6 ms·

What specific "principle" are you referring to where you conflate private property with public property? That they are both just types of "property" and therefo

What specific "principle" are you referring to where you conflate private property with public property? That they are both just types of "property" and therefore the invasion of either is an identical ethical misdemeanour? This seems a rather crummy "principle" to me. There is a world of difference between the two types of property, and it's fundamental to the very definition of a nation - especially the US. Government property is publicly/collectively owned by the citizens of the nation, while private property, while coming with certain collectively agreed responsibilities (tax, licenses, codes etc), is controlled entirely privately by individuals. Invasion of private property as you say is unambiguously morally wrong, but I don't think the same can be said about collectively owned public property. I'm not saying everyone should have a "license" to ransack public property, but if there is an invasion then the morality of the act has to be gauged on case by case basis - if the public property of a non-corrupt state is breached for private gain then of course that's wrong. But what if property of an evil/corrupt regime is breached for the public good - surely the same can't said?

Aqueous 8y ago
Just the principle that the laws that dictate what is and isn't government property and who is and isn't entitled to access it are decided by legislators that were chosen by the people of the United States in an election, and not by Julian Assange or Chelsea Manning or any other single individual
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  chosen by corporations of the united states, often
  - Aqueous 8y ago
    if the people choose not to participate, yes. that's why it's up to us to participate. effectively.
    - salawat 8y ago
      Which is so easy given that we're all just swimming in spare time, or sitting on generous supplies of rainy day capital to keep us afloat long enough for our message to be heard, and implemented in a manner consistent with our desires as opposed to those organizations who actually have those things that are doing the same? Easier said than done.
      - Aqueous 8y ago
        i hear ya but part of the reason we keep losing ground here is because free market radicals have tilted the playing field so far against the working person that the average working loses too much time struggling to compete that they can't actually work to change things. the only way we can get out of this vicious cycle is by tilting the playing field back the other way. and that, unfortunately, is going to require more hard work, not taking shortcuts (a la Manning, and a la Assange who actually seems to have been working recently to worsen this problem). then maybe we'll see real change.
- Wintamute 8y ago
  If taken at face value (i.e. putting aside other theories) Assange, Manning, WikiLeaks et al aren't attempting to decide or write new laws, but rather commit acts in the public good, as they see it. Such acts are capable of transcending mere legality - by that I don't mean that they shouldn't be punished based on the laws of the political moment, rather the state's response to such acts may lay bare either the intrinsic good or evil of the state, as judged by the citizenry of the time. In this way a nation's course can be adjusted, and legislators with different values may come to power. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Because invasion of public property is currently illegal, it should ethically never be attempted, even when one may feel there is an overwhelming case to, let's say, air dirty laundry in the public interest?
  - Aloha 8y ago
    I have my own (unpopular) opinions on Manning, though while a clear Patriot in my mind (acting in the interests of the greater good), they did indeed commit a crime, and that the sheer volume of the leak from Manning was capricious, harmful, and beyond what was needed to serve the greater good - do I think 30 years in jail was a reasonable response? Frankly, no - but I think they needed at least a slap on the wrist or worst case 2-5 years - I think justice (the interested in the greater good) was served by pardoning Manning. In short, sometimes you need to act in the spirit of, rather than the letter of the law to act in the interest of the greater good - but if you overreach, expect the long arm of the law to catch you and punish you for that overreach.
    - jamiek88 8y ago
      Her sentence was commuted she was not pardoned, which is an important distinction. But still, yes I broadly agree with your position. Civil disobedience comes with consequence and that consequence shows the states true colors IMO.
      - Aloha 8y ago
        I'd argue that some consequence was reasonable in this case, as she went far beyond what was needed to achieve clarity for the greater good.
kpU8efre7r 8y ago
>US. Government property is publicly/collectively owned by the citizens of the nation How dare you speak for or decide for the public then. Have you requested access from us or our representatives? Or you think, "fuck it, owned by everyone, I have a license to do whatever I want".
belltaco 8y ago
>US. Government property is publicly/collectively owned by the citizens of the nation, while private property, while coming with certain collectively agreed responsibilities (tax, licenses, codes etc), is controlled entirely privately by individuals. Invasion of private property as you say is unambiguously morally wrong, but I don't think the same can be said about collectively owned public property Even if this ridiculous argument is true, Assange was never a US citizen or taxpayer.
- sneak 8y ago
  The government derives its power from the consent of the governed. The governed cannot consent if they are uninformed. Assange is not relevant here; what matters is that the US government was keeping secrets of war crimes from the very people to whom the government is accountable. There is a strong moral argument to be made that the government has no rights to secrets kept from its citizenry.
  - Retra 8y ago
    Has any government that adopted that policy survived the inevitable manipulation and exploitation by foreign powers?
    - mmjaa 8y ago
      Do you honestly think that Americas military secrets prevent its manipulation and exploitation by foreign powers? If anything, the fact of Americas military-industrial-pharmacuetical complex covering up crimes against humanity (torture program) and real war crimes (every twenty minutes) makes American leaders even more susceptible to corruption and influence by non-democratically elected actors, state or otherwise. You'd rather the country be run by shady Blackwater types protected by ultimate state secrecy than have to deal with state diplomacy as its always been? Wikileaks exposed pretty clear cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity where the laws and policies and "ethics" of the situation are very well documented, and are very well understood among the sovereign states which ratified them. These are clear crimes we are talking about. The American military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex is inconvenienced by these crimes being exposed - not the American people, in whose names these acts are committed, and who bear ultimate responsibility for the actions of their state. Knowing what is being done in your name by your government representatives is a good thing - you cannot be a responsible citizen otherwise.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
grigjd3 8y ago
I don't know what planet you live on, but there is plenty of publicly owned property that I have no access to. If you think otherwise, just try randomly walking onto a military base that does not allow visitation. You may argue what you feel is morally right, but any actual adult has realized that morally right does not equate to the law.
- mike10010100 8y ago
  These people are actively muddying the waters by making outlandish claims about what constitutes public and private property.

