounding. You are perfectly happy with reaping the benefits of said society, while not wanting to contribute back through the rules that have been established. Yes, it's tyranny of the majority. Do you know why? Because it is the best system we have, for now. Do you want to live in a society where taxes are a thing of the past? Then educate. Educate your fellow man, try to make him understand why this is (according to you), a good thing. And maybe you'll convince him. And maybe you'll convince more. And maybe, one day, your grand-grandchild will live in such a world. In the mean time, we have agreed upon these rules for decades, and since it hasn't changed, it seems like your ideology isn't what people want. >When seemingly intelligent and articulate people so easily rationalize imprisoning their fellow man and woman, it's horrifying to witness. I mean, if you want the punishment to be rubbing your face in the dirt until you understand _why_ things are the way they are and why this is better than your idea now, I'm down for it. But since the two things you seem to value are wealth and freedom, and you're not willing to give up your wealth when you have to be punished, we can only act on the latter.
- zeveb 9y ago
  > I mean, if you want the punishment to be rubbing your face in the dirt until you understand _why_ things are the way they are and why this is better than your idea now, I'm down for it. It's genuinely horrifying how much you seem to enjoy the thought of imprisoning or humiliating those who disagree with you. I suspect that this is a result of cognitive dissonance: you realise that you cannot rebut their arguments rationally, and thus wish to 'rebut' them physically, by appeals to the majority. 51% of the people can vote to piss in the cornflakes of the other 49%. That doesn't make it right.
dang 9y ago
> Your comment genuinely horrifies me. I presume you're saying you > You've justified it in your mind by arguing > When seemingly intelligent and articulate people so easily Comments like this have no place on HN; they're just a station on the path to flamewar hell. Overwrought stock phrases are all just noise. Here's what to do instead. When horrified, wait until calming down before posting here. Then you can say something substantive and, if all goes well, interesting, as the site guidelines request. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

ameister14 9y ago

The average voter has always had an extremely limited understanding of what their government is doing, and demagogues? How old do you think that word is? This is not something new. I agree that the mass surveillance systems are a problem, but that's mostly because it enables greater control in the future, not because that control is in place today. It's also not unprecedented - the Stasi had a more comprehensive surveillance network than anything in place today. All that said, I completely agree with the necessity of greater privacy protections. I don't think you are completely grasping the concept of the 'bargain' you were responding to, though. We voluntarily exchange some individual rights for collective security and prosperity all the time. Basically, you have the right to leave the protection of the State. When you do that, you get all your rights back, but the State has the right to declare war on you. It usually doesn't work out, because you're back in the state of being able to keep and hold whatever you yourself can protect from all comers.

Jabanga 9y ago
The stasi was a totalitarian state. And in some respects, the mass surveillance system is more extensive now than under the stasi. Being better than the stasi is a pretty low bar to beat. >We voluntarily exchange some individual rights for collective security and prosperity all the time. We don't voluntarily exchange it. You have a right to leave the protection of the state if you don't want to have any of your rights violated. That doesn't imply that we voluntarily submit to laws infringing on our rights. We have an inherent right to be in our own country without having our rights violated.

rensgspzn 9y ago

Wish I could upvote this comment 1000x. pikzen said: > We live in societies with rules, with laws that we have agreed upon, and are, for the most part, fair. Please review the highlights of the last ~150 years of American history. If you need a very long list of examples that contradict your statement, I'd be happy to oblige.

pikzen 9y ago
Yet those laws are mostly not there anymore. And we are pushing forward. We _are_ making a fairer society for everyone. And yes, the US is late on that. Look to Europe for better examples. You're advocating for throwing down all that's on the table and burning everything, because you want your money. I'm trying to make society go forward and improve life for everyone. Please review the highlights of what an organised society has brought us. If you need a very long list of examples of how selfish, greedy people has damaged our world, just look outside your window.
- Sone7 9y ago
  >You're advocating for throwing down all that's on the table and burning everything, because you want your money. I'm trying to make society go forward and improve life for everyone. Er, you really need to look back o'er this thread...
- Jabanga 9y ago
  Loads of new laws have been created that go backwards. For example, laws in the banking and finance sector that violate privacy rights and create a mass surveillance situation in the name of fighting terrorism have been increasing since the 1970s, with the passing of the Banking Secrecy Act, and especially since 2001. These same laws are excluding an ever greater percentage of the population from the most lucrative areas of the financial sector, thus exacerbating income inequality. Laws against drug use have increased significantly since 150 years ago, resulting in the criminalisation of large numbers of people and industries. Laws on occupations and food production have multiplied, resulting in millions being disenfranchised, and the economy being increasingly dominated by large professional outfits and agribusiness, respectively. I would argue we have not moved forward in several major areas, and on the contrary have been regressing. It is in spite of the increasing burden of the state that society has progressed, no because of it.

pikzen 9y ago

>Your comment genuinely horrifies me. I presume you're saying you want people who don't comply to be put behind bars, for extended lengths of time. And their crime, that you insist is harming the rest us, is to not comply with a plan that the majority imposed on them. You've justified it in your mind by arguing that these people accepted a bargain, and are now not holding up their end of it. If your desire is to go live in Libertopia, please do so. Renounce your citizenship. There's no justification in my mind, you have the choice. Unhappy with paying your taxes, or having to give away some of your money for the good of society? Then leave behind _everything_ this society has brought you. Let's see how you do. The amount of selfishness behind those comments is astounding. You are perfectly happy with reaping the benefits of said society, while not wanting to contribute back through the rules that have been established. Yes, it's tyranny of the majority. Do you know why? Because it is the best system we have, for now. Do you want to live in a society where taxes are a thing of the past? Then educate. Educate your fellow man, try to make him understand why this is (according to you), a good thing. And maybe you'll convince him. And maybe you'll convince more. And maybe, one day, your grand-grandchild will live in such a world. In the mean time, we have agreed upon these rules for decades, and since it hasn't changed, it seems like your ideology isn't what people want. >When seemingly intelligent and articulate people so easily rationalize imprisoning their fellow man and woman, it's horrifying to witness. I mean, if you want the punishment to be rubbing your face in the dirt until you understand _why_ things are the way they are and why this is better than your idea now, I'm down for it. But since the two things you seem to value are wealth and freedom, and you're not willing to give up your wealth when you have to be punished, we can only act on the latter.

zeveb 9y ago
> I mean, if you want the punishment to be rubbing your face in the dirt until you understand _why_ things are the way they are and why this is better than your idea now, I'm down for it. It's genuinely horrifying how much you seem to enjoy the thought of imprisoning or humiliating those who disagree with you. I suspect that this is a result of cognitive dissonance: you realise that you cannot rebut their arguments rationally, and thus wish to 'rebut' them physically, by appeals to the majority. 51% of the people can vote to piss in the cornflakes of the other 49%. That doesn't make it right.

dang 9y ago

> Your comment genuinely horrifies me. I presume you're saying you > You've justified it in your mind by arguing > When seemingly intelligent and articulate people so easily Comments like this have no place on HN; they're just a station on the path to flamewar hell. Overwrought stock phrases are all just noise. Here's what to do instead. When horrified, wait until calming down before posting here. Then you can say something substantive and, if all goes well, interesting, as the site guidelines request. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html