5 ms·

In some U.S. states, cars cannot legally operate on the road unless they've been "validated" by the government. This worries me greatly; I should be able to dr

by codex 16y ago

In some U.S. states, cars cannot legally operate on the road unless they've been "validated" by the government. This worries me greatly; I should be able to drive whatever car I want, free from unwanted control. And this is why, instead of getting my emissions checked every year, I choose not to use cars, or even public busses.

icefox 16y ago
Solved that years ago, just need the money to get a chauffeur
ldh 16y ago
I should be able to drive whatever car I want, free from unwanted control Even if that car is a coal-fired chariot with whirling spikes extending from the axles? I agree with your sentiment entirely, but also recognize that so long as I live within the confines of human society, absolute freedom is impossible.
vacri 16y ago
So you should be able to drive a car that has heavy tracks that chews up and destroys public roads, loudspeakers blaring 110db pink noise, emits a safe but heavily odourous powder that coats the buildings it passes by, and has random rotating high power searchlights guaranteed to throw blinding rays into other drivers' eyes, should you so feel like it? All so you can escape the 'burden of control'? When you do drive, do you bother to follow traffic lights? I mean, they're just another form of the government telling you what you can and can't do. You should just be able to drive when you like, where you like, right? Similarly license plates should be discarded, as they're just another way for the government to track your activities, which we should be free from. To be clear, what I'm trying to illustrate is the pointlessness of absolutist statements. Being human is an exercise in compromises, and libertarian talking points fail to take this into account.
codex 16y ago
Forgive me, this post is intended to be facetious. My personal view is that the societal desire for and against privacy and human rights always trumps any technological barriers. Hitler and Stalin, for example, were able to do pretty bad things despite having relatively primitive technology. Examples date back to the dawn of recorded history. Even today, I can be tracked using my license plate number, fingerprints, DNA, etc. pretty handily. Where there is a will, there is a way. Fortunately, our society does not have the political will to do it--and, in fact, would likely find inappropriate tracking to be revolting. In this respect I think Stallman is way off base. Fighting to make sure your phone runs OSS does little to ensure that the culture we live in values the right things and has an ideal political structure (representative democracy). I'd argue it's a dangerous distraction, in fact, because it promulgates the incorrect notion that if only we had open technology, we'd be free from criminals, dictators, and other bad things, and we'd live in a world of ponies and rainbows. Because this is not true, I fear this effort diverts attention from where it deserves to be. That said, RMS's scare tactics to help to some degree, by reminding people that our societal values will always need to be projected into the latest wave of technology. I think this tends to happen naturally and organically, but whatever. Fortunately, the flipside is pretty good: given the right political environment, privacy and technological regulation can coexist peacefully. This is good because some amount of regulation of the commons is necessary and good, and this extends to new technologies (like the car, or the cell phone).

by codex 16y ago

icefox 16y ago

Solved that years ago, just need the money to get a chauffeur

ldh 16y ago

I should be able to drive whatever car I want, free from unwanted control Even if that car is a coal-fired chariot with whirling spikes extending from the axles? I agree with your sentiment entirely, but also recognize that so long as I live within the confines of human society, absolute freedom is impossible.

vacri 16y ago

So you should be able to drive a car that has heavy tracks that chews up and destroys public roads, loudspeakers blaring 110db pink noise, emits a safe but heavily odourous powder that coats the buildings it passes by, and has random rotating high power searchlights guaranteed to throw blinding rays into other drivers' eyes, should you so feel like it? All so you can escape the 'burden of control'? When you do drive, do you bother to follow traffic lights? I mean, they're just another form of the government telling you what you can and can't do. You should just be able to drive when you like, where you like, right? Similarly license plates should be discarded, as they're just another way for the government to track your activities, which we should be free from. To be clear, what I'm trying to illustrate is the pointlessness of absolutist statements. Being human is an exercise in compromises, and libertarian talking points fail to take this into account.

codex 16y ago

Forgive me, this post is intended to be facetious. My personal view is that the societal desire for and against privacy and human rights always trumps any technological barriers. Hitler and Stalin, for example, were able to do pretty bad things despite having relatively primitive technology. Examples date back to the dawn of recorded history. Even today, I can be tracked using my license plate number, fingerprints, DNA, etc. pretty handily. Where there is a will, there is a way. Fortunately, our society does not have the political will to do it--and, in fact, would likely find inappropriate tracking to be revolting. In this respect I think Stallman is way off base. Fighting to make sure your phone runs OSS does little to ensure that the culture we live in values the right things and has an ideal political structure (representative democracy). I'd argue it's a dangerous distraction, in fact, because it promulgates the incorrect notion that if only we had open technology, we'd be free from criminals, dictators, and other bad things, and we'd live in a world of ponies and rainbows. Because this is not true, I fear this effort diverts attention from where it deserves to be. That said, RMS's scare tactics to help to some degree, by reminding people that our societal values will always need to be projected into the latest wave of technology. I think this tends to happen naturally and organically, but whatever. Fortunately, the flipside is pretty good: given the right political environment, privacy and technological regulation can coexist peacefully. This is good because some amount of regulation of the commons is necessary and good, and this extends to new technologies (like the car, or the cell phone).