10 ms·

More and more, the governments of the world try to erode the status of the lone, average human, for they think their efforts will protect countries and governme

More and more, the governments of the world try to erode the status of the lone, average human, for they think their efforts will protect countries and governments. Fear has been the primary motivator in the world of government ever since 9/11. America is so scared of itself it has turned inward, against itself. She's willing to forget about the 4th Amendment, the 13th Amendment, and even her own founding document, as long as they get a little more data they can abuse on their own citizens. At what point do we accuse the government of treason? None of this invasion of privacy was part of the deal, and Americans stand to gain nothing from these false assertions of privacy and opting out. Our government is betraying us and the dominant ideology is to lay down and take it. This country will never improve until we can fight back against surveillance. They couldn't keep us safe during 9/11, and none of their desperate "security" efforts have protected us. Again I ask, when do we accuse the government of betraying us and the social contract?

zapdrive 3y ago
Don't forget the attacks on the first and the second amendment.
- koolba 3y ago
  Without the 1st and 2nd, it’s pretty hard to stop attacks on the 4th or 6th.
  - rgrieselhuber 3y ago
    One of the issues that has emerged is a strange fixation (which the Anti-Federalists warned of) on the Bill of Rights as the source of these rights. But the Bill of Rights is merely a non-exhaustive index, not a grantor, of our natural rights. These rights do not depend on a document, they exist regardless.
    - edrxty 3y ago
      It's frustrating because unless it's written in stone Americans won't even pretend to agree on it, we're a very chaotic culture that craves the predictability of rules and laws (unless they impact me specifically). There's no concept in American society of a universal ethical standard at even the most fundamental level, probably stemming from how much inequality exists.
      - rgrieselhuber 3y ago
        I think the reason for this is because natural law assumes individual responsibility, and things have gotten far too comfy for most people to want that. So they outsource it to text and there are many experts at manipulating text.
        edrxty 3y ago
        That's an incredibly good way of putting it. As long as you can justify your comfort over someone else's, you golden.
      - sixstringtheory 3y ago
        Do you have some alternative in mind? If you don't communicate an idea, you don't even have the chance to agree on it because many people may not even consider it. I really fail to imagine how a society can arrive at a universal ethical standard without writing a couple ideas down here and there. You're asking for a utopian society of mind readers, which hits me as just a touch unreasonable.
        kelnos 3y ago
        I'm not convinced a society can arrive at a universal ethical standard, period. I was about to say, "we can at least agree that murder is bad", but I'm not sure that's even the case, given that it seems like some people would think it's ok to murder their political opponents if given the chance.
        rgrieselhuber 3y ago
        The standard used to be the concept of Imago Dei. Regardless of one’s individual beliefs it sets up an axiomatic basis for the worth of every individual and balancing that with the needs of a society.
    - koolba 3y ago
      > These rights do not depend on a document, they exist regardless. Damn straight! One approach I’ve tried in the past is to explain that the people start with all rights, the government starts with zero privileges, and the explicit examples codified in the Constitution are simply bare minimum examples of lines that shall never be crossed. The militia prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment is a great example of this as explained by Scalia in Heller. It’s not that that the right to bear arms is solely for members of a militia. It’s simply one example of how the individual freedom (that innately exists!) may be exercised.
      - rolph 3y ago
        yes it would be difficult to succeed when one rounds up a militia of torches and pitchforks, vs an opposor equipped with muskets. an inherent right to defend ones self includes ability to equip to do so effectively
    - memefrog 3y ago
      That's meaningless. 'Rights' are a legal concept. They exist in law, nowhere else. You cannot just assert that they 'exist'. Where do they exist? Where are they enumerated? Who decides what is and isn't a 'right'? If I say I have a right, is that determinative? Is it based on what people thought in the 18th century, or what we think today? Much of what we think today is influenced by how people have interpreted those documents, so basing it on people's views today means it's essentially circular. People assert they have all sorts of rights all the time. Most of them conflict with other rights that other people assert exist, and even other rights that they themselves assert exist. What do we do about this? I actually think 'rights' legislation is pretty stupid. It's a lot easier to write an Act that says 'Every one has the right to a free, public and comprehensive secular education' than it is to write an Act that provides a free, public and comprehensive secular education system. The latter requires sorting out what all of those things actually mean in practice. What level of education do you provide for free? What level of choice do people have about their children's education, vs the view that as a society we should protect children from the 'bad' decisions of their parents? That also means protecting them from their parents' good decisions. Are we okay with that? What does it mean for education to be secular. Are they allowed to learn about religion? Are they allowed to close the school at lunchtime and teach religion in the afternoon, unofficially, as often happens? Concrete systems are much more important and much more effective than any abstract statement of 'rights'.
