4 ms·

Perhaps this is my pessimistic view but wouldn't any government that monitors it's civilians for a potential of being "against" the government (thus, threatenin

Perhaps this is my pessimistic view but wouldn't any government that monitors it's civilians for a potential of being "against" the government (thus, threatening that government's power) be authoritarian? Let's take the second amendment in the states for an example. The right to bear arms is meant to stop oppressive government but you cannot purchase anti-aircraft or anti-tank or anti-anything-really weapons. So, the might of the government's force is disproportionately in favour of the very government that the amendment is proposed to prevent oppression from, yeah? (Not that I'm in favour of overthrowing the government of the states, whatsoever; this is just an observation.) When the Snowden revelations came about, this was the equivalent of China's list of people to send for "re-education". Granted, in the states, there's been no re-education (that we're aware of), it's only a small step from taking that information gleamed from those "lists" and doing just that. At what point do we draw the line between authoritarian and not? Shouldn't the very notion of putting people on a list count? After all, it was a list of people that suffered the consequences of the Night of the Long Knives, was it not? I fail to see how an open society would be considered "open", if it includes secretive programs like that. Isn't the principle of secret programs against a government's citizenry the antithesis of an open society? Maybe I'm missing something here but to say that there are any open societies left (while probably dystopian in nature and bereft of any hope of the future) is beguiling the very fact that there doesn't seem to be very many (if any at all) open societies left. (I'm probably talking bullshit circular logic, so feel free to ignore this tirade of discontent.)

DougN7 8y ago
I think maybe you’re comparing “open society” to utopia. There will always be bad actors that have to be accounted for and handled in some way. What is bad and how bad is always up for debate, but their existence will always be with us. In my opinion that requires lists. I do agree that most countries including the US have gone too far from what I’ve read.
- a1369209993 8y ago
  Or you could use these things called "juries" and "trials" and "laws", but that's inconvenient and sometimes results in having to admit that the alleged bad people weren't actually doing anything wrong, so people in power don't like those.
- renholder 8y ago
  Aye, your argument has merit. I was just looking at it from a perspective of whether or not an open society is what we're in, to begin with, to argue that other societies should be more "open". It would be hypocritical to say something of such sort, if not; which is something that Soros seems to hint to with his posit (e.g.: corporations and governments combining to create a far more in-depth surveillance state). To give a principled example, the <insert the appropriate three-lettered agency here> keeps a list of anyone who even looks-up things like TOR or TAILS. Users have their own reasons for looking the information up, and those are notwithstanding the fact they're automatically on a list, simply for doing so. I get bad actors are a part of reality (let's be honest: they always have been) but, as I proffered originally, at what point do we decide a society is no longer open? For example, if those who participated in Occupy[0] were on a list maintained by their respective government[s] - just for exercising their democratic right to protest - then should we consider any society open, anymore? For example, it's no secrety that those lists, themselves, are shared amongst communities, like the five-eyes. Of course, the best example would be the no-fly lists but given that those are black box, in and of themselves, should that be demonstrative of no longer being an open society? The O.G. comment was merely conjecture, out loud, as it were; just as this comment is... Though, I'm still left bereft of what constitutes an open society, anymore, since that definition seems to have drifted in modern times. (Of course, maybe I am obfuscating the definition of an open society with the precept of a utopia but maybe that's my stubborn hopefulness for a better future than the one that I know that's coming...) [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement

DougN7 8y ago

I think maybe you’re comparing “open society” to utopia. There will always be bad actors that have to be accounted for and handled in some way. What is bad and how bad is always up for debate, but their existence will always be with us. In my opinion that requires lists. I do agree that most countries including the US have gone too far from what I’ve read.

a1369209993 8y ago
Or you could use these things called "juries" and "trials" and "laws", but that's inconvenient and sometimes results in having to admit that the alleged bad people weren't actually doing anything wrong, so people in power don't like those.
renholder 8y ago
Aye, your argument has merit. I was just looking at it from a perspective of whether or not an open society is what we're in, to begin with, to argue that other societies should be more "open". It would be hypocritical to say something of such sort, if not; which is something that Soros seems to hint to with his posit (e.g.: corporations and governments combining to create a far more in-depth surveillance state). To give a principled example, the <insert the appropriate three-lettered agency here> keeps a list of anyone who even looks-up things like TOR or TAILS. Users have their own reasons for looking the information up, and those are notwithstanding the fact they're automatically on a list, simply for doing so. I get bad actors are a part of reality (let's be honest: they always have been) but, as I proffered originally, at what point do we decide a society is no longer open? For example, if those who participated in Occupy[0] were on a list maintained by their respective government[s] - just for exercising their democratic right to protest - then should we consider any society open, anymore? For example, it's no secrety that those lists, themselves, are shared amongst communities, like the five-eyes. Of course, the best example would be the no-fly lists but given that those are black box, in and of themselves, should that be demonstrative of no longer being an open society? The O.G. comment was merely conjecture, out loud, as it were; just as this comment is... Though, I'm still left bereft of what constitutes an open society, anymore, since that definition seems to have drifted in modern times. (Of course, maybe I am obfuscating the definition of an open society with the precept of a utopia but maybe that's my stubborn hopefulness for a better future than the one that I know that's coming...) [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement