15 ms·

If you stop playing the game Civilization and look back at history, you'll see that there are a lot of very bad people in the world who do very bad things. All

If you stop playing the game Civilization and look back at history, you'll see that there are a lot of very bad people in the world who do very bad things. All of the freedoms that we enjoy in Western democracies were hard-won and continue to be backed up by guns, bombs, codes, and secrets. It's not pretty, but that's how things are. It might well be that the current approach to domestic surveillance is out of balance and these agencies (and contractors!) need to be better controlled, but this pseudo-libertarian nihilism about government betrays an ignorance of realities that are much more fundamental than who is tracking phone call metadata.

fexl 13y ago
"All of the freedoms that we enjoy in Western democracies were hard-won and continue to be backed up by guns, bombs, codes, and secrets. It's not pretty, but that's how things are." That's the official story. In reality, those things are used to enslave people and keep them happy on the modern plantation, looking to the master to keep them safe. Freedom is the absence of coercion, and those things have utterly failed to safeguard that, and indeed have actively warred against it.
- DigitalJack 13y ago
  So you thing all the guns in the US revolutionary war were superfluous?
- aheilbut 13y ago
  No, really, that's not just the official story. The reality is that tens of millions of people were killed in wars and genocides in just the 20th century. The most basic role of government is to protect its own citizens against that, and it is not an abstract threat. And despite their many flaws, and the many wrong things that they have done, the US and its allies remain the most open, free societies and a positive, stabilizing force in the world. It's entirely legitimate to question whether the NSA has been going too far -- there's been debate about it for years. However, there is zero evidence that any of the data being collected had even been used in any way that impacted or threatened the freedom of people in the US -- it's all possibilities and abstract paranoia. It's difficult to have a serious debate when people put on tin-foil hats, plug their ears, and refuse to even acknowledge the broader realities. It's not all just a conspiracy to monitor Facebook and take away our bitcoins. All of these issues demand a dynamic balancing of risks and benefits, and of the rights of individuals against society. Any extreme philosophical positions are dangerous.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    How many of those genocides were carried on by a government against some segment of its population? How justified is it to look at the tens of millions who have been killed by their governments and conclude that if the governments are to protect us from war and genocide, "with friends like these, who needs enemies?"
    - icebraining 13y ago
      Well, actually all genocides were carried on by people (part of a government or not), so maybe we should eliminate people. Either that or not make broad generalizations.
      - einhverfr 13y ago
        Indeed. Imagine if we just killed everyone how many social problems we'd solve.... But my broader point was, larger government surveillance and national security powers won't stop genocides or wars between governments. This isn't what they are there for. They are there to prevent groups which are deemed politically dangerous ("terrorists" which evidently include nuclear protesters, environmentalists, and states' rights advocates). It's one thing to have spy agencies. However widespread spying on one's own people is never a good sign.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - baddox 13y ago
        Most people cannot fund a military via taxation. That's unique to government.
        icebraining 13y ago
        That's a tautology, since a tax is by definition imposed by a government. Bullets bought with private money kill just as well, though, and can and have been used to create new governments.
adrianbg 13y ago
Are you sure you've looked back at history? People's freedoms are typically limited by elites in their own country, not by foreign enemies.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  the two are not mutually exclusive. Consider the a the number of former colonial powers is small compared to the number of former colonies.
  - adrianbg 13y ago
    The only difference between a normal government and a colonial government is the degree of integration. If you live under any government you are ruled, not free. The countries we have now grew by conquering and accumulating territory -- that is except in the cases where territories decided to give up their independence like the states in the US.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      Sorry, this is complete nonsense.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
anaptdemise 13y ago
