3 ms·

> Pretending there's a sinister, organized New World Order (aka "them" How did you got this out of GP? I think you both saying/meaning the same. > and listen

> Pretending there's a sinister, organized New World Order (aka "them" How did you got this out of GP? I think you both saying/meaning the same. > and listen to the loudest and most organized group. Which tends to be intelligence or law enforcement. Yep, and their actual desire is to control people's freedom (even admitting that some or all of them themselves belief that this is only for good cause, the reasons that also GP listed.. ).

ethbr0 4y ago
Intelligence and law enforcement aren't typically empowered voters in democratic legislative bodies.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  And yet, they tend to be very successful on getting any proposal they want from those bodies. You can wonder why.
  - candiodari 4y ago
    Same reason every parliament in the world, including congress, has their own separate police force protecting them rather than relying on the real one?
    - anticensor 4y ago
      Those two police forces do have competing interests at times, hence the domestic police does not enter the parliamentary premises unless it is specifically called by a parliamentary decision.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    I don't have to wonder, I know. Because they present a social good (less crime, adherence to law, order) that's one of the bases of civilization to those bodies, and those bodies give them more latitude than competing interests because of the primacy of that good. Which is how I'd want the system to work, because any system fully optimized for freedom without national security exceptions wouldn't survive as a major world power. They don't always get what they want. They do tend to get what they want. Occasionally things are scaled back later, as excesses are discovered. Working as designed and intended. Or to put it another way, what substitute system would you rather put in place, and how would it handle malicious internal groups and external world powers?

ethbr0 4y ago

Intelligence and law enforcement aren't typically empowered voters in democratic legislative bodies.

marcosdumay 4y ago
And yet, they tend to be very successful on getting any proposal they want from those bodies. You can wonder why.
- candiodari 4y ago
  Same reason every parliament in the world, including congress, has their own separate police force protecting them rather than relying on the real one?
  - anticensor 4y ago
    Those two police forces do have competing interests at times, hence the domestic police does not enter the parliamentary premises unless it is specifically called by a parliamentary decision.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  I don't have to wonder, I know. Because they present a social good (less crime, adherence to law, order) that's one of the bases of civilization to those bodies, and those bodies give them more latitude than competing interests because of the primacy of that good. Which is how I'd want the system to work, because any system fully optimized for freedom without national security exceptions wouldn't survive as a major world power. They don't always get what they want. They do tend to get what they want. Occasionally things are scaled back later, as excesses are discovered. Working as designed and intended. Or to put it another way, what substitute system would you rather put in place, and how would it handle malicious internal groups and external world powers?