4 ms·

The spying is too far removed from the average person's life that people don't care enough. One person sitting in your house watching everything you do would be

The spying is too far removed from the average person's life that people don't care enough. One person sitting in your house watching everything you do would be really spooky, and everyone would be upset. Countless unidentified people watching everything you do, anywhere, from anywhere, is of course not nearly as spooky (/s). I'm still of the opinion that the US proper ceased to exist after the American Civil War. Makes me sad every time I think about it. And no, I'm not including slavery.

pc86 2y ago
What rights did someone have in 1790 that they didn't have in 1890?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ImJamal 2y ago
  Not who you are replying to, but there was a shift in opinion about what the US actually was and the powers the states had. One of those shifts was instead of people saying the "United States are" people started saying the "United States is". This change caused a shift away from the primacy of the 10th amendment. Instead of the US government just handling the military, foreign affairs, etc it started butting into more and more things happening within the country. Look at Wickard v Filburn for example. The 14th amendment also started to be reinterpreted to mean the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Prior to this reinterpretation the thought was that the Bill of Rights applied to the federal government not to the state governments. The federal government was not allowed to establish a state church, for example, but the states could (and did!). The federal government couldn't ban guns but the sates could. So the states themselves lost a lot of rights and the people did as well (see my example of Wickard v Filburn).
  - MeImCounting 2y ago
    Yeah this was definitely an important shift. Before these changes the US wasnt really a country in the same way it is now. Antisocial elements in many states was dragging the rest of the country down and due to increasing federal power we were able to override them. Due to broader application of federal law and the bill of rights we were able to give more and more rights to the people denied them in the past. Due to broader application of federal power we were able to do away with things like state churches and gun bans. This is all good.
    - ImJamal 2y ago
      It has obviously increased rights in some areas, but the federal government has also stripped rights because of their increased power. I don't know if there could be a way to determine if more or less rights have been given due to this change.
      - MeImCounting 2y ago
        The nice thing about centralized democratic governments is that they can be changed based on the desires of the constituents. This doesnt always work perfectly but it does work more and more if broader sections of the populace spend more time being educated about policy and advocating for things they believe in. See civil rights as a primary example. In contrast decentralized governments without the failsafes of things like the bill of rights to prevent them from descending into tyranny tend to do just that. Whether its the tyranny of the majority in one region or the tyranny of the rich and powerful, thats a quick route to having human rights trampled, oligarchs put into place and anti-social movements gain power. This may become less of a risk as education becomes more widespread in a populace and indeed statelessness is an admirable ideal but I dont think we are there yet technologically or ethically and certainly not in the 1790s.
        ImJamal 2y ago
        > The nice thing about centralized democratic governments is that they can be changed based on the desires of the constituents. States are centralized democratic governments. They are just smaller than the federal government. If you want to make the argument that having more people under a government is better then do you advocate for a single worldwide government? Why not go all the way? > This doesnt always work perfectly but it does work more and more if broader sections of the populace spend more time being educated about policy and advocating for things they believe in. I don't follow how having a centralized government means people are going to be more educated on policies? If the majority of politics happened on a state level why would people be less informed than if it occurred at the federal level. It seems like you are advocating for a more informed populace, which may be beneficial, but it doesn't seem relevant. >See civil rights as a primary example. While this may be an example right now, it wasn't always the case. The federal government (pre civil war) required states that did not have slavery to return runaway slaves back to slave states. If you want an example of post civil war, look at the Japanese internment camps. Like I said in my previous post, I don't think it is really possible to determine if rights have actually been expanded since the federal government started getting more involved. The federal government constantly violates rights. > In contrast decentralized governments without the failsafes of things like the bill of rights to prevent them from descending into tyranny tend to do just that. Whether its the tyranny of the majority in one region or the tyranny of the rich and powerful, thats a quick route to having human rights trampled, oligarchs put into place and anti-social movements gain power. I think most, if not all, of the states have a constitution that protects the rights of the residents. Why are you suggesting otherwise? Maybe they aren't perfect, but the same can be said about the federal constitution. > This may become less of a risk as education becomes more widespread in a populace and indeed statelessness is an admirable ideal but I dont think we are there yet technologically or ethically and certainly not in the 1790s. What do you mean by statelessness? Are you advocating for anarchy? That hardly seems like a way to protect rights.
- rustcleaner 2y ago
  What should the role of government be? Is it to be a secular substitute for a god? (I am Atheist myself, but also a "Social Contract™" skeptic.)
  - pc86 2y ago
    What does that have to do with my question? Do you think the popular conception of what government "should" be changed post-Civil War?