- edrxty 3y ago
  Say what you want about the second, the fastest growing groups to embrace it are black communities and the LGBTQ community and they as a whole take it fast more seriously, borderline professionally, than any other group I've ever seen. I used to be a skeptic but seeing that has really been eye opening.
jamesdwilson 3y ago
[...] But O good Lord! What strange phenomenon is this? What name shall we give to it? What is the nature of this misfortune? What vice is it, or, rather, what degradation? To see an endless multitude of people not merely obeying, but driven to servility? Not ruled, but tyrannized over? These wretches have no wealth, no kin, nor wife nor children, not even life itself that they can call their own. They suffer plundering, wantonness, cruelty, not from an army, not from a barbarian horde, on account of whom they must shed their blood and sacrifice their lives, but from a single man; not from a Hercules nor from a Samson, but from a single little man. Too frequently this same little man is the most cowardly and effeminate in the nation, a stranger to the powder of battle and hesitant on the sands of the tournament; not only without energy to direct men by force, but with hardly enough virility to bed with a common woman! Shall we call subjection to such a leader cowardice? Shall we say that those who serve him are cowardly and faint-hearted? If two, if three, if four, do not defend themselves from the one, we might call that circumstance surprising but nevertheless conceivable. In such a case one might be justified in suspecting a lack of courage. But if a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice? When not a hundred, not a thousand men, but a hundred provinces, a thousand cities, a million men, refuse to assail a single man from whom the kindest treatment received is the infliction of serfdom and slavery, what shall we call that? Is it cowardice? Of course there is in every vice inevitably some limit beyond which one cannot go. Two, possibly ten, may fear one; but when a thousand, a million men, a thousand cities, fail to protect themselves against the domination of one man, this cannot be called cowardly, for cowardice does not sink to such a depth, any more than valor can be termed the effort of one individual to scale a fortress, to attack an army, or to conquer a kingdom. What monstrous vice, then, is this which does not even deserve to be called cowardice, a vice for which no term can be found vile enough, which nature herself disavows and our tongues refuse to name? [...] –Étienne de La Boétie's Discourse on Voluntary Servitude (1548)
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  That was an interesting read! I relate to that very much, thanks for sharing. We read all about the rise and fall of governments, of political goals, of cultures... and yes, there is a certain moral failing or disconnected apathy that allows the greedy and sociopathic to prey upon their own kind. It's rather depressing to think of so many people convinced they can do nothing, by a group of people who is so scared of their people they sign deals with businesses behind closed doors. I'm convinced many of our "leaders" could not argue their positions adequately if they were forced to defend them. I remember reading about events like the Million Man March on Washington DC, and I wonder how America would handle a massive, peaceful demonstration communicating the general discontent of the citizen with this potentially great country. It seems there was a period in American history where the common man COULD and DID stand up for their countrymen, for the health and endurance of the entire country instead of a handful of rich fucks. Why do we not see these shows of solidarity in the modern age? I ask mostly rhetorically but the America of today looks and feels characteristically different from what it sells itself as or even who it was a mere 50 years ago.
mistrial9 3y ago
> we accuse the government this is a partisan topic, since +1 million adults in the USA are actively enrolled and paid by the systems that demand identification at each step, most wear a uniform, and their employers are entrenched in the political process. high-minded words plus the air used to say them, equals what? in reality I mean, not on chat boards
- gunapologist99 3y ago
  the postal service? blue collar welfare recipients? union workers?
  - edrxty 3y ago
    Walmart? McDonald's? Amazon? I'm not even sure what we're doing whistling about but I guess that's the point?
gumballindie 3y ago
Not an american, but the EU/UK are following the same trend. What is the proposed alternative? As we can see there are bad actors in our society that pose a higher risk than ever before, and their tools are ever more sophisticated.
- kelnos 3y ago
  Are these bad actors actually that big of a threat, though? And are they really that smart/sophisticated that they can elude more standard, "old school" investigative methods? The problem is that we just don't know, and law enforcement agencies aren't giving us a detailed breakdown of which plots were foiled (or at least successfully prosecuted after the fact) via privacy-invading means vs. old-fashioned police work. Of course they'll never give us this data; we probably don't even hear about most investigations, even after the fact. Just trust them? No thanks. They are very publicly incompetent in many ways (e.g. all airline "security" procedures developed post-9/11 -- except for locking and armoring cockpit doors -- seems pointless, and don't catch people during sanctioned penetration testing), and I don't see why they deserve any blind trust here. We don't know if this sort of dragnet genetic database trawling will broadly close cases. Sure, it worked with the Golden State Killer, when no other methods seem to have worked. But that's just a single data point. And I'd rather that the occasional -- very occasional, as it turns out -- serial killer goes free, rather than live in a police state with no privacy. This is a meandering way for me to say: we on the outside cannot propose alternatives, because we have scant data and little understanding of what works and what doesn't. And the people in power consider it a feature that we don't have access to this information.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    Oh believe me they are. Even back when the london olympics took place people were quietly muttering about the risk of terrorist attacks. To be fair the UK/MI6 are doing one hell of a job at keeping people safe, but the risk is massive. If the US wouldn't be as paranoid as it is believe me it would be worse. I am not justying the level of government oversight, I am genuinely curious what the alternatives are.
  - 3y ago
sph 3y ago
> Again I ask, when do we accuse the government of betraying us and the social contract? "Ah, it's simple. It's the fault of this government, but when my party gets finally voted in, things will change." And so the circle of the naivety perpetuates. We might hope for a better future only when citizens will realise that both sides are exactly the same, and that they've been lied to since we invented the career politician. Apparently 4 years is how long it takes people to forget whatever bullshit they were sold last time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism But seeing how everybody is politicised and ultra-partisan today, I can only shake my head and despair. People get the government they deserve.
- tamimio 3y ago
  >People get the government they deserve. Spot on
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  Both-sidesism? This goes beyond political party. Creating parties was where we fucked up. First-past-the-post almost ensured that our elections would end up becoming team sports, at that point. I'd be much more trusting of democracy or even representative democracy if the demos had a real say -- We should be voting on issues more than we do people. People can betray trust or twist a vote's meaning. Most of politics, as practiced, is sleight of hand and misleading people. If we vote on issues and then also vote on people whose leadership we trust to execute said issue conclusion, we'd get much closer to something representing the will of the people while also guarding against populist BS. That is the supposed goal of representative democracies, and yet in practice it's bread, circuses, and zero accountability from the top. Losing an election is not a replacement for consequences or taking responsibility for defying the will of your constituents. But, you can't sell that as a sport to people and foment tribal thoughts as easily, so that's no good. /s
  - sph 3y ago
    > you can't sell that as a sport to people and foment tribal thoughts as easily Panem et circenses. My niche theory on why we've become so politicised, is because it's become entertainment. Trash reality TV. Today the circenses are not the gladiators fighting for their lives, but the Orange Man vs Old Geezer sitcom on dinner time TV and in the front page of your newspapers. One will find there is little difference between the trashy TV fan and the person avidly following political debates. Meanwhile those reality stars keep stealing and making their friends richer, disregarding any laws because they're the ones making them.
WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> Again I ask, when do we accuse the government of betraying us and the social contract? With kindness, I offer that voting for officials who've expanded surveillance isn't in harmony with the above sentiment. Neither is us failing to speak out to news orgs that are rarely willing to elevate surveillance abuses over far less important content. Part of the equation: Better behavior by us.
WeylandYutani 3y ago
Have you ever considered that the people who vote for the government don't agree with you? Who decides what this social contract is?
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  > Who decides what this social contract is? I think about this question a lot. So much of our philosophy of government is about some nebulous "contract", as if we agreed to be governed. Sometimes you'll be asked, "Do you believe in the rule of law?" Why would one need to believe in it? Is it a religion? (I think it is one, personally) Government sometimes likes to claim a "monopoly" on violence as well. One generally cannot trade or purchase violence per se, so to act like it's a market, or that a government has any truly effective means of preventing the choice to commit violence, is silly to me. Police are typically late to the scene of a crime, after all, and even with their monopoly are terrible at de-escalation or deterring. I think the social contract is different in every society, and changes based on the makeup of the groups. It's an amorphous thing that is always referenced, but never spelled out. It irks me that it gets referred to sometimes, but I think if we have them, they should be bidirectional and mutually beneficial. In general, I think a government who expects something but doesn't offer anything in return is merely tyrannical. If we're going to go on with these fantasies of contracts without signatures and choices without markets, then the least that can be done is for a government to act in good faith that they are protecting or improving the lives of those they gave themselves permission to rule over. As an American I do not see my "representatives" representing or helping me.
  - memefrog 3y ago
    >I think about this question a lot. So much of our philosophy of government is about some nebulous "contract", as if we agreed to be governed. I don't think this is actually true? Social contract theory is one of many, and has some pretty fundamental flaws. The theory isn't really a philosophy of government, either. It's a theory to explain the legitimacy of the state, and essentially answer the question: why do people follow the law? The idea is that people have consented to be governed. It probably made more sense back in the day that we were much less governed than we are now. You had the opportunity to go and live in the woods, essentially ungovernable. And people chose to stay part of society, tacitly agreeing to be governed in exchange for the benefits that come along with it. But there are obvious flaws in that idea. For one thing, minors follow the law and are expected to do so, but can't contract. I think 'social contract' theory is weak. >Government sometimes likes to claim a "monopoly" on violence as well. One generally cannot trade or purchase violence per se, so to act like it's a market, or that a government has any truly effective means of preventing the choice to commit violence, is silly to me. Police are typically late to the scene of a crime, after all, and even with their monopoly are terrible at de-escalation or deterring. This is again not true. Governments don't "claim a monopoly on violence". States have been described by theorists as being characterised by their (implicit) claim to a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. There are obvious flaws in that idea, like the legitimacy of self-defence. But it certainly has nothing to do with whether the government has "any truly effective means of preventing the choice to commit violence", because it's about legitimate use of force. The government can certainly pass laws that determine what is and isn't legitimate use of force.
Aerbil313 3y ago
You are, right now, in a we-gotta-do-something mindset. This is natural and understandable. You could revolt against the landlord back in the old days. People don't understand how big has the world become. Because they can't. The scale of the current world is unintelligible. Economy, resources, war, geopolitics, politics. The way we live our lives is not under our control, it's not under anyone's control. The average person has no more freedom than an ant in his colony. An emergent collective mind rules the world, comprised of the technology and desires of the mankind. You can't predict the outcome of a certain quantum state, but in the grand scheme of things everything moves deterministically as per the laws of Newton. Read some Ted Kaczynski.
- barrysteve 3y ago
  It is not difficult conceptually to control that. You just scoop out the centralized means of access to resources and the semi-anarchist masses don't have anything to with their power. You can't predict quantum states, but you sure can build walls around valuable resources and imprison unpredictable quantum technologists. All it takes is a conspiracy/agreement among the heads of resources industry and the world is 'owned' again. Not advocating for that outcome, it's just unfortunately true.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
krisoft 3y ago
> Fear has been the primary motivator in the world of government ever since 9/11. Ah. I really don’t want to tell you what basis to build your private mythology on but fear as the primary motivator did not start with 9/11. We feared the bear so we become the hunters and killed it. We feared the night so we made fire. We feared the others in the next valley so we sharpened our sticks. We feared the flood so we built dams. We feared death so we invented delusions to placate ourselves. Even if you somehow constrain yourself to the history of the US government, would you say the cold war was not driven by fear?
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  Perhaps it's better to call it another wave, or another style of fear. The point is that the events of 9/11 scared Americans enough to hand over their freedoms with the PATRIOT Act. The impact of surveillance everywhere in society has had an overall chilling effect on public discourse and activity. People act differently when they know they're being watched. I'm reminded of Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
  - mikem170 3y ago
    Before 9/11 we were told to fear the U.S.S.R., right up until the day they fell apart. Then there was global warming, crime, terrorists, immigrants, trans people, and who knows what next. They always want to keep us afraid, it seems. It doesn't help that people in general are not good at qualifying risk.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    > The point is that the events of 9/11 scared Americans enough to hand over their freedoms with the PATRIOT Act. I don't recall being asked if I wanted to hand over any freedoms to anyone. Nobody asked. This was done to me, not done for me.
barrysteve 3y ago
It's not fear, or not just fear. It's grief. The concept of a corporation and instutional society has died and we don't really want to admit it. The government is the last leg standing.. otherwise it's just everyone out for themselves. Rational thinking and debate is not leading the way, it's following. Getting the kind of verbal and rational agreements the baby boomers enjoyed, in today's system, is not happening. It is trivially easy to release personalized media that pumps up the grief and isolates people even more, then offer political and commercial products as a salve. We all pretend the primary cause is an great computing conspiracy, and we are being manipulated by our devices. Primarily, people have changed and tech is capitalizing on a more emotional and feelings based populace, whilst it's leaders head for dry land and buy up farmland. The popular Nietschze quote about the death of God and washing away infinite blood, doesn't go far enough. The conscious, alienated, knowledge of what should be and the subconscious social experience of grief - combined together - is absolutely deadly.
CatWChainsaw 3y ago
When something is known, it becomes easier to be controlled and manipulated. And soon the government, both the elected ones and the incorporated ones, will know everything about everyone. But sure, AI will empower the average joe.

zapdrive 3y ago

Don't forget the attacks on the first and the second amendment.

koolba 3y ago
Without the 1st and 2nd, it’s pretty hard to stop attacks on the 4th or 6th.
- rgrieselhuber 3y ago
  One of the issues that has emerged is a strange fixation (which the Anti-Federalists warned of) on the Bill of Rights as the source of these rights. But the Bill of Rights is merely a non-exhaustive index, not a grantor, of our natural rights. These rights do not depend on a document, they exist regardless.
  - edrxty 3y ago
    It's frustrating because unless it's written in stone Americans won't even pretend to agree on it, we're a very chaotic culture that craves the predictability of rules and laws (unless they impact me specifically). There's no concept in American society of a universal ethical standard at even the most fundamental level, probably stemming from how much inequality exists.
    - rgrieselhuber 3y ago
      I think the reason for this is because natural law assumes individual responsibility, and things have gotten far too comfy for most people to want that. So they outsource it to text and there are many experts at manipulating text.
      - edrxty 3y ago
        That's an incredibly good way of putting it. As long as you can justify your comfort over someone else's, you golden.
    - sixstringtheory 3y ago
      Do you have some alternative in mind? If you don't communicate an idea, you don't even have the chance to agree on it because many people may not even consider it. I really fail to imagine how a society can arrive at a universal ethical standard without writing a couple ideas down here and there. You're asking for a utopian society of mind readers, which hits me as just a touch unreasonable.
      - kelnos 3y ago
        I'm not convinced a society can arrive at a universal ethical standard, period. I was about to say, "we can at least agree that murder is bad", but I'm not sure that's even the case, given that it seems like some people would think it's ok to murder their political opponents if given the chance.
      - rgrieselhuber 3y ago
        The standard used to be the concept of Imago Dei. Regardless of one’s individual beliefs it sets up an axiomatic basis for the worth of every individual and balancing that with the needs of a society.
  - koolba 3y ago
    > These rights do not depend on a document, they exist regardless. Damn straight! One approach I’ve tried in the past is to explain that the people start with all rights, the government starts with zero privileges, and the explicit examples codified in the Constitution are simply bare minimum examples of lines that shall never be crossed. The militia prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment is a great example of this as explained by Scalia in Heller. It’s not that that the right to bear arms is solely for members of a militia. It’s simply one example of how the individual freedom (that innately exists!) may be exercised.
    - rolph 3y ago
      yes it would be difficult to succeed when one rounds up a militia of torches and pitchforks, vs an opposor equipped with muskets. an inherent right to defend ones self includes ability to equip to do so effectively
  - memefrog 3y ago
    That's meaningless. 'Rights' are a legal concept. They exist in law, nowhere else. You cannot just assert that they 'exist'. Where do they exist? Where are they enumerated? Who decides what is and isn't a 'right'? If I say I have a right, is that determinative? Is it based on what people thought in the 18th century, or what we think today? Much of what we think today is influenced by how people have interpreted those documents, so basing it on people's views today means it's essentially circular. People assert they have all sorts of rights all the time. Most of them conflict with other rights that other people assert exist, and even other rights that they themselves assert exist. What do we do about this? I actually think 'rights' legislation is pretty stupid. It's a lot easier to write an Act that says 'Every one has the right to a free, public and comprehensive secular education' than it is to write an Act that provides a free, public and comprehensive secular education system. The latter requires sorting out what all of those things actually mean in practice. What level of education do you provide for free? What level of choice do people have about their children's education, vs the view that as a society we should protect children from the 'bad' decisions of their parents? That also means protecting them from their parents' good decisions. Are we okay with that? What does it mean for education to be secular. Are they allowed to learn about religion? Are they allowed to close the school at lunchtime and teach religion in the afternoon, unofficially, as often happens? Concrete systems are much more important and much more effective than any abstract statement of 'rights'.
edrxty 3y ago
Say what you want about the second, the fastest growing groups to embrace it are black communities and the LGBTQ community and they as a whole take it fast more seriously, borderline professionally, than any other group I've ever seen. I used to be a skeptic but seeing that has really been eye opening.

jamesdwilson 3y ago

[...] But O good Lord! What strange phenomenon is this? What name shall we give to it? What is the nature of this misfortune? What vice is it, or, rather, what degradation? To see an endless multitude of people not merely obeying, but driven to servility? Not ruled, but tyrannized over? These wretches have no wealth, no kin, nor wife nor children, not even life itself that they can call their own. They suffer plundering, wantonness, cruelty, not from an army, not from a barbarian horde, on account of whom they must shed their blood and sacrifice their lives, but from a single man; not from a Hercules nor from a Samson, but from a single little man. Too frequently this same little man is the most cowardly and effeminate in the nation, a stranger to the powder of battle and hesitant on the sands of the tournament; not only without energy to direct men by force, but with hardly enough virility to bed with a common woman! Shall we call subjection to such a leader cowardice? Shall we say that those who serve him are cowardly and faint-hearted? If two, if three, if four, do not defend themselves from the one, we might call that circumstance surprising but nevertheless conceivable. In such a case one might be justified in suspecting a lack of courage. But if a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice? When not a hundred, not a thousand men, but a hundred provinces, a thousand cities, a million men, refuse to assail a single man from whom the kindest treatment received is the infliction of serfdom and slavery, what shall we call that? Is it cowardice? Of course there is in every vice inevitably some limit beyond which one cannot go. Two, possibly ten, may fear one; but when a thousand, a million men, a thousand cities, fail to protect themselves against the domination of one man, this cannot be called cowardly, for cowardice does not sink to such a depth, any more than valor can be termed the effort of one individual to scale a fortress, to attack an army, or to conquer a kingdom. What monstrous vice, then, is this which does not even deserve to be called cowardice, a vice for which no term can be found vile enough, which nature herself disavows and our tongues refuse to name? [...] –Étienne de La Boétie's Discourse on Voluntary Servitude (1548)

zlg_codes 3y ago
That was an interesting read! I relate to that very much, thanks for sharing. We read all about the rise and fall of governments, of political goals, of cultures... and yes, there is a certain moral failing or disconnected apathy that allows the greedy and sociopathic to prey upon their own kind. It's rather depressing to think of so many people convinced they can do nothing, by a group of people who is so scared of their people they sign deals with businesses behind closed doors. I'm convinced many of our "leaders" could not argue their positions adequately if they were forced to defend them. I remember reading about events like the Million Man March on Washington DC, and I wonder how America would handle a massive, peaceful demonstration communicating the general discontent of the citizen with this potentially great country. It seems there was a period in American history where the common man COULD and DID stand up for their countrymen, for the health and endurance of the entire country instead of a handful of rich fucks. Why do we not see these shows of solidarity in the modern age? I ask mostly rhetorically but the America of today looks and feels characteristically different from what it sells itself as or even who it was a mere 50 years ago.

mistrial9 3y ago

> we accuse the government this is a partisan topic, since +1 million adults in the USA are actively enrolled and paid by the systems that demand identification at each step, most wear a uniform, and their employers are entrenched in the political process. high-minded words plus the air used to say them, equals what? in reality I mean, not on chat boards

gunapologist99 3y ago
the postal service? blue collar welfare recipients? union workers?
- edrxty 3y ago
  Walmart? McDonald's? Amazon? I'm not even sure what we're doing whistling about but I guess that's the point?

gumballindie 3y ago

Not an american, but the EU/UK are following the same trend. What is the proposed alternative? As we can see there are bad actors in our society that pose a higher risk than ever before, and their tools are ever more sophisticated.

kelnos 3y ago
Are these bad actors actually that big of a threat, though? And are they really that smart/sophisticated that they can elude more standard, "old school" investigative methods? The problem is that we just don't know, and law enforcement agencies aren't giving us a detailed breakdown of which plots were foiled (or at least successfully prosecuted after the fact) via privacy-invading means vs. old-fashioned police work. Of course they'll never give us this data; we probably don't even hear about most investigations, even after the fact. Just trust them? No thanks. They are very publicly incompetent in many ways (e.g. all airline "security" procedures developed post-9/11 -- except for locking and armoring cockpit doors -- seems pointless, and don't catch people during sanctioned penetration testing), and I don't see why they deserve any blind trust here. We don't know if this sort of dragnet genetic database trawling will broadly close cases. Sure, it worked with the Golden State Killer, when no other methods seem to have worked. But that's just a single data point. And I'd rather that the occasional -- very occasional, as it turns out -- serial killer goes free, rather than live in a police state with no privacy. This is a meandering way for me to say: we on the outside cannot propose alternatives, because we have scant data and little understanding of what works and what doesn't. And the people in power consider it a feature that we don't have access to this information.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  Oh believe me they are. Even back when the london olympics took place people were quietly muttering about the risk of terrorist attacks. To be fair the UK/MI6 are doing one hell of a job at keeping people safe, but the risk is massive. If the US wouldn't be as paranoid as it is believe me it would be worse. I am not justying the level of government oversight, I am genuinely curious what the alternatives are.
- 3y ago

