3 ms·

I'm as libertarian as they come but honestly I can't get worked up about traffic cameras. We are tracked everywhere we go with our phones anyway, that battle is

by nvm0n2 3y ago

I'm as libertarian as they come but honestly I can't get worked up about traffic cameras. We are tracked everywhere we go with our phones anyway, that battle is lost (and of course wearing a cap or mask in your car isn't illegal). The type of AI surveillance that is truly dystopian is surveillance of communications and participation in public debates, with automatic financial punishment for wrongthink. That's where the puck is going and where focus is needed.

Gud 3y ago
You cannot claim to be as libertarian as they come while simultaneously advocating(not simply accepting) an ever present panopticon. I also consider myself as libertarian as they come; I refuse to accept the rapid decline in personal freedoms(including on the road) and will do what I can to resist it.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  Purist libertarians believe in having enough state-enforced rules to prevent people using violence against each other. The gap here is only between deliberate acts of violence and irresponsibility large enough to yield the same effect. Like, if someone gets drunk and punches someone else in the face, libertarians say the police should step in (which requires that they know it's happening). If that person gets drunk and then mows someone down in a car, it's not inconsistent to say police should step in there too. So I can't quite tell if you're in favor of laws against things like drunk/distracted driving but don't want them to actually be enforced, or if you're against the laws themselves. I'm not sure it can be consistent to be for such laws but against the most obvious way of enforcing them. I don't think libertarianism as a classical philosophy has much to say on the topic of surveillance, as it would be captured in having a minimal/small state anyway. But given that it does believe in enforced laws, I can't see where the prohibition against cameras comes from.

by nvm0n2 3y ago

Gud 3y ago

You cannot claim to be as libertarian as they come while simultaneously advocating(not simply accepting) an ever present panopticon. I also consider myself as libertarian as they come; I refuse to accept the rapid decline in personal freedoms(including on the road) and will do what I can to resist it.

nvm0n2 3y ago
Purist libertarians believe in having enough state-enforced rules to prevent people using violence against each other. The gap here is only between deliberate acts of violence and irresponsibility large enough to yield the same effect. Like, if someone gets drunk and punches someone else in the face, libertarians say the police should step in (which requires that they know it's happening). If that person gets drunk and then mows someone down in a car, it's not inconsistent to say police should step in there too. So I can't quite tell if you're in favor of laws against things like drunk/distracted driving but don't want them to actually be enforced, or if you're against the laws themselves. I'm not sure it can be consistent to be for such laws but against the most obvious way of enforcing them. I don't think libertarianism as a classical philosophy has much to say on the topic of surveillance, as it would be captured in having a minimal/small state anyway. But given that it does believe in enforced laws, I can't see where the prohibition against cameras comes from.