2 ms·
The key point you bring up here makes me wonder what will happen in the future of society. Take this issue of liberty vs authoritarianism for the sake of securi
by rjf72 8y ago
The key point you bring up here makes me wonder what will happen in the future of society. Take this issue of liberty vs authoritarianism for the sake of security. We, as a society, are not going to come to any mutually agreeable decision on this topic. To see why simply try to go reductio ad absurdum on the topic. Imagine a device was built that could automatically track each and every person with complete and absolute identifiable detail at every single moment. There are people, probably quite a lot, that would fully support government deployment of such a device. It might not eliminate crime, but it would mean that 100% of criminals, whom the state chooses to pursue, would be able to be punished. Of course should the government become a bad actor it also means they could oppress whomever they wanted with absolutely ruthless efficiency and targeting.
People who trust governments to secure such a device and do not think modern governments can ever repeat something such as Nazi Germany will vehemently support the system and nothing short of the system. They'd see it as ushering in something approaching utopia. Those who do believe history has a habit of repeating itself will vehemently oppose the system in any way, shape, or form. They'd, in turn, see it as the first steps towards an unimaginable dystopia. And there are going to be big chunks of people on both sides. How are you supposed to solve this in a democracy? And as ever more issues become not only politicized but sharply polarized, this is going to be a recurring problem.
There seems to be no conceivable answer to this problem (the fundamental one, not necessarily just liberty vs security) outside of Balkanization. The founding fathers would have appealed to the conflict leading to a deadlock and thus no progress in either direction, but this itself cedes the case for one side or the other on topics like this. It's not a question of doing A or doing B. In such cases, deadlock would leave the question unanswered and thus neither side would get what they want. In this case it's a question of doing A or not doing A. And so deadlock is itself an answer to that question, giving one side exactly what they want.
- i_am_proteus 8y agoTwo possibilities: 1) Break the false dichotomy. Large swaths of the West don't have serious crime problems, although availability bias given sensationalist news outlets and the prevalence of crime dramas might cause public opinion to differ from reality. Extant automated enforcement mechanisms are often just automated revenue mechanisms. The benefits to individual citizens from crime reduction compared to the risks to individual citizens from the rise of a totalitarian/genocidal/'evil' state seem obviously lopsided. Why take on something an tremendous tail risk when it only has marginal potential benefits? 2) Federalism vs. Balkanization. Allow local governments to do what they think is best; allow people to move freely. This would work in the US and EU, at very least.