On the topic of history... "After the fall of the Roman Republic, the constitutional balance of power shifted from the Roman Senate to the Roman Emperor. Though retaining its legal position as under the Republic, in practice, however the actual authority of the Imperial Senate was negligible, as the Emperor held the true power in the state. As such, membership in the Senate became sought after by individuals seeking prestige and social standing, rather than actual authority." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_senate#Senate_of_the_Roman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_senate#Senate_of_the_Rom...] Imagine for a moment, further expansion of executive autonomy and power. Then review recent elections with the definition of populism in mind. There are stark similarities. "When Hitler was appointed in January 1933, Germany was a democracy. Germany had fair elections; nobody had their right to vote abused; there were numerous political parties you could vote for etc. To pass a law, the Reichstag had to agree to it after a bill went through the normal processes of discussion, arguments etc. Within the Reichstag of January 1933, over 50% of those who held seats were against the Nazi Party. Therefore it would have been very unlikely for Hitler to have got passed into law what he wanted. Many saw Hitler as a fall-guy politician who would have to shoulder to blame if things got worse under his leadership. Hitler had promised a general election for March 1933. This would have been, in his mind, the perfect opportunity for him to show all politicians who opposed him where the true loyalties lay in the German people. In fact, 1932 had shown Hitler that there was a possibility that support for the Nazis had peaked as their showing in the November 1932 election had shown. Anything other than a huge endorsement of Hitler and the Nazi Party would have been a disaster and a gamble which it is possible that Hitler did not want to take. One week before the election was due to take place, the Reichstag building burned down. Hitler immediately declared that it was the signal for a communist takeover of the nation. Hitler knew that if he was to convince President Hindenburg to give him emergency powers - as stated in the Weimar Constitution - he had to play on the old president's fear of communism. What better than to convince him that the communists were about to take over the nation by force?" [http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Nazi_Germany_dictatorship.htm http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Nazi_Germany_dictatorsh...] Even in a well formed government, there are possible scenarios that play out with catastrophic results. As politics become more polarized and government exerts more authority, it is more likely that individual opportunists can raise to dominant positions and wreak havoc on policy and settle vendettas against political opponents.
TelmoMenezes 13y ago
What freedoms are being protected exactly? The freedom from government intrusion in your private life? The freedom to travel? The freedom to bear arms and defend yourself? The freedom to grow whichever plant you wish in your own land? The freedom to do with your own body as you please, provided you do not harm anyone else? The freedom from excessive labour? The freedom to run a currency like Bitcoin? The freedom from being targeted by the IRS if you go against the status quo? The freedom of the press? Or do you mean some other freedoms? Or maybe, just maybe, you mean security and not freedom at all?
- aheilbut 13y ago
  The point is that security is a precondition to enjoying all of the freedoms you list. There are trade-offs to make between freedom and security, and neither the freedoms nor the security are absolute, and they never have been.
  - baddox 13y ago
    You're doubly wrong. Security is not a precondition of freedom, and security does not have to come at a loss of freedom.
    - irishloop 13y ago
      Not at all. The moment someone points a gun at you and tells you what to do, your freedom has been usurped. Without the security to make your own choices, you do not have freedom. Thus, it's important to restrict certain actions (i.e., your ability to point a gun at someone and make demands) in order to protect the freedom of others.
      - JanezStupar 13y ago
        The moment someone points a gun at you, your freedoms are completely intact. Moreover, this is the moment when you can show whether you are really free. Free men do not mind dying when their time comes.
danboarder 13y ago
"If you stop playing the game Civilization and look back at history, you'll see that there are a lot of very bad people in the world who do very bad things." When I look back at history, I see that the worst people that have done the worst things are in fact people in state governments, using the powers of government against civilians.
- Anderkent 13y ago
  >When I look back at history, I see that the worst people that have done the worst things are in fact people in state governments, using the powers of government against civilians. That's because you're looking at the largest damage influenced by a small group of people, instead of total amount over a period of time. Obviously the most damage done by any single person was done by a person with a lot of power, and thus probably a member of the government. That doesn't mean more damage is done when a government is present rather than in total anarchy. Consider a choice between: 1. A mad governor that kills 100 people yearly, but prevents any other killings (somehow) 2. An anarchy system where 100 mad people kill 10 people each every year Your heuristic of 'the worst people that have done the worst things are in fact people in state governments' still holds, because any other murderer only killed 10 people. However, comparing the two options clearly shows the first one is better. TL;DR - availability bias
  - userulluipeste 13y ago
