4 ms·

> The big problem in todays age is we can no longer assume the government is accountable to us, or even get straight answers from the right people there. Consi

> The big problem in todays age is we can no longer assume the government is accountable to us, or even get straight answers from the right people there. Consider the notion that government has always been this way however its easier to tell this now because we are all so interconnected and informed.

igorkraw 6y ago
That's a cynical take, a slightly less cynical take is that the rich and (privately) powerful have always tried to cement their power in form of organising a feudal-ish state and that the rest of us had to actively support democratising forces to counteracting them. What this means is having everything which lends itself to monopoly to democratic control, not private control, and to work together to make democratic control as efficient, localized and legitimate as possible. A well oiled, properly constrained bureaucracy is a wonderful thing, as anyone who has experienced e.g. German and post-soviet bureaucracy can attest to. And yet the Germans (rightfully) still think their bureaucracy needs improvement, because of course it does, but it's still necessary and better than privatising the essential services that are provided. "Starve the beast" is a warcry of rich and powerful who will benefit from the vacuum after they pervert and hollow out working institutions like the US post office (if you think it's not profitable and relying on tax payers money, do your research please). Technology and interconnection is kinda neutral here, it has helped to raise awareness of the problems but has also helped to spread misinformation and lies by the likes of Prager U And their ilk
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Even if the post office was not profitable and paid for by the tax payer, that is absolutely fine; it's an essential service, it made America great (I feel dirty saying that), it created the need and provided the funding to set up the core infrastructure of the US - post wagons, trains, airlines. The US mail is part of the infrastructure and should be protected, funded, and kept alive at all costs.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > What this means is having everything which lends itself to monopoly to democratic control, not private control, and to work together to make democratic control as efficient, localized and legitimate as possible. How do you feel about the perspective that democracies allow the majority (or plurality) to force their values on the rest of us? How do you feel about the notion that the rich and powerful are well acquainted with the techniques used to manipulate democratic systems (such as the double bind)? > Technology and interconnection is kinda neutral here, it has helped to raise awareness of the problems but has also helped to spread misinformation and lies by the likes of Prager U And their ilk I agree that technology is value-neutral. my perspective is that just as its easier to spread misinformation, its also easier to compare different accounts of the truth and attempt to check them for consistency. If there had been social media in the 20s its likely that the Illinois Radium Girls may have heard about the legal proceedings in New Jersey, or possible that they would have heard about the dangers of radium (which were known in medical and scientific circles at the time).
  - dgb23 6y ago
    Those are good points. A political system is often more of an expression of a problem, historical or cultural, rather than the root.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    > How do you feel about the perspective that democracies allow the majority (or plurality) to force their values on the rest of us? Better than a warlord forcing their values on us, even if the majority often seems lacking and with the exception that you are the warlord. I agree that governments could do a better job at letting people pick their values themselves, especially with the current Victorian approaches edit: Well technically a authoritarian warlord doesn't care about your values, only a totalitarian one would require that you tell everyone how much you love him. Maybe the latter is worse, but what would it matter at this point.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > Better than a warlord forcing their values on us, even if the majority often seems lacking and with the exception that you are the warlord. I agree that its better. Would you say its a coincidence that if that question was posed to the warlord he would give a similar answer? "better than starving to death, growing up in a chaotic anarchistic hellhole with no stable values imposed, or being murdered by a warlord because of who you are rather than what you did"
- etripe 6y ago
  > That's a cynical take I always wonder why people make this kind of comment, as if it's a valid argument and not just sentiment. The difference between your first paragraph and their comment is tonal, as both accurately describe reality. Can I conclude from the rest of your post that you are perhaps reading into the post that their stance is dejected and disengaged, yourself preferring a more activist, "I'm part of the solution" approach?
- pibechorro 6y ago
  Ya,no. Top down authoritarian systems (including democratic ones) always corrupt. Power leads to cronyism and sociopaths rising to control. Always, just give it time. Its not "the rich" vs "the working people" narrative you subscribe to. If anything your attitude and worship of burocracy is what creates the power to be corrupted. Less is more.
  - refurb 6y ago
    This. Power encourages corruption. Most democratic systems are designed to diffuse power as a means to prevent negative consequences to self-serving behavior. The less power the gov't has, the better. If the gov't has a very, very limited scope in controlling speech (libel, harassment, threats, etc), then the damage done when it's used for nefarious purposes is limited.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
zaptheimpaler 6y ago
Even so, the technological tools for surveillance and censorship are far more effective and widespread today than before. Surveillance might have meant tapping your phone, reading your mail or following you and all the manual labor and cost that entails a few decades ago. Today its conceivable to run a search across every email, call, message, photo, bank transaction, location signal etc a person has quickly and cheaply. The stakes are much higher when they are capable of so much more.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Yes those are good points.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  Although this is fair, we do actually know what a state capable of this looks like. The East German Stasi ended up with records of about 5.6M out of a population of ~16M people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi_Records_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi_Records_Agency
  - throw2011190740 6y ago
    I wonder how many records Google hold. What's more is that the CIA has a stake in Google https://www.wired.com/2010/07/exclusive-google-cia/ https://www.wired.com/2010/07/exclusive-google-cia/ I am pretty sure the Google/CIA operation make Stasi's capabilities look like child's play.

