4 ms·

"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 th

by 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.
      - fexl 13y ago
        Even governments cannot rely on taxation to fund armies or anything else they do. For centuries, they have relied instead on seizing monopoly control of money and then debasing it. This has the effect of stealing people's savings and the benefits they would otherwise obtain by increased productivity, and it is much harder to detect than blatant taxation. (By all means read "Creature from Jekyll Island" to learn the details of that deliciously evil story. :)
- baddox 13y ago
  > The most basic role of government is to protect its own citizens against that Or perhaps it's to bring wars and genocide to people in other countries.
- fexl 13y ago
  The reality is that approximately 200 million people were killed by people in government in the 20th century. If the basic role of government is to protect "its" own citizens against that, then not only have they utterly failed in that role, they have actively opposed it. I do have an extreme philosophical position: that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It is compromise that is dangerous.

by fexl 13y ago

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.
    - fexl 13y ago
      Even governments cannot rely on taxation to fund armies or anything else they do. For centuries, they have relied instead on seizing monopoly control of money and then debasing it. This has the effect of stealing people's savings and the benefits they would otherwise obtain by increased productivity, and it is much harder to detect than blatant taxation. (By all means read "Creature from Jekyll Island" to learn the details of that deliciously evil story. :)
baddox 13y ago
> The most basic role of government is to protect its own citizens against that Or perhaps it's to bring wars and genocide to people in other countries.
fexl 13y ago
The reality is that approximately 200 million people were killed by people in government in the 20th century. If the basic role of government is to protect "its" own citizens against that, then not only have they utterly failed in that role, they have actively opposed it. I do have an extreme philosophical position: that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It is compromise that is dangerous.