7 ms·

I completely agree with your argument. However, this seems to imply that all American hackers/entrepreneurs/etc.need to move to remote cabins in Montana and st

by javert 13y ago

I completely agree with your argument. However, this seems to imply that all American hackers/entrepreneurs/etc.need to move to remote cabins in Montana and stop contributing to society, because anyone who contributes to society in America is directly supporting this system (albeit, 1 degree removed from those working directly for the government). I currently don't know a way around this problem, and I don't actually want to stop being productive. I've had this on my mind for a while. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Ihmahr 13y ago
As a European graduate this is what keeps me away from moving to the bay area. Maybe you also could consider moving to a country with less surveillance?
- wwhitman 13y ago
  Which country would that be?
  - stefantalpalaru 13y ago
    Switzerland.
    - Shivetya 13y ago
      considering how they rolled over with the banking issue I would not trust my data there anymore than some place else. What is to stop them from doing the same with any data should the US come knocking? Even your President seems to believe criminal investigation of Snowden may be warranted. Now if your government finally does take a stand on the banking issue and tells US authorities to take a hike I would be more inclined to have similar faith in your nation as you do.
      - flyinRyan 13y ago
        One advantage of Switzerland is that the people have a much stronger voice in telling their politicians to do exactly that (and in some cases, voting on the issues themselves).
- javert 13y ago
  Well, I actually feel much more victimized by the notion that society owns me than that I'm being spied on, although both are a problem. The societal ownership of inviduals is a much bigger problem in Europe (outside of the UK), which has never had a history of individual rights, which was the explicit purpose of the Founding Fathers when they created the US.
mcantelon 13y ago
While I think "1 degree removed" is better than the alternative, you do have a valid point.
- uxp 13y ago
  Life is not binary. Imagine you're in a room you can't get out of. By the nature of aerobic respiration, you're slowly transforming all the oxygen into carbon dioxide. Now imagine there is a running car in the room with you. Do you first shut off the car to prevent it from filling up the room with exhaust and carbon monoxide, or do you give up because there's no point in life? You can either give up by selling all your belongings and begin to live on the street as a non-tax paying citizen, or you can do something to stop the things that are taking away your freedoms and liberties, or at the very least, do something to make it harder for those that want to take away your freedoms to do so. I suffer from depression and have had times in life where suicide is a real option, yet I can't imagine how anyone can think "welp, I better give up now because there isn't a point in trying!" There's always an option. Exercise that option.
  - javert 13y ago
    > do something to stop the things that are taking away your freedoms and liberties, or at the very least, do something to make it harder for those that want to take away your freedoms to do so. Like what? (Last time I asked this question on HN I got about 5 answers that said "Call your Congressman," which I don't agree with.) I honestly don't believe there's anything I can do that would change things meaningfully, even if I dedicated my whole life to it, short of maybe starting a major political movement, which I highly doubt I'd be able to do.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Well that's the problem, there's not much any one of us individually would be able to do. It has a be a mass movement to effect that type of change. Even simply refusing to join these organizations doesn't help as much as you might think. NSA can teach smart people to program if it comes to that, so there's always someone to fill the seat. Only now, the person filling that seat has ethical norms even farther away from yours.
adventured 13y ago
Not true at all. It entirely depends on what you're building. Build new tools to protect privacy. Advance encryption technology faster. Build new communication software to keep the NSA out. The list is practically infinite and applies to nearly every segment of web / internet / mobile / pc.
- majelix 13y ago
  > Not true at all. It entirely depends on what you're building. No it doesn't. He's making the same argument terrorists sometimes use to justify their actions. We're not innocent -- that by paying taxes, voting, and otherwise being a member of our society, we're culpable for what that society chooses to do. You don't get to pick and choose what your taxes fund; in large part, that's the whole point of taxation.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    There's still a difference. When I am in a room, I contribute to the humidity of that room. Now imagine me turning on the faucet or boiling some water.... and then saying "I can't turn them off, it would make no sense, I would contribute to the humidity either way!". I'll just go ahead and say if people can't think at all, so that they only know the difference between "nothing exists" and "everything is the same", then whatever they're building can't be that good, and chances are great we'd be better of without it.
    - etherael 13y ago
      Sure, there are degrees of contribution, and direct is clearly more intentioned than indirect, but at the end of the day the beast doesn't care if it's fed willingly or unwillingly, and the vast majority of government funding is involuntary. If it's going to die, it needs to be unable to feed, what people are willing to contribute is irrelevant when its primary income is violently coerced. I have thought long and hard about that underlying argument and at the end of the day I both could not find a flaw with it, and was subsequently compelled to become a globally nomadic anarcho capitalist, just to avoid being forced to contribute to what amounts to only a fairly tame by comparison lackey of the US.

