5 ms·

What is going on in the world? Why are governments bringing in authoritarian measures all the time? I don't get it. It can't always have been this way.

saagarjha 8y ago
It’s always been this way. It’s always easier for governments to do x, y, z if they have more control over their citizens; it’s our job to make sure that there is a balance between losses of certain freedoms and the benefits that we can get by losing those liberties.
diydsp 8y ago
Increased airport security allows nation states to defend themselves better from situations they create. e.g. the u.s. impinges on countries around the globe. we could never survive the blowback without strong border security. as partwise beneficiaries of the booty, we Americans are expected to endure the dangers of releasing our biometry. to answer your question, the u.s. used to be the oppressed... england left us well-enough alone when we rose up, and we were growing internally, not bombing six countries at once, like we are now. so no one hated us enough and we had little hate for immigrants- we wanted them to help us grow. but then WW2 happened and we sold our souls to Saudi Arabia for oil the grow. And simultaneously, the military industrial complex happened. thats how its been for three generations now and hardly anyone wants to pull out. yes there were many other terror operations between 1800 and 1940, but their side effects, without widespread media, couldn't be leveraged to stymy the citizenry.
- tumahimikka 8y ago
  >we had little hate for immigrants- we wanted them to help us grow. This is hilariously wrong. Almost every single immigrant group to the US has faced discrimination and backlash before being assimilated (if ever). Just because immigration has a net positive doesn't mean people liked it
newnewpdro 8y ago
On a micro level, it could always be little better or worse than it is, more or less authoritarian, we can debate the details of the moment ad nauseum. On a macro level, the global population keeps growing ~exponentially on a finite planet. This inevitably results in loss of freedoms/liberty. You can see symptoms of this everywhere.
- wool_gather 8y ago
  Not enough attention is given to this point, IMO. It is the root of all our problems. Energy consumption, and thus climate change, would have been much more manageable issues without the world population doubling in less than two generations at the end of the 20th century.
rincebrain 8y ago
One fundamental struggle between a government and its citizens is that it is believed the more control of/visibility into citizens' lives it has, the more effective it can be at its goals. (I'm not going into whether I think this is actually true.) Given that, there's the continual struggle between people not wanting government interference in their lives, but wanting the government to be able to accomplish some goals - people ~universally dislike taxation, but many of us think the government should be permitted to levy taxes to fund itself and programs we would like to see. When people are uncertain or afraid, they will often make more emotional rather than purely rational decisions about clinging to solutions which purport to offer a way back to safety, even if they don't see or understand how their plan provides that. And once people have gotten themselves into a belief system which they did not reason their way into, they are far more likely to double down if you attempt to reason them out of it. Authoritarian measures are the political equivalent of "if you sign here, I promise to do whatever it takes to make [bad thing] stop bothering you", nevermind that "whatever it takes" is something you would never have agreed to otherwise, and probably wouldn't have agreed to before your first emotionally-fraught decision. Government agencies have incentives to favor them, because they believe the authority to do X (especially if they're given a blank check and can fill in Y,Z, and W as additional things) will let them accomplish something more readily.
cronix 8y ago
Because the people have become pacified and complacent and allow it to happen. They're "protecting" us, after all, so it's all good, man. There is a relatively small percentage of people who understand and care, and most are on places like HN. To the rest, it's just more noise in the ether to filter out. "Nothing I can do. Hey look, a cute cat pic." The name of the game is distraction, and to pump so much contrary and competing information at everyone that no one can discern the truth from fiction. It's happening. Now. From another great HN discussion today, watch this (HyperNormalization by Adam Curtis): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh2cDKyFdyU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh2cDKyFdyU We get what we deserve.
sys_64738 8y ago
Follow the money. Somebody in power is getting backhanders or has a cushy job lined up at one of the tech suppliers. The US government is one of the most corrupt in the western world.
- cgearhart 8y ago