    By your logic anything can get an apology because we can always point out to a worse alternative.
return0 13y ago
History also teaches that all governments that did not trust their people (hence had to spy on them) did not survive long. Fighting wars is very different from spying your own people, societies are built on trust after all.
ekianjo 13y ago
Yeah, if you stop seeing reality through your super narrow lens, you'll realize that large-scale wars are started by governments and states and not common people.
loceng 13y ago
I tend to lean towards your view point, mostly because the alternate unknown is terrifying. What does need to happen is the people who are given control of systems need to be accountable, not lie, and intent of their actions needs to be known. There are many more less costly things that can be done to help a society stay safe - from itself and from others around the world.
superuser2 13y ago
What freedom is being protected by U.S. involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan?
jetti 13y ago
"All of the freedoms that we enjoy in Western democracies were hard-won and continue to be backed up by guns, bombs, codes, and secrets" I'm going to single out the US in the "western democracies" and state that while this may be true, it certainly isn't true for just about anybody alive in this country today. The last time we actually fought for OUR freedoms, in my mind, is the War of 1812. Other than that, it was fighting for our interests, which are not the same. But, those in power need to keep up the idea that the war machine always needs to be at the ready because those darn communists/socialists/terrorists are after our freedoms and we need to be proactive.
tete 13y ago
Hmm, according to all kinds of measurements, indexes, etc. the most democratic, free, hight standard of living countries reside in northern Europe. Most of them don't have much military. So somehow this comment is pretty flawed. The US once was the most free countries and indeed helped and inspired others, but that was more than a hundred years ago. The problem is while other countries emerged (possibly because of mistakes, losing wars, being split, reunited, etc.) the US has had a few problems that got them stuck. I think and it's just my opinionated explanation. I might be completely wrong, but I think the biggest problem for the US where the two world wars and the cold wars. Basically it made the country/government learn that espionage, military, etc. is a good thing, because they only win. They win no just like the war itself, but they win control of people, they pretty much unite them, but even that is not all. The military system allows the US to do what other countries do with welfare. They reinvest tax money, the out it into families of veterans, have a huge military industry from weapons to mercenaries. It works. Just like it allows them to do heavy espionage in the name of national security. On the other hand there is expensive education or bought education (VISA policies), not the best health care system, still a lot of weird stuff, like death penalty (an example of how the US is stuck), bad infrastructure (streets, internet, etc.) and a lot less liberties or equal treatment of sexes and "races" for example. This is something that stabilizes the US. I don't know, in a way it is a valid thing. Stability is good and there is pretty much no country that does so well that it should judge the US for that. Another problem is that they tend to do overpropaganda, so they can't really change. They had stuff like the cold war, so communists (Russians/Chinese) people are super evil. Also there were no other reforms. The two party system where both have pretty much opinion. That's no way of choosing. For example the death penalty thing I mentioned. Republicans are pro, Obama is pro. So no movement in sight. The US is also stuck in nationalism. Like really, do you know any other developed country that is so much into flag waving and where everyone is like "Mall of America, Bank of America, X of America"? Like I said. It's not bad. It brings stability, which is something people want, but it also means that progress simply stalls. In this regard the US is actually quite the same as China or Russia. Big countries, which pretty much always the same government, lots of propaganda, lots of nationalism "the others are all bad (or envious)", death penalty, secrecy, lots of military investment, our country is the best, etc. It might also be a thing of size. There have been political-philosophical works about this, partially with practical implementation (The Breakdown of Nations). However, as history tells us (see various empires) these things break down in bad ways. Sadly it usually means the next nation will become like this and won't be any better at all. And yeah, I am not a friend of nations and stuff, but I am realist enough to know, no matter how long the US remains like that (yeah, I think it is trembling, but I think it's far from falling) or whatever, this isn't going to change. I also don't think there can be any kind of utopia. It would be really cool if people just abandoned stuff, but no matter how wrong communists are. There is one thing they got correctly (but usually still don't live after, else they wouldn't be communists): It might be nice for a while, when everyone understands how shitty things were and how nice it is to just live together, but people forget that and then it really starts from the beginning.

