4 ms·
I frequently encounter people who insist that the US style government, while not perfect, is the greatest form of government, and they question how much room fo
by shasta 15y ago
I frequently encounter people who insist that the US style government, while not perfect, is the greatest form of government, and they question how much room for improvement there really is. And yet, when issues such as increased surveillance arise, everyone is (mostly rightly) alarmed at the increase in power this could provide to the government. Cries of "1984" are an internet staple. But rather than only insisting that this new capability be denied to our government, I wish people would also question whether it is really a fundamental truth that government cannot be trusted with such capabilities or whether it's possibly just our current forms of government that cannot.
Just in case it's not obvious why we'd want a government spying on us, I'll briefly make the case. There might be some side benefit, such as automatically identifying emergency situations, but realistically the main benefit comes from increased effectiveness of law enforcement. Yes, that ought to be a benefit. If it isn't, that points to a problem with the laws or the way they're enforced. Increasing the effectiveness with which we can identify violations will not only lead to a reduction in violations, but will also let us lower punishments (speeding tickets would work fine at $10 each if every speeder were cited, etc).
Some people will argue that such a government could never exist. "Who watches the watchers?", the cliche goes. Well, why couldn't the answer be "other watchers"? Isn't that the idea of checks and balances? I don't think that there's much chance of a sufficiently better form of government emerging from our current political machine anytime soon, but if it were to happen it wouldn't be accomplished by getting everyone to agree on the details, many of which I probably imagine wrong myself. Rather, I think it would be accomplished by making the very idea of a better system of government popular, and getting people to agree on a transparent process and criteria for working out the details. (Well, there might be other ways. If someone posted instructions for a relatively easy to make, low cost nuclear bomb to the internet I think that, after a few detonations, we'd have mass internment that would give everyone ample free time to discuss whether a surveillance state is really necessarily bad.)
- raganwald 15y agoIn software development, I am cynical of any tool, language, or process that promises to somehow make a team of ineffective programmers produce software of value. However, given a team of developers with some sort of baseline competence, I strongly believe that some tools increase their effectiveness while others hold them back. Translating this to forms of government, I conjecture that if we elect ineffective and/or untrustworthy officials, and if enough untrustworthy persons obtain power in unelected positions, I doubt there is any system that can somehow prevent them from doing bad things. But given a certain critical mass of honesty and effectiveness in the people placed in charge, some forms of government provide superior results to others. I am not going to say that America has the greatest form of government here, but is it possible that what we have here is a people problem, not a government problem?
- shasta 15y agoI'm not sure I understand to which of my musings your conjecture is directed. Are you saying that without sufficiently many honest and competent people we cannot have great government because we need those people to run the government or to choose it? I think you're saying the former and also maybe taking the position that all we really need to do to fix the present situation is to elect enough honest and competent people. I don't fully agree with either of those points (I think there are ways we could employ technology that would greatly mitigate the damage caused by incompetence or malice of government officials), but also I'd point out that the common failure of our current system of government to get honest and competent candidates elected is itself a failure of government that has room for improvement.
- danilocampos 15y agoThis is very well said. I'm reminded of the cliche that the people get the government they deserve. And boy, have we got ours in the United States. As long as the majority remains lazy and ignorant, the successful politicians will be mostly power-seekers, narcissists or agents of industry.
- raganwald 15y agoI can't speak to American politics, but it is with shame that I report that here in Canada, ourMinister of State for Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, refuses to confirm that he believes in evolution: I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate. Well, gosh, asking the Minister of State for Science and Technology to discuss his belief in Science is asking him about his religion. And here's the rub: This was widely reported and we Canadians sent this team back into office for another four years with a majority. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/article320476.ece http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/article320476.e... Can I really blame Mr. Goodyear? Or our system? Or should Canadians have a good, hard look at themselves in the mirror?
- shasta 15y ago