Aqueous 8y ago

Just the principle that the laws that dictate what is and isn't government property and who is and isn't entitled to access it are decided by legislators that were chosen by the people of the United States in an election, and not by Julian Assange or Chelsea Manning or any other single individual

gameswithgo 8y ago
chosen by corporations of the united states, often
- Aqueous 8y ago
  if the people choose not to participate, yes. that's why it's up to us to participate. effectively.
  - salawat 8y ago
    Which is so easy given that we're all just swimming in spare time, or sitting on generous supplies of rainy day capital to keep us afloat long enough for our message to be heard, and implemented in a manner consistent with our desires as opposed to those organizations who actually have those things that are doing the same? Easier said than done.
    - Aqueous 8y ago
      i hear ya but part of the reason we keep losing ground here is because free market radicals have tilted the playing field so far against the working person that the average working loses too much time struggling to compete that they can't actually work to change things. the only way we can get out of this vicious cycle is by tilting the playing field back the other way. and that, unfortunately, is going to require more hard work, not taking shortcuts (a la Manning, and a la Assange who actually seems to have been working recently to worsen this problem). then maybe we'll see real change.
Wintamute 8y ago
If taken at face value (i.e. putting aside other theories) Assange, Manning, WikiLeaks et al aren't attempting to decide or write new laws, but rather commit acts in the public good, as they see it. Such acts are capable of transcending mere legality - by that I don't mean that they shouldn't be punished based on the laws of the political moment, rather the state's response to such acts may lay bare either the intrinsic good or evil of the state, as judged by the citizenry of the time. In this way a nation's course can be adjusted, and legislators with different values may come to power. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Because invasion of public property is currently illegal, it should ethically never be attempted, even when one may feel there is an overwhelming case to, let's say, air dirty laundry in the public interest?
- Aloha 8y ago
  I have my own (unpopular) opinions on Manning, though while a clear Patriot in my mind (acting in the interests of the greater good), they did indeed commit a crime, and that the sheer volume of the leak from Manning was capricious, harmful, and beyond what was needed to serve the greater good - do I think 30 years in jail was a reasonable response? Frankly, no - but I think they needed at least a slap on the wrist or worst case 2-5 years - I think justice (the interested in the greater good) was served by pardoning Manning. In short, sometimes you need to act in the spirit of, rather than the letter of the law to act in the interest of the greater good - but if you overreach, expect the long arm of the law to catch you and punish you for that overreach.
  - jamiek88 8y ago
    Her sentence was commuted she was not pardoned, which is an important distinction. But still, yes I broadly agree with your position. Civil disobedience comes with consequence and that consequence shows the states true colors IMO.
    - Aloha 8y ago
      I'd argue that some consequence was reasonable in this case, as she went far beyond what was needed to achieve clarity for the greater good.

kpU8efre7r 8y ago

>US. Government property is publicly/collectively owned by the citizens of the nation How dare you speak for or decide for the public then. Have you requested access from us or our representatives? Or you think, "fuck it, owned by everyone, I have a license to do whatever I want".

belltaco 8y ago

>US. Government property is publicly/collectively owned by the citizens of the nation, while private property, while coming with certain collectively agreed responsibilities (tax, licenses, codes etc), is controlled entirely privately by individuals. Invasion of private property as you say is unambiguously morally wrong, but I don't think the same can be said about collectively owned public property Even if this ridiculous argument is true, Assange was never a US citizen or taxpayer.

sneak 8y ago
The government derives its power from the consent of the governed. The governed cannot consent if they are uninformed. Assange is not relevant here; what matters is that the US government was keeping secrets of war crimes from the very people to whom the government is accountable. There is a strong moral argument to be made that the government has no rights to secrets kept from its citizenry.
- Retra 8y ago
  Has any government that adopted that policy survived the inevitable manipulation and exploitation by foreign powers?
  - mmjaa 8y ago
    Do you honestly think that Americas military secrets prevent its manipulation and exploitation by foreign powers? If anything, the fact of Americas military-industrial-pharmacuetical complex covering up crimes against humanity (torture program) and real war crimes (every twenty minutes) makes American leaders even more susceptible to corruption and influence by non-democratically elected actors, state or otherwise. You'd rather the country be run by shady Blackwater types protected by ultimate state secrecy than have to deal with state diplomacy as its always been? Wikileaks exposed pretty clear cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity where the laws and policies and "ethics" of the situation are very well documented, and are very well understood among the sovereign states which ratified them. These are clear crimes we are talking about. The American military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex is inconvenienced by these crimes being exposed - not the American people, in whose names these acts are committed, and who bear ultimate responsibility for the actions of their state. Knowing what is being done in your name by your government representatives is a good thing - you cannot be a responsible citizen otherwise.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

grigjd3 8y ago

I don't know what planet you live on, but there is plenty of publicly owned property that I have no access to. If you think otherwise, just try randomly walking onto a military base that does not allow visitation. You may argue what you feel is morally right, but any actual adult has realized that morally right does not equate to the law.

mike10010100 8y ago
These people are actively muddying the waters by making outlandish claims about what constitutes public and private property.