pc86 2y ago

What rights did someone have in 1790 that they didn't have in 1890?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ImJamal 2y ago
Not who you are replying to, but there was a shift in opinion about what the US actually was and the powers the states had. One of those shifts was instead of people saying the "United States are" people started saying the "United States is". This change caused a shift away from the primacy of the 10th amendment. Instead of the US government just handling the military, foreign affairs, etc it started butting into more and more things happening within the country. Look at Wickard v Filburn for example. The 14th amendment also started to be reinterpreted to mean the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Prior to this reinterpretation the thought was that the Bill of Rights applied to the federal government not to the state governments. The federal government was not allowed to establish a state church, for example, but the states could (and did!). The federal government couldn't ban guns but the sates could. So the states themselves lost a lot of rights and the people did as well (see my example of Wickard v Filburn).
- MeImCounting 2y ago
  Yeah this was definitely an important shift. Before these changes the US wasnt really a country in the same way it is now. Antisocial elements in many states was dragging the rest of the country down and due to increasing federal power we were able to override them. Due to broader application of federal law and the bill of rights we were able to give more and more rights to the people denied them in the past. Due to broader application of federal power we were able to do away with things like state churches and gun bans. This is all good.
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    It has obviously increased rights in some areas, but the federal government has also stripped rights because of their increased power. I don't know if there could be a way to determine if more or less rights have been given due to this change.
    - MeImCounting 2y ago
      The nice thing about centralized democratic governments is that they can be changed based on the desires of the constituents. This doesnt always work perfectly but it does work more and more if broader sections of the populace spend more time being educated about policy and advocating for things they believe in. See civil rights as a primary example. In contrast decentralized governments without the failsafes of things like the bill of rights to prevent them from descending into tyranny tend to do just that. Whether its the tyranny of the majority in one region or the tyranny of the rich and powerful, thats a quick route to having human rights trampled, oligarchs put into place and anti-social movements gain power. This may become less of a risk as education becomes more widespread in a populace and indeed statelessness is an admirable ideal but I dont think we are there yet technologically or ethically and certainly not in the 1790s.
      - ImJamal 2y ago
        > The nice thing about centralized democratic governments is that they can be changed based on the desires of the constituents. States are centralized democratic governments. They are just smaller than the federal government. If you want to make the argument that having more people under a government is better then do you advocate for a single worldwide government? Why not go all the way? > This doesnt always work perfectly but it does work more and more if broader sections of the populace spend more time being educated about policy and advocating for things they believe in. I don't follow how having a centralized government means people are going to be more educated on policies? If the majority of politics happened on a state level why would people be less informed than if it occurred at the federal level. It seems like you are advocating for a more informed populace, which may be beneficial, but it doesn't seem relevant. >See civil rights as a primary example. While this may be an example right now, it wasn't always the case. The federal government (pre civil war) required states that did not have slavery to return runaway slaves back to slave states. If you want an example of post civil war, look at the Japanese internment camps. Like I said in my previous post, I don't think it is really possible to determine if rights have actually been expanded since the federal government started getting more involved. The federal government constantly violates rights. > In contrast decentralized governments without the failsafes of things like the bill of rights to prevent them from descending into tyranny tend to do just that. Whether its the tyranny of the majority in one region or the tyranny of the rich and powerful, thats a quick route to having human rights trampled, oligarchs put into place and anti-social movements gain power. I think most, if not all, of the states have a constitution that protects the rights of the residents. Why are you suggesting otherwise? Maybe they aren't perfect, but the same can be said about the federal constitution. > This may become less of a risk as education becomes more widespread in a populace and indeed statelessness is an admirable ideal but I dont think we are there yet technologically or ethically and certainly not in the 1790s. What do you mean by statelessness? Are you advocating for anarchy? That hardly seems like a way to protect rights.
rustcleaner 2y ago
What should the role of government be? Is it to be a secular substitute for a god? (I am Atheist myself, but also a "Social Contract™" skeptic.)
- pc86 2y ago
  What does that have to do with my question? Do you think the popular conception of what government "should" be changed post-Civil War?