3 ms·

No offense, but, I would never want you in any position of power over me.

nemo44x 9y ago
No offense taken but I'm not sure why my statement provoked a response like yours. I stated that the people delegate these types of decision to elected officials. Their job is to protect the people. If, in some instance, they judged that a protest was in danger of harming the people and cutting cellular spectrum to that protest was the most effective method which could immediately relieve that danger, they could and should take it. And lastly, they should explain to the public why they took that measure. The people can then judge if it was a good decision or not through the democratic process. Which I have apparently limited my potential vote count by 1 if I ever decided to run.
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  Because in practice it often doesn't work out that way. Republics and representative government, especially in their modern conception from the 18th century, were not simply a different way of appointing kings and their subsidiary advisors with broadly defined powers of "protection" over people under vassalage at their discretionary interpretation. Elections in most modern states don't confer that kind of supreme rule. It is the primacy of law, which constrains leaders from encroaching like that, and applied objectively to citizens in regards to their own rights and responsibilities that drives most countries you and I would probably say we'd like to live in. What you're describing isn't too tangibly different from the Spartan ephors.
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  "Their job is to protect the people" is a recent and paternalistic innovation. Better, IMO, is to write and uphold a set of laws that provide the best framework for human flourishing. This means deliberately not protecting people from certain risks, where the costs in terms of other values outweighs the benefits of risk reduction. Like, the US would be safer if we confiscated every gun and made gun ownership illegal. It'd be a worse country to live in, though, according to our own values. It's not worth the trade - we care about more than simple safety.
  - nemo44x 9y ago
    I mean that in an immediate threat sort of way. For instance, if someone robbing a bank it's the governments job to protect the citizens by apprehending the suspect. It's not the citizens job to protect themselves from immediate danger. Flooding in Houston - it is the governments job to help people to safety. It isn't their job to buy them a new home if they didn't purchase insurance.
    - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
      This sounds to me a lot like abdicating personal responsibility for physical safety to governmental organizations. Like, it's absolutely your job to protect yourself from immediate physical danger. Protecting others is supererogatory.
      - nemo44x 9y ago
        You're parsing now. Protecting yourself from an immediate threat is of course your responsibility. However, the government can hold the person liable for any harm they caused you. So immediate is a poor word as it can be easily misinterpreted and that's my fault. What I mean for example is it's not the citizens role to form a mob and hunt down a suspected criminal. That's the governments role.
    - lr4444lr 9y ago
      In your original post you said "they [the authorities] judged". In the case of a bank robbery, it is the bank owners who are seeking protection of their property rights. It's not analogous to picking sides to stop a protest in the public square when multiple sides have a stake in it. The bar for abridging freedom of speech in the U.S. as a precipitating cause of immediate danger is very high.
      - nemo44x 9y ago
        I agree it would have to be an extraordinary circumstance. When a protest becomes violent it is no longer a free speech issue though. If jamming radio frequency communication was somehow the best way to stop a bad situation from getting worse then it would be appropriate to do so. But it should be justified. Honestly, I struggle to come up with a scenario where jamming public internet access would be the best course of action. But hypothetically I don't see it as a violation of human rights to temporarily stop people in an area from communicating through the Internet on public airwaves if it's a reasonable and effective countermeasure to preventing disaster.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/25/non-english-speaking-victims-crime-given-priority-police-chief/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/25/non-english-speak... http://www.inquisitr.com/3428608/london-mayor-sadiq-khan-to-allow-for-social-media-policing/ http://www.inquisitr.com/3428608/london-mayor-sadiq-khan-to-... That's what effective method rational has resulted into. I would rather have them go by the book, than what they imagine to be effective.
  - nemo44x 9y ago
    The UK has a very different view of what "free speech" is. In effect the UK does not have free speech. This would be unconstitutional in the USA. As for the first link, although it's absolutely crazy (especially considering that the "less vulnerable" people likely subsidize most of the police force) we do live in a society and someone has to make the decisions. These people are elected or appointed by the elected. If we don't like it we can protest and run another candidate and elect them. It honestly sounds like pragmatism from a police force that has been decimated by budget cuts made by elected representatives whose electorate simply doesn't want to pay the taxes required to fully fund a police force that can service everyone. You can't have it both ways. If it bothers you then vote for someone who says they will increase the budget by other cutting programs you don't value as much or by raising taxes. Take action through the democratic process to invoke the change you'd like to see and shape the world. The people passing policy you don't like certainly have and are the authority precisely because they have. But there's nothing stopping you.
    - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
      Thanks. I mean it. >Take action I am, by speaking up here.
      - nemo44x 9y ago
        > Thanks. I mean it. What do you mean?