sph 3y ago

> Again I ask, when do we accuse the government of betraying us and the social contract? "Ah, it's simple. It's the fault of this government, but when my party gets finally voted in, things will change." And so the circle of the naivety perpetuates. We might hope for a better future only when citizens will realise that both sides are exactly the same, and that they've been lied to since we invented the career politician. Apparently 4 years is how long it takes people to forget whatever bullshit they were sold last time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism But seeing how everybody is politicised and ultra-partisan today, I can only shake my head and despair. People get the government they deserve.

tamimio 3y ago
>People get the government they deserve. Spot on
zlg_codes 3y ago
Both-sidesism? This goes beyond political party. Creating parties was where we fucked up. First-past-the-post almost ensured that our elections would end up becoming team sports, at that point. I'd be much more trusting of democracy or even representative democracy if the demos had a real say -- We should be voting on issues more than we do people. People can betray trust or twist a vote's meaning. Most of politics, as practiced, is sleight of hand and misleading people. If we vote on issues and then also vote on people whose leadership we trust to execute said issue conclusion, we'd get much closer to something representing the will of the people while also guarding against populist BS. That is the supposed goal of representative democracies, and yet in practice it's bread, circuses, and zero accountability from the top. Losing an election is not a replacement for consequences or taking responsibility for defying the will of your constituents. But, you can't sell that as a sport to people and foment tribal thoughts as easily, so that's no good. /s
- sph 3y ago
  > you can't sell that as a sport to people and foment tribal thoughts as easily Panem et circenses. My niche theory on why we've become so politicised, is because it's become entertainment. Trash reality TV. Today the circenses are not the gladiators fighting for their lives, but the Orange Man vs Old Geezer sitcom on dinner time TV and in the front page of your newspapers. One will find there is little difference between the trashy TV fan and the person avidly following political debates. Meanwhile those reality stars keep stealing and making their friends richer, disregarding any laws because they're the ones making them.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

> Again I ask, when do we accuse the government of betraying us and the social contract? With kindness, I offer that voting for officials who've expanded surveillance isn't in harmony with the above sentiment. Neither is us failing to speak out to news orgs that are rarely willing to elevate surveillance abuses over far less important content. Part of the equation: Better behavior by us.

WeylandYutani 3y ago

Have you ever considered that the people who vote for the government don't agree with you? Who decides what this social contract is?

zlg_codes 3y ago
> Who decides what this social contract is? I think about this question a lot. So much of our philosophy of government is about some nebulous "contract", as if we agreed to be governed. Sometimes you'll be asked, "Do you believe in the rule of law?" Why would one need to believe in it? Is it a religion? (I think it is one, personally) Government sometimes likes to claim a "monopoly" on violence as well. One generally cannot trade or purchase violence per se, so to act like it's a market, or that a government has any truly effective means of preventing the choice to commit violence, is silly to me. Police are typically late to the scene of a crime, after all, and even with their monopoly are terrible at de-escalation or deterring. I think the social contract is different in every society, and changes based on the makeup of the groups. It's an amorphous thing that is always referenced, but never spelled out. It irks me that it gets referred to sometimes, but I think if we have them, they should be bidirectional and mutually beneficial. In general, I think a government who expects something but doesn't offer anything in return is merely tyrannical. If we're going to go on with these fantasies of contracts without signatures and choices without markets, then the least that can be done is for a government to act in good faith that they are protecting or improving the lives of those they gave themselves permission to rule over. As an American I do not see my "representatives" representing or helping me.
- memefrog 3y ago
  >I think about this question a lot. So much of our philosophy of government is about some nebulous "contract", as if we agreed to be governed. I don't think this is actually true? Social contract theory is one of many, and has some pretty fundamental flaws. The theory isn't really a philosophy of government, either. It's a theory to explain the legitimacy of the state, and essentially answer the question: why do people follow the law? The idea is that people have consented to be governed. It probably made more sense back in the day that we were much less governed than we are now. You had the opportunity to go and live in the woods, essentially ungovernable. And people chose to stay part of society, tacitly agreeing to be governed in exchange for the benefits that come along with it. But there are obvious flaws in that idea. For one thing, minors follow the law and are expected to do so, but can't contract. I think 'social contract' theory is weak. >Government sometimes likes to claim a "monopoly" on violence as well. One generally cannot trade or purchase violence per se, so to act like it's a market, or that a government has any truly effective means of preventing the choice to commit violence, is silly to me. Police are typically late to the scene of a crime, after all, and even with their monopoly are terrible at de-escalation or deterring. This is again not true. Governments don't "claim a monopoly on violence". States have been described by theorists as being characterised by their (implicit) claim to a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. There are obvious flaws in that idea, like the legitimacy of self-defence. But it certainly has nothing to do with whether the government has "any truly effective means of preventing the choice to commit violence", because it's about legitimate use of force. The government can certainly pass laws that determine what is and isn't legitimate use of force.

