4 ms·

> "There is indeed something you can do about it. You can go live in a country where there is no TSA" In other words, give up? I find it ludicrous (and terrif

by amirmc 14y ago

> "There is indeed something you can do about it. You can go live in a country where there is no TSA" In other words, give up? I find it ludicrous (and terrifying) when statements like this are made. This isn't some web-app whose terms of service you don't like, it's a nation state. People throughout history took to the streets to win freedom/voting right/etc. If no-one's left fighting back then expect to get trampled. Soon there'll be nowhere left to move.

kelnos 14y ago
Agreed. And to take it a step further: the US is still a powerful force in both world politics and military might. If all the people in the US who care about these issues simply give up and leave, do you really think the remainder of the US will simply let everyone else in the world live they way they want to? We can already see the effects of this trend in how the US tries to "harmonize" copyright/patents/etc. law in other countries with its own. Any time I'm in an airport in a country where the US deems security insufficient, there's extra security at the gate for flights to the US. These things spread slowly, but surely.
- sneak 14y ago
  I believe that it has to get worse in the US before it can get better, and I refuse to use violence to accomplish my goals. Therefore, it will take several years, and will require the vast majority of the people who comprise the US's competitive advantage over other countries leaving, first, before the true change really starts. You don't undo things like the NSA's global wiretapping efforts with a direct, frontal assault. If they cared about the fact that it is blatantly, totally illegal, they never would have begun it in the first place. You have to attack the roots, and that's the economy, and the tax base. This will likely not be solved in my lifetime, unfortunately.
  - negrit 14y ago
    Yes, I believe the best is to prove they are inefficient and a complete waste of money.
    - sneak 14y ago
      It was pg who wrote (in Good Bad Attitude, H&P p. 55): > It would be ironic if, as hackers fear, recent measures intended to protect national security and intellectual property turned out to be a missile aimed right at what makes America successful. Short of violence, I would like to do everything possible to accelerate that realization in the minds of as many Americans as possible. I think the best way to do that is to respond appropriately: leave, and go live/work in, support, and pay taxes to other countries instead. Can you imagine the next Facebook or Google being started somewhere that isn't the USA? I can. Those that are paying attention are starting to realize just how bad the situation there has become.
      - negrit 14y ago
        I was actually talking about it with my roommate: if the next big companies could pop from other countries than the USA And it's actually hard the believe and here is why: - The USA is one big country one over 300millions people, one main language, one main culture, one currency ... and a shit lot of money ready to be invested - When you start a company in France only 60 million people few investors, a small startup world, ... And if i want to expand my company to europe, i need to get the different languages, different culture, different bank and sometimes different currency. And if you want to invest it's harder because the VC system is different, they are not much a big fan of competition. It's a pain is the ass to grow big quickly there and also the mentality is different.
  - javert 14y ago
    I was finding some of your comments in this thread inspiring, but you are completlely wrong in this one. To change the USA politically, it's necessary to change it culturally. Attacking the roots means attacking the ideas, not the economy. Say the economy totally collapses, which seems to be the strategy you're advocating. Will the outcome you want come about? No; we will see more facism; the collapse will be blamed on the country not being godly enough by the conservatives, and on capitalists being too greedy by the liberals, who will insist on running even farther from economic freedom (and prosperity). The solution is to change the ideas of the society to be more principled and pro-freedom. I do agree with you that it's unlikely to be solved in our lifetimes, though. Changing a culture traditionally has taken generations. Now we're in the information age, so that might help, but there are too few fighting for good ideas; the vast majority of people are accepting more bad ideas, and most people who are fighting are fighting on the wrong side.
    - sneak 14y ago