  Ding ding ding! I don't agree regarding the corruption claim (I don't think we're any worse than elsewhere, tbh) but we are seemingly infinitely willing to allow "gray-area" corruption as long as it's just for money. > Starting in 2009, the TSA deployed Rapiscan Secure 1000 full-body scanners at many airports, phasing them out in 2013. The acquisition of the machines, training for workers, and associated personnel costs (each requires a team of five workers) has exceeded $1 billion. [1] > ...former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports. > ... > What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. [2] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/10/09/tsa-boondoggles-high-costs-low-effectiveness-but-its-only-your-money/#7176e4f27067 https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/10/09/tsa-boond... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12...
Nasrudith 8y ago
Because they can get away with it and it gives them more power to exploit. They are maintaining damned wish lists of bills for 'convenient events'. The only reason they stop is fear that they'll be lynched metaphorically or otherwise for their actions.
casual_slacker 8y ago
Another angle is where the initial push for these new programs is coming from.
betterunix2 8y ago
Authoritarianism is the historical norm in every human civilization. In fact America is one of the only examples of an empire that has been democratically governed since its inception. America is also a rare example of a revolution being followed by a lasting, multi-generational democracy (and that was a close call -- remember that our first president was the commander of the army that fought for revolution); the typical pattern is for some military leader to refuse to give up power after a successful revolution, or if a democracy is established it will usually end quickly after it is challenged by some crisis. Examples are plentiful and can be found in the histories of every region of human habitation on this planet, and it is a fantastic example of a phenomenon that seems to transcend things like technological development, culture, religion, and so forth. Remember that for a democracy to work people have to be active participants, and most people have other things to worry about in their lives. Democracies tend to erode over time; every crisis will lead to a bit of erosion of a democracy, and if the democracy is not reinforced following the crisis, it will be eroded even further during the next crisis. The decline of the Republican system of Rome is an interesting case study -- crisis after crisis weakened the democratic institutions until Caesar struck the final blow.
- abecedarius 8y ago
  Right, but this doesn't explain the speed of recent change. Maybe Steven Pinker jinxed civilization the same way that guy did who wrote a book a few years before WW1 about how globalization made war between modern states unthinkable.
  - betterunix2 8y ago
    What makes you think this is unusually fast? If anything the example of Rome was unusually slow, which is why it is so easy to understand the sequence of events. The current trends are proceeding far slower than the decline of the Weimar Republic: in 1928 the Nazi party won less than 3% of the vote; in 1930, over 18%; in 1932 they were the largest party in parliament with nearly 38%; after 1933 free elections stopped being held and Hitler was given the power to enact laws without a parliamentary vote. [Edit: Edited to correct the vote totals for the Nazis in 1930 and 1932.]
white-flame 8y ago
They have nothing better to do. I mean that seriously. We're generally safe, but all the security organizations need to do something to justify themselves, and have ways of thinking that always pursues "greater security" as a direction even if it overshoots what is reasonable for free people. When security begins to impede freedom, the mandate of security must be placed below the mandate for freedom. Security is there to protect freedom as its ideological basis, so this is an obvious prioritization.
kodablah 8y ago
> Why are governments bringing in authoritarian measures all the time? Because we collectively ask them to. You can't ask them to do a bunch of things you might not consider authoritarian (though others might) and then be surprised when they finally reach your definition of authoritarian. That differing levels of "authoritarian" exists is important to remember when you cheer on extreme government oversight/invasiveness just because you agree with the cause at that time. It's hard to know you've given them a mandate until it's too late. You should disagree with unnecessary government intervention even if you agree w/ the intent, and only accept it as a measure of last resort instead of the increasingly default solution many look towards these days.
Shivetya 8y ago
people are afraid of any risk in their life and the mobility and ability of those who can harm people either singularly or in groups has never been greater. however the sheer number of people there are means your individual chances are pretty low but it only takes a few high profile cases to scare people. plus politicians gain power this way by making you fear the other guy. when they cannot find a way to make you not like or trust your neighbor then they drop back to people "over there". still most would trade a lot of freedom if they don't have to think about their own safety and that is only going to get worse as schools ensure children look to their government for that protection

saagarjha 8y ago

It’s always been this way. It’s always easier for governments to do x, y, z if they have more control over their citizens; it’s our job to make sure that there is a balance between losses of certain freedoms and the benefits that we can get by losing those liberties.