fexl 13y ago

"All of the freedoms that we enjoy in Western democracies were hard-won and continue to be backed up by guns, bombs, codes, and secrets. It's not pretty, but that's how things are." That's the official story. In reality, those things are used to enslave people and keep them happy on the modern plantation, looking to the master to keep them safe. Freedom is the absence of coercion, and those things have utterly failed to safeguard that, and indeed have actively warred against it.

DigitalJack 13y ago
So you thing all the guns in the US revolutionary war were superfluous?
aheilbut 13y ago
No, really, that's not just the official story. The reality is that tens of millions of people were killed in wars and genocides in just the 20th century. The most basic role of government is to protect its own citizens against that, and it is not an abstract threat. And despite their many flaws, and the many wrong things that they have done, the US and its allies remain the most open, free societies and a positive, stabilizing force in the world. It's entirely legitimate to question whether the NSA has been going too far -- there's been debate about it for years. However, there is zero evidence that any of the data being collected had even been used in any way that impacted or threatened the freedom of people in the US -- it's all possibilities and abstract paranoia. It's difficult to have a serious debate when people put on tin-foil hats, plug their ears, and refuse to even acknowledge the broader realities. It's not all just a conspiracy to monitor Facebook and take away our bitcoins. All of these issues demand a dynamic balancing of risks and benefits, and of the rights of individuals against society. Any extreme philosophical positions are dangerous.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  How many of those genocides were carried on by a government against some segment of its population? How justified is it to look at the tens of millions who have been killed by their governments and conclude that if the governments are to protect us from war and genocide, "with friends like these, who needs enemies?"
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Well, actually all genocides were carried on by people (part of a government or not), so maybe we should eliminate people. Either that or not make broad generalizations.
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      Indeed. Imagine if we just killed everyone how many social problems we'd solve.... But my broader point was, larger government surveillance and national security powers won't stop genocides or wars between governments. This isn't what they are there for. They are there to prevent groups which are deemed politically dangerous ("terrorists" which evidently include nuclear protesters, environmentalists, and states' rights advocates). It's one thing to have spy agencies. However widespread spying on one's own people is never a good sign.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - baddox 13y ago
      Most people cannot fund a military via taxation. That's unique to government.
      - icebraining 13y ago
        That's a tautology, since a tax is by definition imposed by a government. Bullets bought with private money kill just as well, though, and can and have been used to create new governments.

adrianbg 13y ago

Are you sure you've looked back at history? People's freedoms are typically limited by elites in their own country, not by foreign enemies.

anigbrowl 13y ago
the two are not mutually exclusive. Consider the a the number of former colonial powers is small compared to the number of former colonies.
- adrianbg 13y ago
  The only difference between a normal government and a colonial government is the degree of integration. If you live under any government you are ruled, not free. The countries we have now grew by conquering and accumulating territory -- that is except in the cases where territories decided to give up their independence like the states in the US.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Sorry, this is complete nonsense.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]

