5 ms·

> it would still be trivially easy for criminals to use it Maybe it's not about the criminals? Governments have a tendency to seek to increase control of citiz

by m3at 6y ago

> it would still be trivially easy for criminals to use it Maybe it's not about the criminals? Governments have a tendency to seek to increase control of citizens, surveillance being part of it. Saying it's about "tools for terrorists and child traffickers" is the traditional rethorical ploy no-one can argue against. You wouldn't want to protect child traffickers would you?

psychoslave 6y ago
Beware, government is not those who command it. If there was some real democracy out there where citizens all should be actively implicated in the government (as opposed to supposedly delegate it), then what would it mean to have citizen wanting to increase control on citizen?
- Hendrikto 6y ago
  Very philosophical, but that’s not how it works in practice.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  It can still happen - there have been and still are many self-policing communities historically (at small scales), where any sort of deviation from the norm is seen as problematic, regardless of its actual effects.
- thelastname 6y ago
  When it comes to secret services? Naive.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > what would it mean to have citizen wanting to increase control on citizen? The breakdown of the rule of law. It’s what happened in Athens and is why pure direct democracy doesn’t work: the tyranny of the majority [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    Somehow, this argument only gets deployed theoretically to justify per se minority rule, never to critique actually harmful policies enacted by a majority. It’s not like a minority in power is any less capable of tyranny.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > actually harmful policies enacted by a majority To be fair, when's the last time you encountered any policies enacted by a majority? All Five Eyes countries are republics, not democracies.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        I think “tyranny of the majority” refers generally to policies made with majority support, not necessarily by referendum. To your specific question, though: often! In the US, state constitutional amendments and local ordinances are often decided by popular vote. For example, voters in New Jersey are currently choosing whether to legalize marijuana.
  - psychoslave 6y ago
    You are aware that, while "Athenian democracy" was for sure a step toward more distributed political power, it was still a city where only a selected few males could pretend to be "citizen". By the way, "what happened to Athens" doesn’t mean much: it’s still a living city, although the age of city-state has long gone. So, as Churchill would quote it: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." see: https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government

by m3at 6y ago

psychoslave 6y ago

Beware, government is not those who command it. If there was some real democracy out there where citizens all should be actively implicated in the government (as opposed to supposedly delegate it), then what would it mean to have citizen wanting to increase control on citizen?

Hendrikto 6y ago
Very philosophical, but that’s not how it works in practice.
tsimionescu 6y ago
It can still happen - there have been and still are many self-policing communities historically (at small scales), where any sort of deviation from the norm is seen as problematic, regardless of its actual effects.
thelastname 6y ago
When it comes to secret services? Naive.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> what would it mean to have citizen wanting to increase control on citizen? The breakdown of the rule of law. It’s what happened in Athens and is why pure direct democracy doesn’t work: the tyranny of the majority [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  Somehow, this argument only gets deployed theoretically to justify per se minority rule, never to critique actually harmful policies enacted by a majority. It’s not like a minority in power is any less capable of tyranny.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > actually harmful policies enacted by a majority To be fair, when's the last time you encountered any policies enacted by a majority? All Five Eyes countries are republics, not democracies.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      I think “tyranny of the majority” refers generally to policies made with majority support, not necessarily by referendum. To your specific question, though: often! In the US, state constitutional amendments and local ordinances are often decided by popular vote. For example, voters in New Jersey are currently choosing whether to legalize marijuana.
- psychoslave 6y ago
  You are aware that, while "Athenian democracy" was for sure a step toward more distributed political power, it was still a city where only a selected few males could pretend to be "citizen". By the way, "what happened to Athens" doesn’t mean much: it’s still a living city, although the age of city-state has long gone. So, as Churchill would quote it: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." see: https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government