      > Say the economy totally collapses, which seems to be the strategy you're advocating. Will the outcome you want come about? No; we will see more facism; the collapse will be blamed on the country not being godly enough by the conservatives, and on capitalists being too greedy by the liberals, who will insist on running even farther from economic freedom (and prosperity). You say "we", as if in that scenario you'd still be there. I see no other practical method of getting the US government off the fiber backbones and out of the closets of carriers short of undermining the country's competitive advantage in the world economy, and even that will take dozens of years. The USA PATRIOT Act was 10 years old in October of 2011. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments are dead and buried, and the only response to new laws further abridging those rights we used to have under them is "lol" (e.g. The Daily Show, Colbert Report). It's delusional to think that it's going to somehow get better when doing so would require large popular support from people who really don't give a fuck about anything and can't be effectively reached en masse save via military-industrial-complex controlled mass media channels that dissenting opinions aren't given access to (e.g. the most recent series of presidential debates).
      - javert 14y ago
sneak 14y ago
If a tree falls on your house and splits the roof wide open, allowing snow and rain to fall onto your bed, is it giving up to go and live in another building until the damage is repaired? There are plenty fighting back - just not in the USA, as the window for meaningful and peaceful dissent there is now closed. If you don't see that this is true today, I urge you to research the history of the US federal government's suppression of dissent over the last 20 years.
- dalke 14y ago
  It's awful to argue this by analogy. If your house is full of termites, you leave, cover the house with a tent, and fumigate the inside. Should we leave the US, kill anyone who's left, and come back to a deinfested US? Even under your analogy, you're giving one interpretation. You could be over-exaggerating the effect of the tree because you're a perfectionist who runs from the least bit of trouble. The tree might have fallen, broken a couple of roof tiles, an eave, and a window. Sure, snow and rain can come into the bed, which is right next to the window, but a tarp can easily cover the damage and you can stay in the house while you get someone to fix it. Just because you say that the situation in the US is unlivable doesn't mean that others generally agree with your view, or even that you are right. No amount of argument by analogy, no matter how visceral, will help.
- negrit 14y ago
  Your analogy doesn't make any sense. I'm glad that everybody doesn't think like you do.
  - sneak 14y ago
    I can explain it: It is not "giving up" to leave a physical location that is uninhabitable. When you can't freely transfer money or have private electronic conversations (telephone, SMS, email, whatever) as a median citizen not under suspicion of a crime, you must leave the place in which you are, just as you would have to leave your private home if it were completely flooded or exposed to the elements.
    - 14y ago
sneak 14y ago
> This isn't some web-app whose terms of service you don't like, it's a nation state. People throughout history took to the streets to win freedom/voting right/etc. Historically, it was much harder and more expensive to move your entire life to another country (and maintain your social and economic ties). People were vastly better off staying put. Today, that's simply not the case. I moved across an ocean to avoid participating in the US economy in a positive way (insofar as that is practically possible being a denizen of the Internet) for under $1500 and all while maintaining my personal and professional connections to those still resident there. Perhaps this antique notion of "taking to the streets to win freedom" was the appropriate choice, then. I know for a fact that today it is not only demonstrably ineffective, but also entirely unnecessary.
- coldpie 14y ago
  Where did you move to?
- skrebbel 14y ago
  The problem is that after a while you'll notice that every country's government is partly corrupt and every country has ridiculous laws that, at some point, are going to affect you. It might be less bad in Luxembourg than it is in the US, but it is a common trend that if a small group of countries move their laws and regulations in a particular direction, other countries with a comparable culture and standard of living are prone to follow sooner or later. You can keep fleeing to the next non-sucky country, but in theory, you're going to run out of countries at some point. Maybe not in your lifetime, so your solution is practical, but if it becomes widely adopted, I think we're going to get a problem. Afaik, there's no indication that countries whose people leave en masse change their laws, regulations and institutions to try and fix it. Thus, I doubt that "voting with your feet" like you can do in a market economy works with countries. Try and find a Macedonian with a university degree in Macedonia, for example.
  - white_devil 14y ago
    > You can keep fleeing to the next non-sucky country, but in theory, you're going to run out of countries at some point. Maybe not in your lifetime, so your solution is practical, but if it becomes widely adopted, I think we're going to get a problem. Eventually, some countries are likely to decide they want to suck less, or get changed by revolutions etc, and then you can switch to one of those. It's complicated, of course. The smaller the ruling elite, the less prosperous the whole country will be, but the ruling elite itself is just fine with that.