diydsp 8y ago

Increased airport security allows nation states to defend themselves better from situations they create. e.g. the u.s. impinges on countries around the globe. we could never survive the blowback without strong border security. as partwise beneficiaries of the booty, we Americans are expected to endure the dangers of releasing our biometry. to answer your question, the u.s. used to be the oppressed... england left us well-enough alone when we rose up, and we were growing internally, not bombing six countries at once, like we are now. so no one hated us enough and we had little hate for immigrants- we wanted them to help us grow. but then WW2 happened and we sold our souls to Saudi Arabia for oil the grow. And simultaneously, the military industrial complex happened. thats how its been for three generations now and hardly anyone wants to pull out. yes there were many other terror operations between 1800 and 1940, but their side effects, without widespread media, couldn't be leveraged to stymy the citizenry.

tumahimikka 8y ago
>we had little hate for immigrants- we wanted them to help us grow. This is hilariously wrong. Almost every single immigrant group to the US has faced discrimination and backlash before being assimilated (if ever). Just because immigration has a net positive doesn't mean people liked it

newnewpdro 8y ago

On a micro level, it could always be little better or worse than it is, more or less authoritarian, we can debate the details of the moment ad nauseum. On a macro level, the global population keeps growing ~exponentially on a finite planet. This inevitably results in loss of freedoms/liberty. You can see symptoms of this everywhere.

wool_gather 8y ago
Not enough attention is given to this point, IMO. It is the root of all our problems. Energy consumption, and thus climate change, would have been much more manageable issues without the world population doubling in less than two generations at the end of the 20th century.

rincebrain 8y ago

One fundamental struggle between a government and its citizens is that it is believed the more control of/visibility into citizens' lives it has, the more effective it can be at its goals. (I'm not going into whether I think this is actually true.) Given that, there's the continual struggle between people not wanting government interference in their lives, but wanting the government to be able to accomplish some goals - people ~universally dislike taxation, but many of us think the government should be permitted to levy taxes to fund itself and programs we would like to see. When people are uncertain or afraid, they will often make more emotional rather than purely rational decisions about clinging to solutions which purport to offer a way back to safety, even if they don't see or understand how their plan provides that. And once people have gotten themselves into a belief system which they did not reason their way into, they are far more likely to double down if you attempt to reason them out of it. Authoritarian measures are the political equivalent of "if you sign here, I promise to do whatever it takes to make [bad thing] stop bothering you", nevermind that "whatever it takes" is something you would never have agreed to otherwise, and probably wouldn't have agreed to before your first emotionally-fraught decision. Government agencies have incentives to favor them, because they believe the authority to do X (especially if they're given a blank check and can fill in Y,Z, and W as additional things) will let them accomplish something more readily.

cronix 8y ago

Because the people have become pacified and complacent and allow it to happen. They're "protecting" us, after all, so it's all good, man. There is a relatively small percentage of people who understand and care, and most are on places like HN. To the rest, it's just more noise in the ether to filter out. "Nothing I can do. Hey look, a cute cat pic." The name of the game is distraction, and to pump so much contrary and competing information at everyone that no one can discern the truth from fiction. It's happening. Now. From another great HN discussion today, watch this (HyperNormalization by Adam Curtis): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh2cDKyFdyU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh2cDKyFdyU We get what we deserve.

sys_64738 8y ago

Follow the money. Somebody in power is getting backhanders or has a cushy job lined up at one of the tech suppliers. The US government is one of the most corrupt in the western world.

cgearhart 8y ago
Ding ding ding! I don't agree regarding the corruption claim (I don't think we're any worse than elsewhere, tbh) but we are seemingly infinitely willing to allow "gray-area" corruption as long as it's just for money. > Starting in 2009, the TSA deployed Rapiscan Secure 1000 full-body scanners at many airports, phasing them out in 2013. The acquisition of the machines, training for workers, and associated personnel costs (each requires a team of five workers) has exceeded $1 billion. [1] > ...former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports. > ... > What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. [2] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/10/09/tsa-boondoggles-high-costs-low-effectiveness-but-its-only-your-money/#7176e4f27067 https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/10/09/tsa-boond... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12...