No offense taken but I'm not sure why my statement provoked a response like yours. I stated that the people delegate these types of decision to elected officials. Their job is to protect the people. If, in some instance, they judged that a protest was in danger of harming the people and cutting cellular spectrum to that protest was the most effective method which could immediately relieve that danger, they could and should take it. And lastly, they should explain to the public why they took that measure. The people can then judge if it was a good decision or not through the democratic process. Which I have apparently limited my potential vote count by 1 if I ever decided to run.

lr4444lr 9y ago
Because in practice it often doesn't work out that way. Republics and representative government, especially in their modern conception from the 18th century, were not simply a different way of appointing kings and their subsidiary advisors with broadly defined powers of "protection" over people under vassalage at their discretionary interpretation. Elections in most modern states don't confer that kind of supreme rule. It is the primacy of law, which constrains leaders from encroaching like that, and applied objectively to citizens in regards to their own rights and responsibilities that drives most countries you and I would probably say we'd like to live in. What you're describing isn't too tangibly different from the Spartan ephors.
ThrustVectoring 9y ago
"Their job is to protect the people" is a recent and paternalistic innovation. Better, IMO, is to write and uphold a set of laws that provide the best framework for human flourishing. This means deliberately not protecting people from certain risks, where the costs in terms of other values outweighs the benefits of risk reduction. Like, the US would be safer if we confiscated every gun and made gun ownership illegal. It'd be a worse country to live in, though, according to our own values. It's not worth the trade - we care about more than simple safety.
- nemo44x 9y ago
  I mean that in an immediate threat sort of way. For instance, if someone robbing a bank it's the governments job to protect the citizens by apprehending the suspect. It's not the citizens job to protect themselves from immediate danger. Flooding in Houston - it is the governments job to help people to safety. It isn't their job to buy them a new home if they didn't purchase insurance.
  - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
    This sounds to me a lot like abdicating personal responsibility for physical safety to governmental organizations. Like, it's absolutely your job to protect yourself from immediate physical danger. Protecting others is supererogatory.
    - nemo44x 9y ago
      You're parsing now. Protecting yourself from an immediate threat is of course your responsibility. However, the government can hold the person liable for any harm they caused you. So immediate is a poor word as it can be easily misinterpreted and that's my fault. What I mean for example is it's not the citizens role to form a mob and hunt down a suspected criminal. That's the governments role.
  - lr4444lr 9y ago
    In your original post you said "they [the authorities] judged". In the case of a bank robbery, it is the bank owners who are seeking protection of their property rights. It's not analogous to picking sides to stop a protest in the public square when multiple sides have a stake in it. The bar for abridging freedom of speech in the U.S. as a precipitating cause of immediate danger is very high.
    - nemo44x 9y ago
      I agree it would have to be an extraordinary circumstance. When a protest becomes violent it is no longer a free speech issue though. If jamming radio frequency communication was somehow the best way to stop a bad situation from getting worse then it would be appropriate to do so. But it should be justified. Honestly, I struggle to come up with a scenario where jamming public internet access would be the best course of action. But hypothetically I don't see it as a violation of human rights to temporarily stop people in an area from communicating through the Internet on public airwaves if it's a reasonable and effective countermeasure to preventing disaster.
AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/25/non-english-speaking-victims-crime-given-priority-police-chief/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/25/non-english-speak... http://www.inquisitr.com/3428608/london-mayor-sadiq-khan-to-allow-for-social-media-policing/ http://www.inquisitr.com/3428608/london-mayor-sadiq-khan-to-... That's what effective method rational has resulted into. I would rather have them go by the book, than what they imagine to be effective.
- nemo44x 9y ago
  The UK has a very different view of what "free speech" is. In effect the UK does not have free speech. This would be unconstitutional in the USA. As for the first link, although it's absolutely crazy (especially considering that the "less vulnerable" people likely subsidize most of the police force) we do live in a society and someone has to make the decisions. These people are elected or appointed by the elected. If we don't like it we can protest and run another candidate and elect them. It honestly sounds like pragmatism from a police force that has been decimated by budget cuts made by elected representatives whose electorate simply doesn't want to pay the taxes required to fully fund a police force that can service everyone. You can't have it both ways. If it bothers you then vote for someone who says they will increase the budget by other cutting programs you don't value as much or by raising taxes. Take action through the democratic process to invoke the change you'd like to see and shape the world. The people passing policy you don't like certainly have and are the authority precisely because they have. But there's nothing stopping you.
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    Thanks. I mean it. >Take action I am, by speaking up here.
    - nemo44x 9y ago
      > Thanks. I mean it. What do you mean?