by amirmc 14y ago

kelnos 14y ago

Agreed. And to take it a step further: the US is still a powerful force in both world politics and military might. If all the people in the US who care about these issues simply give up and leave, do you really think the remainder of the US will simply let everyone else in the world live they way they want to? We can already see the effects of this trend in how the US tries to "harmonize" copyright/patents/etc. law in other countries with its own. Any time I'm in an airport in a country where the US deems security insufficient, there's extra security at the gate for flights to the US. These things spread slowly, but surely.

sneak 14y ago
I believe that it has to get worse in the US before it can get better, and I refuse to use violence to accomplish my goals. Therefore, it will take several years, and will require the vast majority of the people who comprise the US's competitive advantage over other countries leaving, first, before the true change really starts. You don't undo things like the NSA's global wiretapping efforts with a direct, frontal assault. If they cared about the fact that it is blatantly, totally illegal, they never would have begun it in the first place. You have to attack the roots, and that's the economy, and the tax base. This will likely not be solved in my lifetime, unfortunately.
- negrit 14y ago
  Yes, I believe the best is to prove they are inefficient and a complete waste of money.
  - sneak 14y ago
    It was pg who wrote (in Good Bad Attitude, H&P p. 55): > It would be ironic if, as hackers fear, recent measures intended to protect national security and intellectual property turned out to be a missile aimed right at what makes America successful. Short of violence, I would like to do everything possible to accelerate that realization in the minds of as many Americans as possible. I think the best way to do that is to respond appropriately: leave, and go live/work in, support, and pay taxes to other countries instead. Can you imagine the next Facebook or Google being started somewhere that isn't the USA? I can. Those that are paying attention are starting to realize just how bad the situation there has become.
    - negrit 14y ago
      I was actually talking about it with my roommate: if the next big companies could pop from other countries than the USA And it's actually hard the believe and here is why: - The USA is one big country one over 300millions people, one main language, one main culture, one currency ... and a shit lot of money ready to be invested - When you start a company in France only 60 million people few investors, a small startup world, ... And if i want to expand my company to europe, i need to get the different languages, different culture, different bank and sometimes different currency. And if you want to invest it's harder because the VC system is different, they are not much a big fan of competition. It's a pain is the ass to grow big quickly there and also the mentality is different.
- javert 14y ago
  I was finding some of your comments in this thread inspiring, but you are completlely wrong in this one. To change the USA politically, it's necessary to change it culturally. Attacking the roots means attacking the ideas, not the economy. Say the economy totally collapses, which seems to be the strategy you're advocating. Will the outcome you want come about? No; we will see more facism; the collapse will be blamed on the country not being godly enough by the conservatives, and on capitalists being too greedy by the liberals, who will insist on running even farther from economic freedom (and prosperity). The solution is to change the ideas of the society to be more principled and pro-freedom. I do agree with you that it's unlikely to be solved in our lifetimes, though. Changing a culture traditionally has taken generations. Now we're in the information age, so that might help, but there are too few fighting for good ideas; the vast majority of people are accepting more bad ideas, and most people who are fighting are fighting on the wrong side.
  - sneak 14y ago
    > Say the economy totally collapses, which seems to be the strategy you're advocating. Will the outcome you want come about? No; we will see more facism; the collapse will be blamed on the country not being godly enough by the conservatives, and on capitalists being too greedy by the liberals, who will insist on running even farther from economic freedom (and prosperity). You say "we", as if in that scenario you'd still be there. I see no other practical method of getting the US government off the fiber backbones and out of the closets of carriers short of undermining the country's competitive advantage in the world economy, and even that will take dozens of years. The USA PATRIOT Act was 10 years old in October of 2011. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments are dead and buried, and the only response to new laws further abridging those rights we used to have under them is "lol" (e.g. The Daily Show, Colbert Report). It's delusional to think that it's going to somehow get better when doing so would require large popular support from people who really don't give a fuck about anything and can't be effectively reached en masse save via military-industrial-complex controlled mass media channels that dissenting opinions aren't given access to (e.g. the most recent series of presidential debates).
    - javert 14y ago

