7 ms·

You can influence a corporation's services in a couple ways: 1) don't give them you're money, and 2) don't use their services. Neither of these options are avai

by ihsw 13y ago

You can influence a corporation's services in a couple ways: 1) don't give them you're money, and 2) don't use their services. Neither of these options are available when the government is engaging in this behaviour. Your only recourse is voting (as it should be in a democratic society), however that's a pointless exercise when a change in leaders/political-parties-in-power doesn't result in a change in policy. Just like how the natural progression beyond free-trade agreements is even tighter economic and social integration between nations (eg: European Union, Trans-Pacific Partnership), the natural progression beyond voting is civil disobedience (ie: protesting). I'm sure you can imagine what lies beyond civil disobedience.

ericHosick 13y ago
> Your only recourse is voting (as it should be in a democratic society) And how do we know who to keep in office and who to vote out when there is very little transparency?
- cryptoz 13y ago
  Obama has been very clear about his love of NSA domestic spying since 2006. He voted numerous times to expand and renew the USA PATRIOT Act. If you didn't want a president with a love of spying on his citizens, you should not have voted for him (if you did) in the primary elections. There were other options, like Dennis Kucinich, who has a proven track record of not voting for the USA PATRIOT Act. You have a point that it may be difficult to vote for the right people, but it's very easy to make a good start. If a politician campaigns on and promises to increase the amount of creepy spying in your country like Obama did between 2006 and 2008, don't vote for him/her.
  - cgag 13y ago
    What if the only two choices are both pro-creepy spying?
    - cryptoz 13y ago
      That's why the primary elections are important - by the time we get down to the final two choices, they usually are both in favour of all kinds of evil things. But in the primaries in 2016, we'll probably have 10 choices from each major party, and it's much more likely you'll find someone that matches your views. It's very important to vote in the primary elections in order to not end up with two evils by the main presidential election. The same logic goes for all other elections, too: your state government, and all levels really. Voting for just one president from two choices is hardly voting at all.
      - philwelch 13y ago
        The problem with elections is that however you vote, the majority always wins.
- ihsw 13y ago
  There has been quite a lot of transparency recently, and many congressional representatives have come out roaring against the NSA's suspicionless data snooping programs. Whether they're playing political football (jumping on the bandwagon) varies from one representative to the next, but they're out there.
stephengillie 13y ago
Your other recourse is to move to a different country, which brings another set of problems.
- dmix 13y ago
  Moving to another country is not voluntary. It's based on your ability to get immigration status somewhere else and even then it's usually temporary and limited. Which is pretty difficult in most countries unless you have an advanced education.
  - tomelders 13y ago
    When faced with a civil liberties problem, some people think "I'll just move to another country". Now they have two problems.
cinquemb 13y ago
Is it just me thinking that the archaic nature of the way we vote is hindering progress? I mean, we can have all these complicated websites/applications that are expected/relied upon to have utmost security (that are constantly being made better), but we still can't have the option to vote online? I know in some eastern European countries people can vote online like Estonia [0]. [0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/06/estonians-get-to-vote-online-why-cant-america/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/06/e...
- josephlord 13y ago
  Anonymity (to the extent of disconnection of voters from votes) is valuable in elections to prevent various forms of vote sale or coercion. This is hard or impossible to achieve online (at least while retaining reasonable protection against double voting and ineligible voters).
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    Ok, then how about for primaries [0]? People have to register for those and provide proof in order to vote during those in a way that's not anonymous, right? But even the process that people would have to go through to even get something like that up and running would be too heavily influenced by the ever printed federal reserve notes flowing into the beltway. The way people state we can participate in the system just seems so moot when I think about it. Which is probably why I don't vote and because subversion seems to be the only thing working these days that is in the interests of the people and not just what we are told where our interests should lie… [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991588
    - josephlord 13y ago
      If elections matter there is a strong case for anonymity. I'm not US based but as I understand it the primaries are in practice quite important but the ways they are run are highly variable and the choices of the parties (are they even constitutionally necessary or just common practice?). If they are currently not anonymous there is probably no harm in going online but I haven't fully thought it through but non-anonymous election processes are substandard anyway in my view. Outside elections seriously massive scale public protest or large scale civil disobedience and general strikes really can change things. For smaller things mass lobbying of politicians can swing a balance. Edit: Actually online is still worse than a good recountable, auditable paper based system although maybe equal to a Diebold polling station based one.
axuaq 13y ago
> Your only recourse is voting (as it should be in a democratic society) If I believe that every man is free to do what they please as long as it doesn't have a direct negative effect on someone else's right to be free, how can I vote for someone and give them the implicit power to restrict the freedom of myself and others?
- lightyrs 13y ago
  Vote for who? The Republican who supports the status quo or the Democrat who supports the status quo? Or the third party candidate who won't win?
- Ygg2 13y ago
  Take the third option. Invalidate your vote. Invalid votes are a recognized form of civil disobedience. If enough people aren't pleased by choices given, it will reduce credibility of any government significantly.
wavesounds 13y ago
Also a corporation can't put you in jail.
- lightyrs 13y ago
  Yes, I don't know why this is so difficult for people to comprehend.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  They can by proxy. Basically there should be noone or entity with overwhelming force such that they are above the law. * By proxy I mean a sychophantic gov official in their pocket.
foobarbazqux 13y ago
> You can influence a corporation's services in a couple ways: 1) don't give them you're money, and 2) don't use their services. Neither of these options are available when the government is engaging in this behaviour. Option 1 is available. Earning less money means you pay less tax, and spending less money means you pay less tax. You have control over both of these things.
embolism 13y ago
For large and powerful corporations, not using their services is just like voting. A pointless exercise when the only alternatives are just as bad. And when society is built around the presence of their services, not using them may not be a realistic option. If you don't like the way banks behave, for example, not using them isn't a realistic option. Therefore mass protest and political action are perfectly reasonable approaches to changing corporate behavior.