igorkraw 6y ago

That's a cynical take, a slightly less cynical take is that the rich and (privately) powerful have always tried to cement their power in form of organising a feudal-ish state and that the rest of us had to actively support democratising forces to counteracting them. What this means is having everything which lends itself to monopoly to democratic control, not private control, and to work together to make democratic control as efficient, localized and legitimate as possible. A well oiled, properly constrained bureaucracy is a wonderful thing, as anyone who has experienced e.g. German and post-soviet bureaucracy can attest to. And yet the Germans (rightfully) still think their bureaucracy needs improvement, because of course it does, but it's still necessary and better than privatising the essential services that are provided. "Starve the beast" is a warcry of rich and powerful who will benefit from the vacuum after they pervert and hollow out working institutions like the US post office (if you think it's not profitable and relying on tax payers money, do your research please). Technology and interconnection is kinda neutral here, it has helped to raise awareness of the problems but has also helped to spread misinformation and lies by the likes of Prager U And their ilk

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
Even if the post office was not profitable and paid for by the tax payer, that is absolutely fine; it's an essential service, it made America great (I feel dirty saying that), it created the need and provided the funding to set up the core infrastructure of the US - post wagons, trains, airlines. The US mail is part of the infrastructure and should be protected, funded, and kept alive at all costs.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> What this means is having everything which lends itself to monopoly to democratic control, not private control, and to work together to make democratic control as efficient, localized and legitimate as possible. How do you feel about the perspective that democracies allow the majority (or plurality) to force their values on the rest of us? How do you feel about the notion that the rich and powerful are well acquainted with the techniques used to manipulate democratic systems (such as the double bind)? > Technology and interconnection is kinda neutral here, it has helped to raise awareness of the problems but has also helped to spread misinformation and lies by the likes of Prager U And their ilk I agree that technology is value-neutral. my perspective is that just as its easier to spread misinformation, its also easier to compare different accounts of the truth and attempt to check them for consistency. If there had been social media in the 20s its likely that the Illinois Radium Girls may have heard about the legal proceedings in New Jersey, or possible that they would have heard about the dangers of radium (which were known in medical and scientific circles at the time).
- dgb23 6y ago
  Those are good points. A political system is often more of an expression of a problem, historical or cultural, rather than the root.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  > How do you feel about the perspective that democracies allow the majority (or plurality) to force their values on the rest of us? Better than a warlord forcing their values on us, even if the majority often seems lacking and with the exception that you are the warlord. I agree that governments could do a better job at letting people pick their values themselves, especially with the current Victorian approaches edit: Well technically a authoritarian warlord doesn't care about your values, only a totalitarian one would require that you tell everyone how much you love him. Maybe the latter is worse, but what would it matter at this point.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > Better than a warlord forcing their values on us, even if the majority often seems lacking and with the exception that you are the warlord. I agree that its better. Would you say its a coincidence that if that question was posed to the warlord he would give a similar answer? "better than starving to death, growing up in a chaotic anarchistic hellhole with no stable values imposed, or being murdered by a warlord because of who you are rather than what you did"
etripe 6y ago
> That's a cynical take I always wonder why people make this kind of comment, as if it's a valid argument and not just sentiment. The difference between your first paragraph and their comment is tonal, as both accurately describe reality. Can I conclude from the rest of your post that you are perhaps reading into the post that their stance is dejected and disengaged, yourself preferring a more activist, "I'm part of the solution" approach?
pibechorro 6y ago
Ya,no. Top down authoritarian systems (including democratic ones) always corrupt. Power leads to cronyism and sociopaths rising to control. Always, just give it time. Its not "the rich" vs "the working people" narrative you subscribe to. If anything your attitude and worship of burocracy is what creates the power to be corrupted. Less is more.
- refurb 6y ago
  This. Power encourages corruption. Most democratic systems are designed to diffuse power as a means to prevent negative consequences to self-serving behavior. The less power the gov't has, the better. If the gov't has a very, very limited scope in controlling speech (libel, harassment, threats, etc), then the damage done when it's used for nefarious purposes is limited.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

zaptheimpaler 6y ago

Even so, the technological tools for surveillance and censorship are far more effective and widespread today than before. Surveillance might have meant tapping your phone, reading your mail or following you and all the manual labor and cost that entails a few decades ago. Today its conceivable to run a search across every email, call, message, photo, bank transaction, location signal etc a person has quickly and cheaply. The stakes are much higher when they are capable of so much more.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
Yes those are good points.
bobthepanda 6y ago
Although this is fair, we do actually know what a state capable of this looks like. The East German Stasi ended up with records of about 5.6M out of a population of ~16M people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi_Records_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi_Records_Agency
- throw2011190740 6y ago
  I wonder how many records Google hold. What's more is that the CIA has a stake in Google https://www.wired.com/2010/07/exclusive-google-cia/ https://www.wired.com/2010/07/exclusive-google-cia/ I am pretty sure the Google/CIA operation make Stasi's capabilities look like child's play.