Nasrudith 8y ago

Because they can get away with it and it gives them more power to exploit. They are maintaining damned wish lists of bills for 'convenient events'. The only reason they stop is fear that they'll be lynched metaphorically or otherwise for their actions.

casual_slacker 8y ago

Another angle is where the initial push for these new programs is coming from.

betterunix2 8y ago

Authoritarianism is the historical norm in every human civilization. In fact America is one of the only examples of an empire that has been democratically governed since its inception. America is also a rare example of a revolution being followed by a lasting, multi-generational democracy (and that was a close call -- remember that our first president was the commander of the army that fought for revolution); the typical pattern is for some military leader to refuse to give up power after a successful revolution, or if a democracy is established it will usually end quickly after it is challenged by some crisis. Examples are plentiful and can be found in the histories of every region of human habitation on this planet, and it is a fantastic example of a phenomenon that seems to transcend things like technological development, culture, religion, and so forth. Remember that for a democracy to work people have to be active participants, and most people have other things to worry about in their lives. Democracies tend to erode over time; every crisis will lead to a bit of erosion of a democracy, and if the democracy is not reinforced following the crisis, it will be eroded even further during the next crisis. The decline of the Republican system of Rome is an interesting case study -- crisis after crisis weakened the democratic institutions until Caesar struck the final blow.

abecedarius 8y ago
Right, but this doesn't explain the speed of recent change. Maybe Steven Pinker jinxed civilization the same way that guy did who wrote a book a few years before WW1 about how globalization made war between modern states unthinkable.
- betterunix2 8y ago
  What makes you think this is unusually fast? If anything the example of Rome was unusually slow, which is why it is so easy to understand the sequence of events. The current trends are proceeding far slower than the decline of the Weimar Republic: in 1928 the Nazi party won less than 3% of the vote; in 1930, over 18%; in 1932 they were the largest party in parliament with nearly 38%; after 1933 free elections stopped being held and Hitler was given the power to enact laws without a parliamentary vote. [Edit: Edited to correct the vote totals for the Nazis in 1930 and 1932.]

white-flame 8y ago

They have nothing better to do. I mean that seriously. We're generally safe, but all the security organizations need to do something to justify themselves, and have ways of thinking that always pursues "greater security" as a direction even if it overshoots what is reasonable for free people. When security begins to impede freedom, the mandate of security must be placed below the mandate for freedom. Security is there to protect freedom as its ideological basis, so this is an obvious prioritization.

kodablah 8y ago

> Why are governments bringing in authoritarian measures all the time? Because we collectively ask them to. You can't ask them to do a bunch of things you might not consider authoritarian (though others might) and then be surprised when they finally reach your definition of authoritarian. That differing levels of "authoritarian" exists is important to remember when you cheer on extreme government oversight/invasiveness just because you agree with the cause at that time. It's hard to know you've given them a mandate until it's too late. You should disagree with unnecessary government intervention even if you agree w/ the intent, and only accept it as a measure of last resort instead of the increasingly default solution many look towards these days.

Shivetya 8y ago

people are afraid of any risk in their life and the mobility and ability of those who can harm people either singularly or in groups has never been greater. however the sheer number of people there are means your individual chances are pretty low but it only takes a few high profile cases to scare people. plus politicians gain power this way by making you fear the other guy. when they cannot find a way to make you not like or trust your neighbor then they drop back to people "over there". still most would trade a lot of freedom if they don't have to think about their own safety and that is only going to get worse as schools ensure children look to their government for that protection