sneak 14y ago

If a tree falls on your house and splits the roof wide open, allowing snow and rain to fall onto your bed, is it giving up to go and live in another building until the damage is repaired? There are plenty fighting back - just not in the USA, as the window for meaningful and peaceful dissent there is now closed. If you don't see that this is true today, I urge you to research the history of the US federal government's suppression of dissent over the last 20 years.

dalke 14y ago
It's awful to argue this by analogy. If your house is full of termites, you leave, cover the house with a tent, and fumigate the inside. Should we leave the US, kill anyone who's left, and come back to a deinfested US? Even under your analogy, you're giving one interpretation. You could be over-exaggerating the effect of the tree because you're a perfectionist who runs from the least bit of trouble. The tree might have fallen, broken a couple of roof tiles, an eave, and a window. Sure, snow and rain can come into the bed, which is right next to the window, but a tarp can easily cover the damage and you can stay in the house while you get someone to fix it. Just because you say that the situation in the US is unlivable doesn't mean that others generally agree with your view, or even that you are right. No amount of argument by analogy, no matter how visceral, will help.
negrit 14y ago
Your analogy doesn't make any sense. I'm glad that everybody doesn't think like you do.
- sneak 14y ago
  I can explain it: It is not "giving up" to leave a physical location that is uninhabitable. When you can't freely transfer money or have private electronic conversations (telephone, SMS, email, whatever) as a median citizen not under suspicion of a crime, you must leave the place in which you are, just as you would have to leave your private home if it were completely flooded or exposed to the elements.
  - 14y ago

sneak 14y ago

> This isn't some web-app whose terms of service you don't like, it's a nation state. People throughout history took to the streets to win freedom/voting right/etc. Historically, it was much harder and more expensive to move your entire life to another country (and maintain your social and economic ties). People were vastly better off staying put. Today, that's simply not the case. I moved across an ocean to avoid participating in the US economy in a positive way (insofar as that is practically possible being a denizen of the Internet) for under $1500 and all while maintaining my personal and professional connections to those still resident there. Perhaps this antique notion of "taking to the streets to win freedom" was the appropriate choice, then. I know for a fact that today it is not only demonstrably ineffective, but also entirely unnecessary.

coldpie 14y ago
Where did you move to?
skrebbel 14y ago
The problem is that after a while you'll notice that every country's government is partly corrupt and every country has ridiculous laws that, at some point, are going to affect you. It might be less bad in Luxembourg than it is in the US, but it is a common trend that if a small group of countries move their laws and regulations in a particular direction, other countries with a comparable culture and standard of living are prone to follow sooner or later. You can keep fleeing to the next non-sucky country, but in theory, you're going to run out of countries at some point. Maybe not in your lifetime, so your solution is practical, but if it becomes widely adopted, I think we're going to get a problem. Afaik, there's no indication that countries whose people leave en masse change their laws, regulations and institutions to try and fix it. Thus, I doubt that "voting with your feet" like you can do in a market economy works with countries. Try and find a Macedonian with a university degree in Macedonia, for example.
- white_devil 14y ago
  > You can keep fleeing to the next non-sucky country, but in theory, you're going to run out of countries at some point. Maybe not in your lifetime, so your solution is practical, but if it becomes widely adopted, I think we're going to get a problem. Eventually, some countries are likely to decide they want to suck less, or get changed by revolutions etc, and then you can switch to one of those. It's complicated, of course. The smaller the ruling elite, the less prosperous the whole country will be, but the ruling elite itself is just fine with that.