3 ms·
"Done right". There's your problem. Done right, Marxism is a good thing. Done right, a dictatorship is the most efficient form of government. But we are, in
by Vivtek 14y ago
"Done right". There's your problem.
Done right, Marxism is a good thing. Done right, a dictatorship is the most efficient form of government.
But we are, in fact, dealing in sloppy reality, where many things - by their very nature - cannot be done right. No matter how hard we try, or how earnestly we believe in fairies, these things will not be done right. They will inevitably devolve into tyranny.
- altcognito 14y agoIn fact, it's not even the point. Invasion of privacy is by definition, done wrong. Are we willing to give up all of our privacy to prevent a very, very small number of incidents.
- Vivtek 14y agoNo, it actually is the point, because it's perfectly OK for Santa Claus to know whether you've been bad or good - Santa Claus is inherently trustworthy and won't tell your boss, deny you travel privileges, sell your company short, or give bad rich kids presents instead of coal. So the day I see a reindeer with a glowing nose landing on my roof, I will consider allowing the elves to collect all the information they want, as long as the storage center is at the North Pole. In the meantime, invasion of privacy will continue to be done wrong.
- jivatmanx 14y ago"Done Right" means that he wants to provide a default assumption of trust for government actions. However, the bill of rights is based upon a default distrust, and he may want to research why that was the case.
- sliverstorm 14y agoNo, it means I believe that with the right pieces of law (e.g., the bill of rights), we can govern ourselves relatively successfully (e.g., the United States government) As clearly evidenced by the bill of rights and the US government, you don't have to implicitly trust your government to grant them power without finding yourself in the middle of a dictatorship police state. (Yes, I know, some people believe the USA is a police state, but IMO they are the fringe and have never experienced a real police state)
- SoftwareMaven 14y agoI'm afraid I don't see that working out very well right now. Illegal search and seizure is common. The president can do just about anything he chooses through executive orders. The number of ways to be arrested and tried as a criminal means it is up to the police and prosecutors whether you are in or out of prison. All of these things exist like this today. Now give them nearly unlimited information about the citizenry. I find it hard to fathom, when the government has done so poorly with what it's been given today, that they will suddenly turn around and become true protectors of the people once they have that kind of information.
- Vivtek 14y agoYes, you can grant them some power, but clearly there's a limit. In fact, our law and the Constitution defines that limit - and this program (and others; see SoftwareMaven's response as well) is beyond it. They have taken power not granted them. And I don't think anybody (except maybe protesters in large cities who suffer police violence, and of course black people anywhere in the country) thinks the United States is a police state. Similarly, I am not suffering a heart attack as I'm typing this. I still eat salad instead of cheeseburgers for every meal. Analogously, I think it's important to keep an eye on excessive power grabs by the government. The Bill of Rights is only self-government if it's used to limit the government, you see.