anaptdemise 13y ago

On the topic of history... "After the fall of the Roman Republic, the constitutional balance of power shifted from the Roman Senate to the Roman Emperor. Though retaining its legal position as under the Republic, in practice, however the actual authority of the Imperial Senate was negligible, as the Emperor held the true power in the state. As such, membership in the Senate became sought after by individuals seeking prestige and social standing, rather than actual authority." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_senate#Senate_of_the_Roman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_senate#Senate_of_the_Rom...] Imagine for a moment, further expansion of executive autonomy and power. Then review recent elections with the definition of populism in mind. There are stark similarities. "When Hitler was appointed in January 1933, Germany was a democracy. Germany had fair elections; nobody had their right to vote abused; there were numerous political parties you could vote for etc. To pass a law, the Reichstag had to agree to it after a bill went through the normal processes of discussion, arguments etc. Within the Reichstag of January 1933, over 50% of those who held seats were against the Nazi Party. Therefore it would have been very unlikely for Hitler to have got passed into law what he wanted. Many saw Hitler as a fall-guy politician who would have to shoulder to blame if things got worse under his leadership. Hitler had promised a general election for March 1933. This would have been, in his mind, the perfect opportunity for him to show all politicians who opposed him where the true loyalties lay in the German people. In fact, 1932 had shown Hitler that there was a possibility that support for the Nazis had peaked as their showing in the November 1932 election had shown. Anything other than a huge endorsement of Hitler and the Nazi Party would have been a disaster and a gamble which it is possible that Hitler did not want to take. One week before the election was due to take place, the Reichstag building burned down. Hitler immediately declared that it was the signal for a communist takeover of the nation. Hitler knew that if he was to convince President Hindenburg to give him emergency powers - as stated in the Weimar Constitution - he had to play on the old president's fear of communism. What better than to convince him that the communists were about to take over the nation by force?" [http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Nazi_Germany_dictatorship.htm http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Nazi_Germany_dictatorsh...] Even in a well formed government, there are possible scenarios that play out with catastrophic results. As politics become more polarized and government exerts more authority, it is more likely that individual opportunists can raise to dominant positions and wreak havoc on policy and settle vendettas against political opponents.

TelmoMenezes 13y ago

What freedoms are being protected exactly? The freedom from government intrusion in your private life? The freedom to travel? The freedom to bear arms and defend yourself? The freedom to grow whichever plant you wish in your own land? The freedom to do with your own body as you please, provided you do not harm anyone else? The freedom from excessive labour? The freedom to run a currency like Bitcoin? The freedom from being targeted by the IRS if you go against the status quo? The freedom of the press? Or do you mean some other freedoms? Or maybe, just maybe, you mean security and not freedom at all?

aheilbut 13y ago
The point is that security is a precondition to enjoying all of the freedoms you list. There are trade-offs to make between freedom and security, and neither the freedoms nor the security are absolute, and they never have been.
- baddox 13y ago
  You're doubly wrong. Security is not a precondition of freedom, and security does not have to come at a loss of freedom.
  - irishloop 13y ago
    Not at all. The moment someone points a gun at you and tells you what to do, your freedom has been usurped. Without the security to make your own choices, you do not have freedom. Thus, it's important to restrict certain actions (i.e., your ability to point a gun at someone and make demands) in order to protect the freedom of others.
    - JanezStupar 13y ago
      The moment someone points a gun at you, your freedoms are completely intact. Moreover, this is the moment when you can show whether you are really free. Free men do not mind dying when their time comes.

danboarder 13y ago

"If you stop playing the game Civilization and look back at history, you'll see that there are a lot of very bad people in the world who do very bad things." When I look back at history, I see that the worst people that have done the worst things are in fact people in state governments, using the powers of government against civilians.

Anderkent 13y ago
>When I look back at history, I see that the worst people that have done the worst things are in fact people in state governments, using the powers of government against civilians. That's because you're looking at the largest damage influenced by a small group of people, instead of total amount over a period of time. Obviously the most damage done by any single person was done by a person with a lot of power, and thus probably a member of the government. That doesn't mean more damage is done when a government is present rather than in total anarchy. Consider a choice between: 1. A mad governor that kills 100 people yearly, but prevents any other killings (somehow) 2. An anarchy system where 100 mad people kill 10 people each every year Your heuristic of 'the worst people that have done the worst things are in fact people in state governments' still holds, because any other murderer only killed 10 people. However, comparing the two options clearly shows the first one is better. TL;DR - availability bias
- userulluipeste 13y ago
  By your logic anything can get an apology because we can always point out to a worse alternative.

