3 ms·

“They spy on them because they care” Secret services got their start in Elizabethan (I) England and it does have something to do with British history and that

“They spy on them because they care” Secret services got their start in Elizabethan (I) England and it does have something to do with British history and that history was the bloody civil war between the factions. Spying on citizens as a matter of state security came into being during her reign, as a natural product of a society divided against itself, sometimes even in the same (extended) family. > European feudal societies .. government is expected to care for citizen Feudal societies had no notion of “citizen”. Nor was the “government” ever tasked with ‘caring’ for the poor. That, as a matter of fact, was the domain of the church and in England the monasteries (that were destroyed during the above mentioned bloody civil war that raged for a long time). After the demise of the monastic system of caring for the poor, and after the lands of the church were confiscated and parceled out to the winning nobility, which gave rise to the British “manor”, for the first time the notion of poor houses became central. And that is when the post-feudal (new order) British Capitalist system gave rise to charities, poor houses, debtors prisons, etc. The other historic “British” factor here is the propensity of the English for intrigue. They spy the heck on each other because they know themselves.

scott_w 3y ago
> “They spy on them because they care” I didn't say this at all, so please don't put words in my mouth. > Secret services got their start in Elizabethan (I) England and it does have something to do with British history This simply isn't true. Spying goes back a long way for various reasons, both state-security related and religiously-motivated. > Feudal societies had no notion of “citizen”. You're correct. I should have said "subject." > Nor was the “government” ever tasked with ‘caring’ for the poor. Churches were part of this but the monarch was either the head of the church (post-Tudor) or were at least God's anointed Prince of that domain. There are many recorded cases of people suing their local lords for abusing their position, sometimes winning, sometimes losing. The fact is, there were clearly laws on the books to allow the big government to protect people from the small government. These cases predate Tudor England. > which gave rise to the British “manor”, for the first time the notion of poor houses became central. So you're saying that the state did take a responsibility to care for people. > The other historic “British” factor here is the propensity of the English for intrigue. This isn't exclusive to the English at all. The later British Empire became famously good at spying (all the way up to WW2 and beyond) but it's not unique to the British. Besides, the Byzantine Greeks and the Russian Empire are historically more renowned for intrigue and internal plotting. But again, they weren't the only ones doing it.
- appletrotter 3y ago
  > “They spy on them because they care” > I didn't say this at all, so please don't put words in my mouth. Third party here, but this reads in line with what you wrote imo.
  - scott_w 3y ago
    Then quote the exact words I used instead of insinuating.
- 36505285thrw 3y ago
  Spying is not “secret services”. Just like a “police force” is a fairly modern matter even though armed guards, etc. have been around for a long time. You also said feudal governments were responsible for caring for the poor. No one is putting words in your mouth - just correcting your fictional “history”.
  - scott_w 3y ago
    > Spying is not “secret services”. Just like a “police force” is a fairly modern matter even though armed guards, etc. have been around for a long time. Are specific words important or not? You seemed quite blasé about it at first (insinuating something I clearly did not say) but now you find the exact words very important. You're correct in that they're not direct analogues, as is the case when you go back in history, but I don't see as much difference between secret services and spying, or local guards and police forces, bar the legal and societal structures they operate within. The purposes of the organisations tend to map onto one another. > You also said feudal governments were responsible for caring for the poor. And now, suddenly, words are no longer important. I said there was an "expectation" that this happened and gave examples. This is not a legal responsibility but a societal expectation. I could point out that church leaders were exhorting monarchs to fall in line with Papal doctrine to save the souls of their subjects. Again, expectation to care for your subjects in a spiritual sense. At this point, however, we're arguing specifics, of which you seem to have little idea, given you're nitpicking without any context in your attempt to "correct" me. We've gone far from the initial point which was that British people do not have an inherent distrust of the state. The expansion of CCTV must be seen in that context.

scott_w 3y ago

> “They spy on them because they care” I didn't say this at all, so please don't put words in my mouth. > Secret services got their start in Elizabethan (I) England and it does have something to do with British history This simply isn't true. Spying goes back a long way for various reasons, both state-security related and religiously-motivated. > Feudal societies had no notion of “citizen”. You're correct. I should have said "subject." > Nor was the “government” ever tasked with ‘caring’ for the poor. Churches were part of this but the monarch was either the head of the church (post-Tudor) or were at least God's anointed Prince of that domain. There are many recorded cases of people suing their local lords for abusing their position, sometimes winning, sometimes losing. The fact is, there were clearly laws on the books to allow the big government to protect people from the small government. These cases predate Tudor England. > which gave rise to the British “manor”, for the first time the notion of poor houses became central. So you're saying that the state did take a responsibility to care for people. > The other historic “British” factor here is the propensity of the English for intrigue. This isn't exclusive to the English at all. The later British Empire became famously good at spying (all the way up to WW2 and beyond) but it's not unique to the British. Besides, the Byzantine Greeks and the Russian Empire are historically more renowned for intrigue and internal plotting. But again, they weren't the only ones doing it.

appletrotter 3y ago
> “They spy on them because they care” > I didn't say this at all, so please don't put words in my mouth. Third party here, but this reads in line with what you wrote imo.
- scott_w 3y ago
  Then quote the exact words I used instead of insinuating.
36505285thrw 3y ago
Spying is not “secret services”. Just like a “police force” is a fairly modern matter even though armed guards, etc. have been around for a long time. You also said feudal governments were responsible for caring for the poor. No one is putting words in your mouth - just correcting your fictional “history”.
- scott_w 3y ago
  > Spying is not “secret services”. Just like a “police force” is a fairly modern matter even though armed guards, etc. have been around for a long time. Are specific words important or not? You seemed quite blasé about it at first (insinuating something I clearly did not say) but now you find the exact words very important. You're correct in that they're not direct analogues, as is the case when you go back in history, but I don't see as much difference between secret services and spying, or local guards and police forces, bar the legal and societal structures they operate within. The purposes of the organisations tend to map onto one another. > You also said feudal governments were responsible for caring for the poor. And now, suddenly, words are no longer important. I said there was an "expectation" that this happened and gave examples. This is not a legal responsibility but a societal expectation. I could point out that church leaders were exhorting monarchs to fall in line with Papal doctrine to save the souls of their subjects. Again, expectation to care for your subjects in a spiritual sense. At this point, however, we're arguing specifics, of which you seem to have little idea, given you're nitpicking without any context in your attempt to "correct" me. We've gone far from the initial point which was that British people do not have an inherent distrust of the state. The expansion of CCTV must be seen in that context.