Aerbil313 3y ago

You are, right now, in a we-gotta-do-something mindset. This is natural and understandable. You could revolt against the landlord back in the old days. People don't understand how big has the world become. Because they can't. The scale of the current world is unintelligible. Economy, resources, war, geopolitics, politics. The way we live our lives is not under our control, it's not under anyone's control. The average person has no more freedom than an ant in his colony. An emergent collective mind rules the world, comprised of the technology and desires of the mankind. You can't predict the outcome of a certain quantum state, but in the grand scheme of things everything moves deterministically as per the laws of Newton. Read some Ted Kaczynski.

barrysteve 3y ago
It is not difficult conceptually to control that. You just scoop out the centralized means of access to resources and the semi-anarchist masses don't have anything to with their power. You can't predict quantum states, but you sure can build walls around valuable resources and imprison unpredictable quantum technologists. All it takes is a conspiracy/agreement among the heads of resources industry and the world is 'owned' again. Not advocating for that outcome, it's just unfortunately true.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

krisoft 3y ago

> Fear has been the primary motivator in the world of government ever since 9/11. Ah. I really don’t want to tell you what basis to build your private mythology on but fear as the primary motivator did not start with 9/11. We feared the bear so we become the hunters and killed it. We feared the night so we made fire. We feared the others in the next valley so we sharpened our sticks. We feared the flood so we built dams. We feared death so we invented delusions to placate ourselves. Even if you somehow constrain yourself to the history of the US government, would you say the cold war was not driven by fear?

zlg_codes 3y ago
Perhaps it's better to call it another wave, or another style of fear. The point is that the events of 9/11 scared Americans enough to hand over their freedoms with the PATRIOT Act. The impact of surveillance everywhere in society has had an overall chilling effect on public discourse and activity. People act differently when they know they're being watched. I'm reminded of Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- mikem170 3y ago
  Before 9/11 we were told to fear the U.S.S.R., right up until the day they fell apart. Then there was global warming, crime, terrorists, immigrants, trans people, and who knows what next. They always want to keep us afraid, it seems. It doesn't help that people in general are not good at qualifying risk.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  > The point is that the events of 9/11 scared Americans enough to hand over their freedoms with the PATRIOT Act. I don't recall being asked if I wanted to hand over any freedoms to anyone. Nobody asked. This was done to me, not done for me.

barrysteve 3y ago

It's not fear, or not just fear. It's grief. The concept of a corporation and instutional society has died and we don't really want to admit it. The government is the last leg standing.. otherwise it's just everyone out for themselves. Rational thinking and debate is not leading the way, it's following. Getting the kind of verbal and rational agreements the baby boomers enjoyed, in today's system, is not happening. It is trivially easy to release personalized media that pumps up the grief and isolates people even more, then offer political and commercial products as a salve. We all pretend the primary cause is an great computing conspiracy, and we are being manipulated by our devices. Primarily, people have changed and tech is capitalizing on a more emotional and feelings based populace, whilst it's leaders head for dry land and buy up farmland. The popular Nietschze quote about the death of God and washing away infinite blood, doesn't go far enough. The conscious, alienated, knowledge of what should be and the subconscious social experience of grief - combined together - is absolutely deadly.

CatWChainsaw 3y ago

When something is known, it becomes easier to be controlled and manipulated. And soon the government, both the elected ones and the incorporated ones, will know everything about everyone. But sure, AI will empower the average joe.