return0 13y ago

History also teaches that all governments that did not trust their people (hence had to spy on them) did not survive long. Fighting wars is very different from spying your own people, societies are built on trust after all.

ekianjo 13y ago

Yeah, if you stop seeing reality through your super narrow lens, you'll realize that large-scale wars are started by governments and states and not common people.

loceng 13y ago

I tend to lean towards your view point, mostly because the alternate unknown is terrifying. What does need to happen is the people who are given control of systems need to be accountable, not lie, and intent of their actions needs to be known. There are many more less costly things that can be done to help a society stay safe - from itself and from others around the world.

superuser2 13y ago

What freedom is being protected by U.S. involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan?

jetti 13y ago

"All of the freedoms that we enjoy in Western democracies were hard-won and continue to be backed up by guns, bombs, codes, and secrets" I'm going to single out the US in the "western democracies" and state that while this may be true, it certainly isn't true for just about anybody alive in this country today. The last time we actually fought for OUR freedoms, in my mind, is the War of 1812. Other than that, it was fighting for our interests, which are not the same. But, those in power need to keep up the idea that the war machine always needs to be at the ready because those darn communists/socialists/terrorists are after our freedoms and we need to be proactive.

tete 13y ago

Hmm, according to all kinds of measurements, indexes, etc. the most democratic, free, hight standard of living countries reside in northern Europe. Most of them don't have much military. So somehow this comment is pretty flawed. The US once was the most free countries and indeed helped and inspired others, but that was more than a hundred years ago. The problem is while other countries emerged (possibly because of mistakes, losing wars, being split, reunited, etc.) the US has had a few problems that got them stuck. I think and it's just my opinionated explanation. I might be completely wrong, but I think the biggest problem for the US where the two world wars and the cold wars. Basically it made the country/government learn that espionage, military, etc. is a good thing, because they only win. They win no just like the war itself, but they win control of people, they pretty much unite them, but even that is not all. The military system allows the US to do what other countries do with welfare. They reinvest tax money, the out it into families of veterans, have a huge military industry from weapons to mercenaries. It works. Just like it allows them to do heavy espionage in the name of national security. On the other hand there is expensive education or bought education (VISA policies), not the best health care system, still a lot of weird stuff, like death penalty (an example of how the US is stuck), bad infrastructure (streets, internet, etc.) and a lot less liberties or equal treatment of sexes and "races" for example. This is something that stabilizes the US. I don't know, in a way it is a valid thing. Stability is good and there is pretty much no country that does so well that it should judge the US for that. Another problem is that they tend to do overpropaganda, so they can't really change. They had stuff like the cold war, so communists (Russians/Chinese) people are super evil. Also there were no other reforms. The two party system where both have pretty much opinion. That's no way of choosing. For example the death penalty thing I mentioned. Republicans are pro, Obama is pro. So no movement in sight. The US is also stuck in nationalism. Like really, do you know any other developed country that is so much into flag waving and where everyone is like "Mall of America, Bank of America, X of America"? Like I said. It's not bad. It brings stability, which is something people want, but it also means that progress simply stalls. In this regard the US is actually quite the same as China or Russia. Big countries, which pretty much always the same government, lots of propaganda, lots of nationalism "the others are all bad (or envious)", death penalty, secrecy, lots of military investment, our country is the best, etc. It might also be a thing of size. There have been political-philosophical works about this, partially with practical implementation (The Breakdown of Nations). However, as history tells us (see various empires) these things break down in bad ways. Sadly it usually means the next nation will become like this and won't be any better at all. And yeah, I am not a friend of nations and stuff, but I am realist enough to know, no matter how long the US remains like that (yeah, I think it is trembling, but I think it's far from falling) or whatever, this isn't going to change. I also don't think there can be any kind of utopia. It would be really cool if people just abandoned stuff, but no matter how wrong communists are. There is one thing they got correctly (but usually still don't live after, else they wouldn't be communists): It might be nice for a while, when everyone understands how shitty things were and how nice it is to just live together, but people forget that and then it really starts from the beginning.