by ihsw 13y ago

ericHosick 13y ago

> Your only recourse is voting (as it should be in a democratic society) And how do we know who to keep in office and who to vote out when there is very little transparency?

cryptoz 13y ago
Obama has been very clear about his love of NSA domestic spying since 2006. He voted numerous times to expand and renew the USA PATRIOT Act. If you didn't want a president with a love of spying on his citizens, you should not have voted for him (if you did) in the primary elections. There were other options, like Dennis Kucinich, who has a proven track record of not voting for the USA PATRIOT Act. You have a point that it may be difficult to vote for the right people, but it's very easy to make a good start. If a politician campaigns on and promises to increase the amount of creepy spying in your country like Obama did between 2006 and 2008, don't vote for him/her.
- cgag 13y ago
  What if the only two choices are both pro-creepy spying?
  - cryptoz 13y ago
    That's why the primary elections are important - by the time we get down to the final two choices, they usually are both in favour of all kinds of evil things. But in the primaries in 2016, we'll probably have 10 choices from each major party, and it's much more likely you'll find someone that matches your views. It's very important to vote in the primary elections in order to not end up with two evils by the main presidential election. The same logic goes for all other elections, too: your state government, and all levels really. Voting for just one president from two choices is hardly voting at all.
    - philwelch 13y ago
      The problem with elections is that however you vote, the majority always wins.
ihsw 13y ago
There has been quite a lot of transparency recently, and many congressional representatives have come out roaring against the NSA's suspicionless data snooping programs. Whether they're playing political football (jumping on the bandwagon) varies from one representative to the next, but they're out there.

stephengillie 13y ago

Your other recourse is to move to a different country, which brings another set of problems.

dmix 13y ago
Moving to another country is not voluntary. It's based on your ability to get immigration status somewhere else and even then it's usually temporary and limited. Which is pretty difficult in most countries unless you have an advanced education.
- tomelders 13y ago
  When faced with a civil liberties problem, some people think "I'll just move to another country". Now they have two problems.

cinquemb 13y ago

Is it just me thinking that the archaic nature of the way we vote is hindering progress? I mean, we can have all these complicated websites/applications that are expected/relied upon to have utmost security (that are constantly being made better), but we still can't have the option to vote online? I know in some eastern European countries people can vote online like Estonia [0]. [0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/06/estonians-get-to-vote-online-why-cant-america/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/06/e...

josephlord 13y ago
Anonymity (to the extent of disconnection of voters from votes) is valuable in elections to prevent various forms of vote sale or coercion. This is hard or impossible to achieve online (at least while retaining reasonable protection against double voting and ineligible voters).
- cinquemb 13y ago
  Ok, then how about for primaries [0]? People have to register for those and provide proof in order to vote during those in a way that's not anonymous, right? But even the process that people would have to go through to even get something like that up and running would be too heavily influenced by the ever printed federal reserve notes flowing into the beltway. The way people state we can participate in the system just seems so moot when I think about it. Which is probably why I don't vote and because subversion seems to be the only thing working these days that is in the interests of the people and not just what we are told where our interests should lie… [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991588
  - josephlord 13y ago
    If elections matter there is a strong case for anonymity. I'm not US based but as I understand it the primaries are in practice quite important but the ways they are run are highly variable and the choices of the parties (are they even constitutionally necessary or just common practice?). If they are currently not anonymous there is probably no harm in going online but I haven't fully thought it through but non-anonymous election processes are substandard anyway in my view. Outside elections seriously massive scale public protest or large scale civil disobedience and general strikes really can change things. For smaller things mass lobbying of politicians can swing a balance. Edit: Actually online is still worse than a good recountable, auditable paper based system although maybe equal to a Diebold polling station based one.

axuaq 13y ago

> Your only recourse is voting (as it should be in a democratic society) If I believe that every man is free to do what they please as long as it doesn't have a direct negative effect on someone else's right to be free, how can I vote for someone and give them the implicit power to restrict the freedom of myself and others?

lightyrs 13y ago
Vote for who? The Republican who supports the status quo or the Democrat who supports the status quo? Or the third party candidate who won't win?
Ygg2 13y ago
Take the third option. Invalidate your vote. Invalid votes are a recognized form of civil disobedience. If enough people aren't pleased by choices given, it will reduce credibility of any government significantly.

wavesounds 13y ago

Also a corporation can't put you in jail.

lightyrs 13y ago
Yes, I don't know why this is so difficult for people to comprehend.
wavefunction 13y ago
They can by proxy. Basically there should be noone or entity with overwhelming force such that they are above the law. * By proxy I mean a sychophantic gov official in their pocket.

foobarbazqux 13y ago

> You can influence a corporation's services in a couple ways: 1) don't give them you're money, and 2) don't use their services. Neither of these options are available when the government is engaging in this behaviour. Option 1 is available. Earning less money means you pay less tax, and spending less money means you pay less tax. You have control over both of these things.

embolism 13y ago

For large and powerful corporations, not using their services is just like voting. A pointless exercise when the only alternatives are just as bad. And when society is built around the presence of their services, not using them may not be a realistic option. If you don't like the way banks behave, for example, not using them isn't a realistic option. Therefore mass protest and political action are perfectly reasonable approaches to changing corporate behavior.