by javert 13y ago

Ihmahr 13y ago

As a European graduate this is what keeps me away from moving to the bay area. Maybe you also could consider moving to a country with less surveillance?

wwhitman 13y ago
Which country would that be?
- stefantalpalaru 13y ago
  Switzerland.
  - Shivetya 13y ago
    considering how they rolled over with the banking issue I would not trust my data there anymore than some place else. What is to stop them from doing the same with any data should the US come knocking? Even your President seems to believe criminal investigation of Snowden may be warranted. Now if your government finally does take a stand on the banking issue and tells US authorities to take a hike I would be more inclined to have similar faith in your nation as you do.
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      One advantage of Switzerland is that the people have a much stronger voice in telling their politicians to do exactly that (and in some cases, voting on the issues themselves).
javert 13y ago
Well, I actually feel much more victimized by the notion that society owns me than that I'm being spied on, although both are a problem. The societal ownership of inviduals is a much bigger problem in Europe (outside of the UK), which has never had a history of individual rights, which was the explicit purpose of the Founding Fathers when they created the US.

mcantelon 13y ago

While I think "1 degree removed" is better than the alternative, you do have a valid point.

uxp 13y ago
Life is not binary. Imagine you're in a room you can't get out of. By the nature of aerobic respiration, you're slowly transforming all the oxygen into carbon dioxide. Now imagine there is a running car in the room with you. Do you first shut off the car to prevent it from filling up the room with exhaust and carbon monoxide, or do you give up because there's no point in life? You can either give up by selling all your belongings and begin to live on the street as a non-tax paying citizen, or you can do something to stop the things that are taking away your freedoms and liberties, or at the very least, do something to make it harder for those that want to take away your freedoms to do so. I suffer from depression and have had times in life where suicide is a real option, yet I can't imagine how anyone can think "welp, I better give up now because there isn't a point in trying!" There's always an option. Exercise that option.
- javert 13y ago
  > do something to stop the things that are taking away your freedoms and liberties, or at the very least, do something to make it harder for those that want to take away your freedoms to do so. Like what? (Last time I asked this question on HN I got about 5 answers that said "Call your Congressman," which I don't agree with.) I honestly don't believe there's anything I can do that would change things meaningfully, even if I dedicated my whole life to it, short of maybe starting a major political movement, which I highly doubt I'd be able to do.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Well that's the problem, there's not much any one of us individually would be able to do. It has a be a mass movement to effect that type of change. Even simply refusing to join these organizations doesn't help as much as you might think. NSA can teach smart people to program if it comes to that, so there's always someone to fill the seat. Only now, the person filling that seat has ethical norms even farther away from yours.

adventured 13y ago

Not true at all. It entirely depends on what you're building. Build new tools to protect privacy. Advance encryption technology faster. Build new communication software to keep the NSA out. The list is practically infinite and applies to nearly every segment of web / internet / mobile / pc.

majelix 13y ago
> Not true at all. It entirely depends on what you're building. No it doesn't. He's making the same argument terrorists sometimes use to justify their actions. We're not innocent -- that by paying taxes, voting, and otherwise being a member of our society, we're culpable for what that society chooses to do. You don't get to pick and choose what your taxes fund; in large part, that's the whole point of taxation.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  There's still a difference. When I am in a room, I contribute to the humidity of that room. Now imagine me turning on the faucet or boiling some water.... and then saying "I can't turn them off, it would make no sense, I would contribute to the humidity either way!". I'll just go ahead and say if people can't think at all, so that they only know the difference between "nothing exists" and "everything is the same", then whatever they're building can't be that good, and chances are great we'd be better of without it.
  - etherael 13y ago
    Sure, there are degrees of contribution, and direct is clearly more intentioned than indirect, but at the end of the day the beast doesn't care if it's fed willingly or unwillingly, and the vast majority of government funding is involuntary. If it's going to die, it needs to be unable to feed, what people are willing to contribute is irrelevant when its primary income is violently coerced. I have thought long and hard about that underlying argument and at the end of the day I both could not find a flaw with it, and was subsequently compelled to become a globally nomadic anarcho capitalist, just to avoid being forced to contribute to what amounts to only a fairly tame by comparison lackey of the US.